On the CNN: Texas rangers found the 16 year old caller re: polygamy sect

[ourbluenation]

and she's an African American woman.

this story gets stranger and stranger...

[spanone]

1. yep, and the sect allows no blacks

[LisaL]

3. She's never been the member of the sect.

She doesn't even live in TX.

[spanone]

5. didn't say she was or did

[MissMarple]

134. Actually, yes they do. And now they have "full participation" rights.

or should I say "rites". At least I have read that.

[kestrel91316]

150. I think you might wan to look into that, lol.

LDS had a revelation about 30 years ago that blacks were no longer the spawn of Satan or whatever and could enjoy the priesthood (males only, of course).

FLDS are a bunch of rabid racists. I guarantee you there are no blacks in FLDS.

[MissMarple]

170. My bad. I was thinking of LDS. n/t

[uppityperson]

160. Some LDS denominations do, NOT FLDS. Here is more for you to puruse...

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/04/07/racism-of-raided-flds-cult-ignored/

FLDS doctrine is venomous with anti-black racism.

As described in a major feature on the FLDS published in the Spring 2005 issue of the Intelligence Report, Jeffs preaches to his estimated 10,000 followers that all blacks are the descendants of Cain, “cursed with a black skin,” and selected by God to be the “servants of servants.” It was on the basis of that unvarnished racism, preached as official FLDS doctrine, that the Southern Poverty Law Center began listing FLDS as a hate group in 2005.

Jeffs describes as a victory for the devil the day in 1978 that leaders of the legitimate Church of Latter Day Saints — known to much of the world as the Mormon Church —decided to allow blacks to become priests. FLDS had first split from the main church in 1890 after Mormon officials renounced polygamy under pressure from the government. (more)

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=342

LDS 'prophet' Warren Jeffs offers up some harsh opinions on blacks, women, gays, violence and the end of the world




On Blacks
"The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth."

" cursed with a black skin and he is the father of the Negro people. He has great power, can appear and disappear. He is used by the devil, as a mortal man, to do great evils."

"Today you can see a black man with a white woman, et cetera. A great evil has happened on this land because the devil knows that if all the people have Negro blood, there will be nobody worthy to have the priesthood."

"If you marry a person who has connections with a Negro, you would become cursed."

"I was watching a documentary one day and on came these people talking about a certain black man. ... And then it showed the modern rock group, the Beatles. ... And so the manager of the group called in this Negro, homosexual, on drugs, and the Negro taught them how to do it. And what happened then, it went world wide... . So when you enjoy the beat ... you are enjoying the spirit of the black race and that's what I emphasize to the students. And it is to rock the soul and lead the person to immorality, corruption, to forget their prayers, to forget God. And thus the whole world has partaken of the spirit of the Negro race, accepting their ways."(more

[MissMarple]

169. Sorry, you guys are right. I was thinking about regular Mormons.

They used to believe something like that, and no doubt some of them still do.

[Richard Steele]

2. Very curious. nm

[ourbluenation]

4. apparently the woman was obsessed w fdls. found tons of stuff in her house

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5713411.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5713823.html

[Richard Steele]

6. Strange story. Thanks for those links. nm

[kestrel91316]

65. Wouldn't it turn out to be weirdly wondeful if some obsessed wacko

in another state making a crank call turned out to be the thing that FINALLY cracked this case wide open and led to the utter and complete downfall of the FLDS??

A girl can dream........

[marylanddem]

7. Uh oh. Sounds like Texas officials have some 'splainin to do...

[iamthebandfanman]

21. why ?

they got a tip and probable cause and acted on it in the best interest of children.

can they help if they were scamed?

id hope anyone would do the same as them and remove people from danger.

[Wizard777]

32. The police did not have probable cause.

The hotline operator had probable cause. The police can only use what the witness to form their probable cause. If the call had went into 911 instead of the hotline. Then the police would have had probable cause. The police will tell you. I understand what you saw. But I don't have probable cause unless I see that. You have probable cause. But I don't.

[seabeyond]

33. police got a call there was a girl out there being abused. they went out

they didnt find her, but they found crime. you are so full of it. it is basic and happens all the time. there is nothing out of the ordinary or something cops did wrong.

wizard, what is your investment in protecting people raping our children.

[Wizard777]

40. The police did not get the call. Why are you changing the story or lying?

Apparently that's a bad thing when the FLDS does it. It's also a bad thing when YOU do it. Are you seriously that ethically challenged? Great shades of hypocrisy!

If the police go into a house with a search warrant to search for guns and they find drugs. They have found crime. But the drug are inadmissible. The police formed their probable cause on drugs not guns. the warrant also has other problems. It was basically served on the wrong people at the right address. You have to get it right.

