FLDS prophet's daughter, set to testify as an abuse victim, may now be missing.

[pnwmom]

The young daughter of Warren Jeffs was the only one of the over 400 children that was returned to her mother with special conditions, requiring her to have no contact with either her father or with another adult male (presumably her "spiritual husband"), and to live away from the ranch. She was to testify before the Grand Jury in San Angelo next week, but Texas authorities have been unable to find her in order to serve the subpoena.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5848504.html

A lawyer for the 16-year-old daughter of polygamist group leader Warren Jeffs is requesting a restraining order to prevent a spokesman for the group from intimidating and harassing the girl.

SNIP

Malonis, of Dallas, maintains in her request that Jessop has ''engaged in conduct designed to intimidate and harrass'' Malonis and her client.

Several sources close to the case have indicated that the girl is expected to be asked to testify before a Schleicher County grand jury, which next week will begin hearing the state of Texas' criminal case against FLDS members.

Malonis' request comes one day after investigators from the Texas Attorney General's Office attempted to serve the girl with a subpoena, but were unable to locate her.

SNIP

______________________________________

From the Deseret News:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700236525,00.html


"Based on my dealings with Willie Jessop, I believe that he exercises a great deal of control over (the girl), and I am certain that he is interested in protecting the church's interests and the interests of certain influential male members as opposed to (the girl's) legal interests," court-appointed attorney Natalie Malonis wrote in an affidavit filed in a San Angelo court.

A judge was considering the request late this afternoon.

The girl was not immediately returned to her mother after an appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court ruled child welfare authorities acted improperly in removing all 440 children from the ranch. Instead, Malonis filed a special order seeking to have the girl returned to her mother but to have no contact with her father — FLDS leader Warren Jeffs — and a man named Raymond Jessop. Malonis said the girl is an identified sex abuse victim, and that Texas child welfare authorities and law enforcement had told her the girl had been "spiritually united" to a man shortly after turning 15.

In a letter to Judge Barbara Walther, the girl denied being a sex abuse victim, said she was not pregnant and accused her attorney of acting against her wishes.
"I have tried to work with her since, and have tried to cooperate with her," the girl wrote. "I have told her the truth, but she continues to make derogatory statements about my religion and my family."

[Frank Cannon]

1. Oh, but these people are harmless

Cue the FLDS apologists in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

[pnwmom]

2. Yeah, why are we persecuting them?

:sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Because they dress funny and practice polygamy

[pnwmom]

27. No, because they are blindly following a leader who orders child rape. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Are they aborting the resulting babies?

One pregnancy is not proof of widespread child rape.

[pnwmom]

33. Their own "Bishops records" show underage girls "married" to older men.

And these records are incomplete.

And once again, the real issue isn't how "widespread" the rapes are -- the issue is how widespread is the support for ANY rape.

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. The issue is - was it right to break up all these families?

[pnwmom]

49. I think it was right to take them off the ranch to begin the investigation

and also right to return them when they did.

At least, I hope so. I'm worried that the conditions put on them weren't strong enough -- particularly if girls are being prevented by ranch authorities from answering subpoenas.

[LisaL]

97. The appellate court had ruled that CPS had no right to take these

children, and the supreme court upheld it.

[Richard Steele]

83. "Polygamy" requires free will and choice. The FLDS practices CHILD SEX SLAVERY. Different. nm

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. Yet only one of these children was pregnant

hmm

[uppityperson]

104. Only 1 minor has ever been pregnant?

Hmmmm

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. Only one out of 440 who were taken from their families

That certainly doesn't prove a widespread pattern of abuse.

[uppityperson]

129. Only 1 of those was EVER pregnant? Ever?

I don't think parentage of every kid has been determined yet and some claiming sisterhood may turn up parenthood. I don't think the boys were pregnant either.

[proud2BlibKansan]

140. You are being silly

If there was massive child sexual abuse going on, there would have been far more than one pregnancy.

But I think you know that.

[uppityperson]

144. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

440 kids, but you refuse to figure out how many of those are female, and of physical development to be able to be pregnant, and refuse to include those who ever were pregnant. Preferring to continue with out of 440 only 1 was pregnant.

Statistics.

[pnwmom]

196. Why would it have to be massive? Do you think that ritual sex abuse is okay

if only one girl is involved, but it is condoned and supported by the entire community?

Is virgin sacrifice also okay with you?