As noble a cause as it is. You cannot rape the law in the process of protecting the children or anyone else. The law stands supreme and the preservation of the law is the supreme interest.

[kestrel91316]

54. Where in the Constitution does it say it's ok to rape children?

If the Constitution doesn't say it, then it's not a right. I'm just using your logic.

[Wizard777]

71. That is correct. You do not have a Constitutional right to rape children.

Logic is far more effective in problem solving than emotion. Which can be induced to the irrationality of hysterics which logic negates. Logic is your friend. Embrace it. :pals:

[seabeyond]

78. hysteria,bullshit . 50 posts from you on this and not once mention of rapes being done on children

you may want subject to be elsewhere, but that is the crux, the essense, the importance of it all. the rape of the children. and not ONCE have you acknowledge. it is not hysteria. it is NOT what YOU want to talk about. you ignore. time and again. without it, .... all of us wouldnt even be a part of this conversation

[Wizard777]

81. That is hearsay. It has yet to be established by evidence. Until it has you're talking out your ass.

Right now their is only circumstantial evidence. But until it has been factually established. I will not comment on it. I will not hook up to or go off the rails on your crazy train.

[uppityperson]

83. So how do minors get pregnant unless they had sex?

And sex with a minor is statutory rape. Or is it hearsay that they were pregnant and/or mothers?

Which part is hearsay?

[seabeyond]

91. no. there is a 14 yr old preg. sex at 13? rape dude. n/t

[uppityperson]

99. She is presumed to have had presumed sex at presumed 13. See? Hearsay.

It's getting old, isn't it? I think I'm done with that poster, carry on!

[Wizard777]

122. Until you have physical evidence. Be it medical or records. Yes it is hearsay.

[riderinthestorm]

123. But CPS and the other authorities had evidence before their very eyes when they went to the compound

Young pregnant girls whose ages could not be substantiated.

[Wizard777]

139. The police can hold you for purposes of identifying who you are.

But all the uses of that I have heard of were on punlic property. I don't honestly know if that applies to private property also.

[uppityperson]

140. Underage minors that are in abuse situations can be taken from private property.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wizard777]

120. That's a new developement. I hadn't heard that.

So far what I have heard is that it's 16,17,and 18 year old that are pergnant.

[girl gone mad]

163. Don't forget about the 16 year old..

with 4 babies.

I'm sure our dear Gandalf will argue that she's as healthy and well-adjusted as all of the 16 year old mothers of 4 in the real world, and as capable of making her own life decisions as a 50 year old woman who didn't grow up in a brainwashing cult.

:crazy:

[seabeyond]

68. who the fuck cares.... they got a complaint and went out to check out the complaint

a search warrant for a specific is not like walking out there and see a crime. big difference in seeing underage girls preg then searching for a gun and finding drugs. and even at that it can and has been argued that it was a legitimate find. like, .... the drugs sitting out in the open, such as preg girls not women walking around.

[Wizard777]

75. I understand where your comming from. But it comes down to an issue of intent.

They are responding to a call for help. They actually don't need a warrant to enter for the purpose of protecting an individual they reasonablly fear is in danger. But if they bust in without a warrant and find a meth lab too. The meth lab is inadmissable. It can't be used as an end zone run around the fourth amendment. So before the police go busting in without a warrant. They have to decide what their priority is. They have to decide if they intend to protect or prosecute. If they want to protect they can go in without the warrant. If the want to prosecute they have to wait for the warrant to make the meth lab admissable.

[seabeyond]

77. the intent was good. they walked in cause of complaint and saw a crime.

not theres to turn and walk away as crime is sittin in front of there face. they are covered. they are just. it is legal

[Wizard777]

82. what crime did they see?

[riderinthestorm]

85. Obviously underage pregnant girls. By definition statutory rape. nt

[LisaL]

88. Then when will CPS start removing them from high schools?

[riderinthestorm]

89. This wasn't in a school, this was in their homes. Apples and oranges.

When CPS gets a report of statutory rape, they investigate the alleged report by going to the house to begin gathering the details of the alleged crime.

If they find any potential illegality, the child is removed from the home. That child could then (theoretically) be taken out of school or sent to a different school but CPS is correct in starting at home in investigating this type of abuse.

[seabeyond]

93. dont acknowledge rape, .... divert topic. cause i am sure you have no issue with old men raping

girls.

[LisaL]

94. You are being ridiculous and absurd.

[seabeyond]

96. no i am not. but again, dont acknowledge girls have een raped by old men. n/t

[Wizard777]

102. That's not a prima facie crime.

From what I understand there were only 16, 17, and 18 year old girls that were pregnant. There are legal means by which they can become pregnant. Like one of the 27 teenage boys they removed from the compound being the father. Now knowing the FLDS traditions. That is unlikely. But It's not impossible.

[riderinthestorm]

104. These were abuse allegations. They see young pregnant girls

It's enough, more than enough for them to remove the children in order to establish their ages and begin their investigation of a crime. Honestly, nobody really knows how old these girls are - I don't believe that their ages have been verified by anyone but the alleged perpetrators. From the looks of them, it's indisputable that they are young ergo they are in jeopardy, and within the boundaries for removal.

Beyond which the young girls aren't legal wives so I'm not sure what legal means exist by which they could be legally pregnant.

[Thickasabrick]

106. They have not been able to ascertain the exact ages of the girls

due to lack of birth records. I don't think the girls are that sure.

[kestrel91316]

112. The girls don't know who their real parents are, where or when they were

born, how old their are, and possibly don't even know their real names.

Oh, but they are great little breeders, aren't they? Charming. And interchangeable UNITS.

[seabeyond]

92. rape that you still refuse to acknowledge, cause children are for men to fuck n/t

[Wizard777]

103. They witnessed nonconsentual vaginal penetration?

Then you've got them dead to right. Book 'em Dano! If not then hyperbole noted.

I don't know about Texas. But here in Md. When you say "rape" in charging documents. You are specifically referring to nonconsentual vaginal penetration. Here men cannot be "raped." They can be sodomized. But not raped. Here only women can be raped.

[uppityperson]

105. Look up the definition of statuatory rape. Actually, here's a link for you

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

Texas

Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. The actor has an affirmative defense if he is not more than three years older than the victim, who is at least age 14


And, just for fun, Maryland: Second-degree sexual offense to engage in a sexual act with a person under age 14 and the actor is at least four years older

Third-degree sexual offense for someone at least age 21 to engage in a sexual act, including vaginal intercourse, with someone age 14 or 15

Second-degree rape to have vaginal intercourse with a person under age 14 if the actor is at least four years older.


Now, off to check Maryland regs to find this under definitions:
http://www.mcasa.org/F/2/F2.htm

(e) (1) “Sexual act” means any of the following acts, regardless of whether semen is emitted:
(i) analingus;
(ii) cunnilingus;
(iii) fellatio;
(iv) anal intercourse, including penetration, however slight, of the anus; or
(v) an act:
1. in which an object penetrates, however slightly, into another individual’s genital opening or anus; and
2. that can reasonably be construed to be for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party.

Having found all that, I doubt your claim that men cannot be raped.

[seabeyond]

111. rape. and if you would see it as rape, maybe it would not be so easy

for males to do. but you cant look at it as rape. then you might have to be accountable or male that fuck our children anyway.

[kestrel91316]

114. A pregnant unmarried minor equals rape. Period.

Unless you choose to maintain that the adolescent boys in the compound were doing the deed, lol. Oh, right.

They toss the excess boys out on the street like unwanted puppies before they can show any interest in girls.

You would turn a blind eye to sexual abuse of your own daughters even, I suspect. Your attitude is truly disgusting.

[Wizard777]

116. Not by Texas law. Also Texas recognizes the emancipation decrees of other states.

[riderinthestorm]

121. Then this group would just have had to produce their documents to be cleared of suspicion

and the children would never have been removed.

They either would not, or could not. The children were removed because there was enough evidence to sustain the initial report, and their jeopardy was clear enough, and the parents weren't cooperative enough (either willfully or because they didn't know any better), etc. etc.

[uppityperson]

126. Here is what Tx law says, summary of statuatory rape law. You are wrong.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. The actor has an affirmative defense if he is not more than three years older than the victim, who is at least age 14

[Wizard777]

138. It would not be statutory rape for the teenage boys. You haven't disproved that.

The burden of proof is entirely the states in court. Yours here.

[Wizard777]

152. Other than his spouse and I just found another wild card.

A person under the age of 16 can be married if their is a court order. There are no mentions of age. So i'm assuming that this left to the judges discretion.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[riderinthestorm]

133. Wild isn't it?

Cornered, and lashing out with anything I'm guessing. Un-fucking-believable.

[kestrel91316]

110. A child is not a meth lab. A child is a person.

[RB TexLa]

154. Not if the "meth lab" is in plain view. Then it is admissible in every jurisdiction in this country

[Lyric]

87. Your analogy is flawed.

If police find illegal contraband during a search, it *can* count against you. I've seen it happen--cops go in on suspicion of illegal guns or child abuse, find a meth lab, call to get a new warrant, and prosecute for it. Anything obviously illegal that they see during a search is grounds for "probable cause" for a new or enlarged warrant--which usually only takes a phone call. In this case, I'd imagine that finding a slew of 17 year old girls with kids several years old would count as probable cause that there's some statutory rape going on.