We still don't know the ages of all the young mothers. A number of them are asking Utah for "delayed birth certificates" because their births weren't recorded. Since the state said no, they'll have to go to court to prove their ages.

[uppityperson]

201. Thank you for that info. I hadn't read that yet. eom

[krispos42]

132. I wonder how many of them still had hymens

Not indicitive, necessarily, but I'm curious. If a disproportionately large number of the girls didn't have them, that would indicate something, right?

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. Yes

I wonder if they checked for that. I would imagine they did.

[cornermouse]

153. I would imagine they did not

for fear of adding even more trauma to the kids. You're flat out wrong about this one, proud2B, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about it because child abuse makes me so angry. I no longer care whether you think you're supporting the constitution or defending someone you perceive as an underdog or victim(they aren't, they are the predators). The real victims are the children. I wish you could see that but obviously you can't.

One other thing that you might to look at.

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Disclosures

[uppityperson]

161. Thank you.

I am getting there also. Thank you for your reasoned posts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

162. You don't need to school me on child abuse

I am willing to bet I have reported far more cases than you have. I can tell you stories that would make you physically ill.

But that doesn't mean these people in Texas were abusing their kids. So far, there is no evidence to support that. Once there is evidence, I will be the first one to call for throwing the book at these people. But I am willing to respect their rights and the rights of their children in the meantime.

[uppityperson]

164. "I've reported more than you have". Oh dear.

[uppityperson]

160. I doubt they would add to the trauma to do a pelvic on all the kids

(all 440) (even the boys since you want them added in. And the babies)

Especially since absence of a hymen is not a total indication of having had intercourse. Why traumatize them by doing an intrusive exam which would not give a definitive answer?

[uppityperson]

146. More than 1 way to get rid of a hymen. Intercourse is only 1 way.

I can imagine the outcry if the girls were all given pelvic exams to determine hymenhood. In some women, the hymen is tougher and hangs in there longer. In others it can be stretched, or torn, while being an active child. It is not a good indicator of whether or not someone has had intercourse.

[krispos42]

147. Yup, that's true

But if 100% are missing? or 90%? What is "normal" non-sexual hyman loss for that age group?

[LisaL]

151. I dunno? What would the rate be at the high school with the

alleged pregnancy pact?
:eyes:

[krispos42]

154. *snort*

:-)

[uppityperson]

155. Fun hymen facts and weblinks.

Pictures with descriptions. "One in 2000 girls is born with an imperforate hymen."
http://www.healthystrokes.com/hymengallery.html

http://www.coolnurse.com/hymen.htm
"Many people are under the impression that the hymen is located within the vagina. It is not. It’s a mucous membrane that is part of the vulva, the external genital organs. It’s located outside the vagina. The hymen is a layer of tissue, just like the tissue around the opening of your vagina that partially conceals the vaginal orifice. You may or may not have one, most females do. The hymen is not an indicator of virginity; a girl is a virgin until she has been penetrated by a penis."

"Many girls and teens tear or otherwise dilate their hymen while participating in sports like bicycling, horseback riding, gymnastics or inserting tampons, or while masturbating. A girl may not even know this has occurred, since there may be little or no blood or pain involved when this happens. The tissues of the vulva are generally very thin and delicate prior to puberty. The presence or absence of a hymen in no way indicates whether or not a female is a virgin. * You are a virgin until you have sexual intercourse.*"

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2272.html
"Proofs" of virginity are unreliable, inaccurate, or misleading. A torn or absent hymen does not signify that a woman has had vaginal intercourse. A hymen can be stretched or torn by horseback riding, ballet exercises, tampon use, or even a regular gynecological exam. Some women are even born without a hymen. Blood on the sheets, considered necessary in some societies and cultures, also does not indicate virginity or first sexual intercourse. Contrary to popular belief, all women do not bleed during their first sexual experience involving vaginal penetration. A small study published in the British Medical Journal in 1998 backs this up: Sara Paterson-Brown, M.D., a gynecologist, interviewed 41 of her female colleagues at a London hospital, and found that twenty-six of them did not bleed during their first experience, 14 did, and one could not remember. The absence of bleeding is explained by previous stretching of the hymen, or because some women have a naturally more elastic hymen."