That's why the judge is ordering DNA tests of the sect members and kids. They want hard evidence that some of those women were having babies at ages 13, 14, and 15.

[Wizard777]

107. Actually that could convert the warrant to hearsay or establish perury in the orginal..

A warrant is a sworn statement. You swear to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth. That's the problem with expanding a warrant. You didn't tell the whole truth. That's a form of perjury. But the practise will float until someone calls BS! before SCOTUS and they over turn it. Also If SCOTUS goes to English Common Law. You have to obtain the warrant before the search and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

[kestrel91316]

115. Well, then, that's it. I suggest you go right down to TX and hire

yourself out to those men to get the whole case thrown out on grounds of unreasonable search and seizure of property.

You DID say you are a constitutional law expert attorney, right???? No? Oh, sorry, my bad.

[kestrel91316]

161. I just got the strangest feeling............

Marge Weems, is that YOU ranting about Common Law and the SC and perjury????????

Didn't they lock you up and throw away the key, lady??????

:rofl:

[girl gone mad]

162. I knew this thread would bring out..

the oldest, tallest man in the world who types like a teenager, thinks 14 year olds are as mature as 50 year olds and wastes precious time on the intertubes defending child rapists instead of hanging out with his grandkids.

I think I'm going to write a theme song..

[ismnotwasm]

38. Dude, just go away

They were investigating for over four years.

[Wizard777]

41. They had nothing until this false complaint was filed.

If a false complaint is in deed what that was. It's starting to look that way. In a court of law that functions upon the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. A case founded upon a lie is doomed and rightfully so.

[ismnotwasm]

90. Bullshit n/t

[kestrel91316]

52. Apparently you know more about the law in Texas than the police do.

Can you explain how that is? Are you an attorney? Are you the Preznit?

[Wizard777]

76. I debate police corruption.

The group includes lawyers, police officers, and laymen. So what I have related here is my understanding of probable cause as related to me by police officers and confirmed by lawyers. We don't pull stuff out of our butts. like some of you are doing here. We play for real with real cops, real lawyers, and real cases.

I am a laymen when it comes to secular law. I'm not a lawyer. But I do employ 12 floors of lawyers. My thing is church law. In my Church I am the supreme earthly authority. Because this is a political forum. I can't provide anymore information than that. Because I also believe in and aupport seperation or church and state. My lawyers like to keep my TES as close to no contest as possible as I have directed them to.

[seabeyond]

79. now you are going after corruption. talk about murking up the issue. n/t

[Wizard777]

84. We have taken up this case for debate.

These guys are making the keystone kops in Waco look competent.

[seabeyond]

95. that isnt true. you just keep saying it so you dont have to acknowledge rape of girls n/t

[kestrel91316]

119. I have some very bad news for you:

"........In my Church I am the supreme earthly authority....."

This and a buck won't even get you a cup of coffee around these parts. You don't know jack shit about child welfare law. Particularly in TX. Twelve floors of lawyers??? Well, if that little tidbit is true (somehow I doubt it - just a funny feeling I have - more likely you are the janitor), you might want to pick their brains about this.

No person, whatever their religion, is allowed to conceal evidence of child abuse and then when that evidence is uncovered during an investigation into another matter, claim that because the other investigation didn't go anywhere, the law doesn't apply to them. How do we know "Sarah" didn't actually exist but is now buried in the desert???

Oh, and you folks in your child-rape-tolerating church can go suck an egg. SICK people. You wanna have polygamy between adults that's fine with me, but keep your frickin' paws off minors.

[seabeyond]

22. if it is a bad call, the cops still have to go out to check it out. they cant osmosis that it is not

from a member of group. are you serious? they went out and saw too young girls preg. crime. they then proceeded. they did everything legal from what we see at this point and they have continually updated or as you said., ..... explained.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. No they don't; they were just doing their jobs

And they rescued children from an abusive environment. I am the first one here to jump on cops who are abusive but I applaud these cops in Texas.

[pnwmom]

101. Nope. They're in the clear. CPS is required to investigate complaints,

and the police are required to help them as needed.

The laws are different when child abuse claims are involved.

[Beaverhausen]

8. well, I say if it got the authorities to finally go in and rescue the women and children

good for her. Something had to be done.

They investigated this group for four years - they certainly knew they would find enough evidence once they got in. And they have.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. Once you allow the Constitution to be stepped on for this, how long will it be

before it's just a rag.

[Beaverhausen]

13. well, I know what you mean- but don't forget they have been investigating this group

Their leader, Warren Jeffs, is now in prison on (accessory to?) rape charges. It isn't like what the woman claimed didn't actually happen.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

15. You have no idea how mixed my feelings are on this. I abhor the reports of what has supposedly

transpired there, but we cannot ignore the rule of law, The Constitution. I don't care how many frigging years they've been investigating these people.

The next thing you know, they'll be taking kids out of homes whose parents are smokers, or out of homes where the parents own Rottweilers.

And if they were investigating this group for so long, can you explain this
Do you know that FLDS has a $1.7 Million contract with our Government?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3179566

[kestrel91316]

17. The children are not property which has been seized in violation

of due process. The children are PERSONS who have a right to be free of physical and sexual abuse.

The means by which the abuse was discovered are completely irrelevant.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. If this was the case, why did it take 4 years for the authorities to go into the

ranch, and they only did so when they received that call?

[seabeyond]

36. waco, riby ridge.... they are afraid of this shit. people more outraged going in than rape of

children. look at how many dont give a shit about the rape and abuse of the children, further actually make the argument they have the rape to rape and abuse the children.

[kestrel91316]

37. As has been explained repeatedly, they had to have probable cause

to enter in the first place. But once they entered and observed firsthand proof of child rape (pregnant minors), they had a duty to act.

Take note of how NO ONE argued in court yesterday that the children should be returned because a bogus phone call opened the door. They'd get laughed out of court.

The children are NOT property. They have civil rights, and concealment of abuse should not be allowed to keep them from receiving those rights.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

56. It's already a rag and deserves to be stepped on if it allows children

to be raped without consequence.

[Dorian Gray]

67. Can you explain

exactly how the Constitution was stepped on in this process? It sounds like they followed procedural rules.

[kestrel91316]

73. He's apparently forgetting to take his haldol. It's the only possible explanation.

[marylanddem]

10. rescue the women?

I agree that those women seem freaky enough, but they are adults & I don't believe any grown women were rescued - I do believe that if children were being abused then the state should take them. But what "enough evidence" did they find once they raided on a false pretext?

[Beaverhausen]

12. the women are also victims

They are brainwashed from the day they were born - I don't blame them for what happens to their children. They are just going along with what they are taught.

as someone said in another thread on this subject- there are no easy answers here.

[jaksavage]

26. One of the senior mothers

I saw on TV was saying everything was fine at the church, but at the same time she touched her lip above her mouth... a very strong "tell" for someone who is conceiling the truth.

[MilesColtrane]

14. Probably referring to marriage records and pregnant underaged girls...

[kestrel91316]

66. Imagine THAT - Mormons (ok, ok, kinda-sorta Mormons)

keeping detailed records of their families........lol. They are totally into genealogy because of the baptism of the dead thing........

Those same records are gonna halp get the men locked up for life. Delicious irony.

[Wizard777]

98. The correct theological term is Orthodox Mormon.

[kestrel91316]

100. I'll call them what I like. I ain't your property. Nor is anyone else.

Don't you dare presume to correct me. You aren't fit to wipe my a--.

[Ghost in the Machine]

108. !!!!!!!!!

I'll call them what I like. I ain't your property. Nor is anyone else.
Posted by kestrel91316
Don't you dare presume to correct me. You aren't fit to wipe my a--.

:spray: :rofl:

I think I love you! :loveya: :blush:

[kestrel91316]

109. LOL, if you have followed this thread you will understand why I had

just REACHED. MY. LIMIT. with this freak.

I think he's one of them, or in a closely related group, based on his posts.

[Ghost in the Machine]

113. I read the whole thread, then came back to your reply there a few times..

I had tears from laughing so hard.... I've had my fill of this guy, too... it's like having a conversation with an eggplant...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3174314&mesg_id=3178737

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3174314&mesg_id=3174773

:hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

117. "I think he's one of them, or in a closely related group, based on his posts."

"I am a laymen when it comes to secular law. I'm not a lawyer. But I do employ 12 floors of lawyers. My thing is church law. In my Church I am the supreme earthly authority. Because this is a political forum. I can't provide anymore information than that. Because I also believe in and aupport seperation or church and state. My lawyers like to keep my TES as close to no contest as possible as I have directed them to."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3180017&mesg_id=3180642

[janx]

124. That explains a lot.

Thanks.

[riderinthestorm]

125. "Supreme earthly authority" - what groups use that vocabulary?

The Catholic Church for sure, is this standard terminology for Mormons? And what types of religious organizations need 12 floors (!) of legal counsel?

[kestrel91316]

131. The question is this - what religious group would BOTH

support polygamists AND need twelve floors of lawyers? I can think of only one.

But remember, they have "nothing whatsoever to do with the FLDS". They're NOT related.

I think we have a true-believing holy undergarment wearer who wants us to think he's important, and REALLY REALLY wants his church to return to its former teachings. Most of the men do, I suspect.

[PassingFair]

141. I think he is the Pope. n/t

[kestrel91316]

127. I caught that. Oy. They let that old geezer that heads the Mormon Church

have internet access??????? OMFG.

[Occulus]

158. Wow, I knew there was *something* seriously fucking wrong with that poster

Thank you for nailing him so completely. I'm bookmarking that for use later on...

[girl gone mad]

164. Well,it shouldn't be too hard...

find a 76 year old church leader who's nearly 7 feet tall. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were even five 76 year olds on the entire planet that tall.

[Wizard777]

167. nm

[EFerrari]

25. Pregnant children. That seems like "enough" to me. n/t

[LisaL]

42. If CPS went into high school and found a pregnant

teenager, would it be o'key for CPS to remove all the kids from that high school?

[EFerrari]

45. What a terrible comparison.

I don't feel great or even good about how all this went down. But there is no comparison between a cult that routinely abuses women and children and a pregnant teen in a high school.

[LisaL]

46. No? Posters here are acting as if they never heard of a pregnant

teenager before, and it simply doesn't happen outside of this sect.

[EFerrari]

48. I'm sure "some people say" that. But that isn't what I said. n/t

[girl gone mad]

165. Figure out statistics yet?

If all of the high school teachers were involved in a conspiracy to impregnate the girls, then yes, they probably need to shut that school down and get those children into a safer environment.

[kestrel91316]

57. Apples. Oranges. Lizzy, come back when you have taken and passed

a class in basic logic.

You are an embarrassment.

[seabeyond]

29. they didnt raid on false pretext. trying to make that fact, please tell me how.

they responded to a call. saw kids too young to be preg. asked age, underage..... ergo crime. no false pretext, ...

[TankLV]

80. They did not do it under a "false pretext" - they responded to a complaint they assumed was true,

and found out it WAS TRUE.

"False Pretenses" would be if they KNEW beforehand that the reasons were phoney and went ahead anyway...

BIG diference.

The only one that has a problem here is that woman who called in the first place. But that would be hard to prove since her intentions are reasons were to STOP CRIMES that turned out to be TRUE even if HER identity were not what she claimed...

[Wizard777]

118. teh original caller has an obsession with the FLDS and a history of filing false complaints.

Filing a false complaint is a crime. It's starting to look she's a head case. But she had no first hand knowledge of anything going on inside that compound.

[uppityperson]

128. As soon as police see possible child abuse they are obligated to respond.

Doesn't matter why they were there. It's the law.

[uppityperson]

130. Sounds like she is not the only obsessed head case.

I'm not sure how much knowledge you had since you already said you hadn't heard that minors were pregnant.

[kestrel91316]

153. Ooh. Rimshot.

[riderinthestorm]

132. The authorities did find evidence substantiating the report

When/if the woman making the report is proven to be unconnected with the sect, and it's proven she falsified her identity - she'll face appropriate sanctions imho. But with an allegation of child abuse and molestation, just seeing the young pregnant girls is enough evidence for CPS to authorize removal. The authorities are trying to find out what went on in that compound - if there are proper papers then everyone will be cleared.

I'll make you a bet though that there aren't any emancipation papers for those girls. And that DNA testing is going to demonstrate statutory rape and incest. I'll go further and bet that there will be substantiated allegations of physical abuse both to the women and children.

[seabeyond]

135. talking about the gal that called in a false report cause she wanted rapes, abuse

to stop. how evil is she. well, .... not on the side of evil that rapes and abuses.

can you imagine you know what is happening. and it continues. what is our moral responsiblity here. IF she gets punished. .... she will do so being a better person than all those that did nothing.

[LisaL]

146. And what did she want when she allegedly

claimed to be a child trapped in a basement (which send police searching for that child), or a teenage mother contemplating to commit suicide?
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/591924.html
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would defend that sort of thing.
Not at all.

[seabeyond]

149. i am tellin ya darlin, if i defend a criminal, i will take the gal that protects the raped

over defending the rapists any ole day.

but even in my appreciating the gal that could not stand around in silence allowing children to be raped and abused and babies to be waterboard, i still understand that in all probability she committed a crime and she is going to have to experience the repercussion of her good deed. to do right is a sacrifice sometimes. and she will have made that sacrifice, and this is what i can admire.

now.... i was able to own her criminal activity.

not only are you protecting scum of earth, perverts, creeps, filth.... but you can not own and acknowledge the filthy crimes they commit and there is nothing to admire. this is the difference. we can live life honorably and then not feel shame even in truth. you cannot. you must live it in lie, denial, evasion, never owning what was done hurting too many other human beings. the small ones that we are all responsible in protecting because they cannot protect themselves. there is no lower scum that will allow, embrace, revel in a child being hurt.

[LisaL]

155. You are something else.

[uppityperson]

159. You are something else.

Good post.

[Matariki]

31. 14 year old pregnant girls - 'married' to old men, along with a lot of other 'sister wives'?

:shrug:

[LisaL]

47. Until 2005, it was legal for 14 year olds to get married in TX,

with their parents permission, as far as I understand it.

[tammywammy]

50. Well, this is 2008 and it's currently 18 or 16 with parental/judicial consent

So, 14 year olds shouldn't be married.

[LisaL]

55. In a state of TX, a girl who is right now 17 year old with children could have been

legally married in 2005 (with parental consent)-unless there is something wrong with my math. Just the finding someone under 18 who is pregnant doesn't necessarily mean there was a crime.

[tammywammy]

58. But finding "married" 14 year olds there, that are pregnant, is

[LisaL]

64. Did they find any? Supposedly there five pregnant teenagers

under 18.
I haven't heard that any of them were 14.

[tammywammy]

69. There was a 13 year old mother

"State witnesses on Thursday testified to a household with a 13-year-old mother...."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/041908dnmetpolygamy.77507369.html

[LisaL]

72. The testimony was that such a person might have existed.

I do not think they have this girl in custody.
By the way CPS person also testified that some of the girls told her they knew "Sarah."
I really do wonder how would that be possible.

[uppityperson]

145. Sarah is a very common name.

[Dorian Gray]

74. Plural marriages

are not legal marriages. So... it's statutory rape.

[kestrel91316]

59. None of these girls are married under the law. It's all

"celestial marriages". They are, however, victims of statutory rape.

I sure hope you never have any daughters if you really think like this, because they would be in grave danger, too.

[Matariki]

97. Well considering that POLYGAMY is illegal - they weren't actually married, were they?

What's Texas law on sex with minors? What's the age of consent? I'm willing to bet it isn't 13 or 14.

[Wizard777]

142. This is Texas law on marriage.

Every law is presumed to be valid. Texas must defend it.

When there is more than one marriage. The last marriage is the valid marriage.

Underage marriage annulment is barred by adulthood.

But they do allow discretionary annulment of underage marriage.

[uppityperson]

143. Huh, this means you don't have to get divorced in Texas, can just remarry and it'll be valid.

"When there is more than one marriage. The last marriage is the valid marriage."

[Wizard777]

147. That's my take on it. But I'm still digging,

[uppityperson]

148. In order to dissolve a legal marriage, all you have to do is remarry?

Uh, no. Keep digging.

[Wizard777]

151. No you have to get a divorce. I'm posting as I find the codes.

[kestrel91316]

156. The sham celestial marriages have no standing in law.

They are merely words used to mislead and obfuscate and justify rape of children.

Your sick little friends are all gonna go down before this is over, I suspect. The dam is cracking.

[Wizard777]

136. They would be grandfathered (no pun intended)

The marriage would be governed by the law at the time of the marriage. The new law cannot be retroactively applied.

[MilesColtrane]

11. Damn.

This poor woman sounds like she's got mental problems.

Now, despite the fact that FLDS children were being raped, they will probably have to be returned to the cult.

[kestrel91316]

18. Nope. See my above post. The children are not property.

Laws about due process in search and seizure of property do not apply.

The children, though treated as property by FLDS, are PERSONS who each have a constitutional right to be free of the danger of physical and sexual abuse.

[Wizard777]

35. They were when the Constitution was written. The fourth applies.

[kestrel91316]

39. It's not 1781. It's 2008. The Constitution is the basis of our legal system,

but it is by no means our only law. Our laws consist of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments, and the US Code as interpreted by the courts.

I realize this must come as a terrible shock to you. You have my deepest sympathy.

I AM NOT PROPERTY. NO WOMAN OR CHILD IS PROPERTY. WE ARE PERSONS. WE HAVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS ANY MAN. ARCHAIC STUFF, LIKE LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. And yes, I just yelled at you.

BTW, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about laws regarding child abuse. It DOES say that anything not addresses by the Constitution falls under state jurisdiction. You aren't trying to maintain that Texas doesn't have the right as a state to define and regulate child abuse, are you??

[Wizard777]

49. No I'm saying that Texas does not have the right to make it's own laws concerning search & seizure.

Which is addressed in the Constitution. The framers did not specifically protect women and children from seizure. Because they would have understood them to be chattel, as provided for under English Common Law, therefore protected from seizure under the fourth amendment.

[varelse]

53. So, you've read the Constitution

At least up to Amendment IV - GOOD for you. You might want to keep on reading, though, if you think that the US Constitution defines women and children, or any other living human beings, as property.

[Wizard777]

62. The eighth amendment doesn't apply.

They are not bound by involuntary servitude. They are bound by the contract of marriage and parenthood. Nice try though.

[varelse]

63. I referred you to Amendment XIII, not Amendment VIII

:shrug:

[Wizard777]

137. Opps sorry thirteenth. I better go get my glasses. LMAO

But the only thing that changes is the number. The 13th does not apply.

[kestrel91316]

70. Search and seizure applies to property. Persons are not property.

We've been over this. You seriously need gingko. Or haldol.

[Richard Steele]

44. Such utter codswollop.

nm

[kestrel91316]

60. ......to put it mildly.......

[Cerridwen]

16. Yep. Even though she's not yet been proven to have made the call...

they will use this to destroy the entire collection of evidence from four years of investigation.

I predict, flds will get away with this - in the name of "religion". They will continue on and many will cheer the Constitutional "crisis" that will have been avoided. The political fallout will be similar to what happened after the 1953 raid.

We will continue to see "religion" used as justification of any number of horrific acts; and many will continue to defend those acts as Constitutionally protected because they have the stamp of approval of "religion".

"My 'religion' teaches the evil of homosexuality" can be used to justify all kinds of crimes against gays; this already happens for those who aren't away of it.

"My 'religion' teaches the evil of {fill in whatever}" can be used to justify {fill in the blank}.

It will be interesting to watch as one "religion" attacks those of another "religion"; defending their actions against each other as "religious" and to see which one trumps which.

The very people who defend the actions of the flds can be the very ones who will suffer the consequences of a "religion" targeting them.

falwell must be singing the "Hallelujah Chorus" wherever his sorry soul resides. pat robertson and his ilk must be breathing a sigh of relief as this "religious" group is granted immunity due to their "religious" status.

The Inquisition had nothing on what can manifest from this nightmare. It will get far uglier as time goes by.

I think I'll go start my own church. I'll then be able to get away with damned near anything just by calling it a "religious" practice. Hallelujah! Praise the Spaghetti Monster! I've been saved from restriction to commit any act I so choose! So say we all.

[kestrel91316]

19. Nope. I don't think so. I am no attorney, but I think that laws

concerning the search and seizure of PROPERTY do not and must not ever be applied to PERSONS.

The children are all PERSONS who have a constitutional right to be free of abuse. Furthermore - concealment of that abuse, however devious and clever, should not stand in the way of those children's constitutional rights.

The FLDS treats its women and children like property. We The People must not.

[Cerridwen]

24. I hope you are right.

I am far too cynical with regards to our legal system and its handling of "religious freedom". Especially *this* legal system in *this* time occupied by *these* people as "protected" by *this* "Supreme" Court.

I do, so hope you are right.

[kestrel91316]

43. The original call and caller are moot per the SLT article.

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_8981942
"........Meisner said phone calls to a domestic violence hot line from a teenage girl named Sarah, which triggered the raid, became immaterial when investigators found evidence of sexual and physical abuse. CPS has not identified the girl, and authorities have questioned a Colorado woman who may have made the call......."

[Wizard777]

51. SCOTUS might not agree with that.

[kestrel91316]

61. HAHAHAHAHAHA

You really need to lay off the sauce, dude.

[kestrel91316]

157. When was the last time the SC intervened in a child abuse custody dispute?

Enquiring minds want to know........

[girl gone mad]

166. You're nuts.

precedent already exists.

If the cause for the warrant is invalidated, certain evidence may be inadmissable, but it doesn't look like the police even collected much evidence. The statutory rapes can be proven through DNA collection, which has already happened. The case will proceed and many FLDS members are probably going to end up in jail like their leader.

[iamthebandfanman]

23. does this change the fact they get 13 year olds pregnant? n/t

[seabeyond]

28. cops responded to call and kids preg.... hence the crime and results...

you are right

[Clear Blue Sky]

27. Now that Huckabee is out of the race,

it's good to see Chuck Norris back as a Texas Ranger...

[laylah]

86. ?

[FormerOstrich]

168. IF, and I do say IF,

this is the woman that made the call...my hats off to her.

For years now, authorities in multiple states have known exactly what has been going on in these compounds. I don't know why they were not able to legally go in, in the past. Lack of will, I suspect.

If this young woman is responsible......good for her! She apparently is familiar enough with the internal workings, educated herself enough, and staged a credible call which gave ample probable cause.

Once they were in to investigate the systematic abuse was apparent and they acted appropriately.

Damn Shame it took so long but it's a done deal now. The worse thing possible would for the children, mothers. and perverts reunite and slide back into the lifestyle from which they came.