And finally, revirgination. Even though .05% girls is born with an imperforate hymen, you can get yours surgically made to be this (totally cover vaginal opening).

http://www.revirgination.net/hymenrepair.htmlv"History of Hymen repair
In some cultures, women's hymen can affect her marriage prospects, her family's reputation, and even her very life. The virginity of the bride is valued for religious, social, and even economic reasons. In many Mediterranean and African cultures, the husband's family may take revenge through violent punishments and banishment of the bride because the "non-virgin" bride "shamed" them. Clearly, those who seek Hymenoplasty believe that the procedure is necessary for their social status, happiness, and even preservation of life.

Where is Hymen located
Where many people believe hymen is inside the vigina, it is located outside of the vagina. Hymen is part of vulva, which is an external genital organ. Hymen is a thin layer of tissue that is easy to break. Some woman breaks their hymen during their first intercourse where other had their hymen broken during sport or other activity.

Imperforate hymen
Imperforate hymen is at the extreme of a spectrum of variations in hymenal configuration. Variations in the embryologic development of the hymen are common and result in fenestrations, septa, bands, microperforations, anterior displacement, and differences in rigidity and/or elasticity of the hymenal tissue."

[pnwmom]

195. Saying this over and over will not make it true. n/t

[Faygo Kid]

3. Same types as those who would brand crosses on children's arms.

We are so very naive here at DU about just what people are capable of.

[Beaverhausen]

4. Sadly, this doesn't surprise me

I fear for all these girls.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Of those 440 kids,

did anyone ever find out how many were pregnant teenage girls?

[pnwmom]

6. The ages still haven't been determined. I read recently that some FLDSers

had been requesting to file delayed birth certificates in Utah -- birth certificates that weren't filed in the year of a child's birth -- in connection with all this. They were turned down, and now will have to go to court to "prove" the ages of their children.

I'm not sure how important the number is, though. This isn't like girls were sneaking out at night and getting pregnant against their parents' wishes. These were girls who were being forced into relationships with adult males, by a church "prophet" who decreed exactly when and to whom any girl should be assigned. For even one girl to be treated this way -- with the affirmation and consent of the whole community -- is grossly wrong.

In other words, these illegal marriages weren't aberrations -- they were official church policy. And not a single girl should have been subject to this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. It's not hard to tell if they are teenagers or adults

and if they are now or ever have been pregnant.

The number is indeed important because it appears to be a small enough number (out of 400 some odd children) to prove that the allegation - that large numbers of these girls were being forced into marriage at very young ages - is incorrect. And that the state perhaps overstepped its bounds. Belonging to a bizarre religion is really no reason to seize children and break up families, now is it?

[pnwmom]

11. Be careful that you're not so open minded that your brains fall out.

The community as a whole shouldn't be FORCING any girl into sexual unions with anyone -- whether it was five girls or thirty or fifty shouldn't matter -- the leader of the community with the full support of its members was ordering the sexual assaults of girls. And the "prophet" was participating in them himself with at least two underage "brides."

And it can be very hard indeed to tell the ages of older girls and young women. You really think you can tell the difference between a 15 year old and a 17 year old? You haven't been in a high school in a long time. But I drop my son off every day and I can't even tell which girls are in middle school and which are in high school.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. But the question remains

(actually I believe it has been answered) Was this so serious and widespread throughout this community that the state had no choice but to take these children (400 of them) away from their families?

So in light of how the state of Texas handled this report (which did NOT come from an abused teen inside the compound, as was originally claimed), yes, being open minded is a good idea.

[pnwmom]

26. No it hasn't been answered. We don't know how widespread the problem

is, because the Grand Jury hasn't seen the evidence yet. And we already have at least one instance of a girl (or her handlers) attempting to evade the legal process.

But it doesn't matter. What IS widespread is the belief among the FLDS that Warren Jeffs is "perfect" and that his directives are tantamount to God's. And if he orders that a "spiritual union" should be carried out, then it is. Therefore every pubescent girl is at immediate risk, and younger girls are at risk of "grooming."

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. ONE pregnancy does not support your allegations

If there were indeed so many young girls "at risk" there would be far more pregnancies.

[pnwmom]

34. There are more than one, but the number won't be clear until

the ages of the girls are known with certainty, and the DNA results match mothers to children.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Actually, no, there really is only one pregnancy

Matching kids up to moms is not going to make anyone else turn up pregnant.

[pnwmom]

50. Yes it will, if it turns out that a girl who identified herself as a sister to the

baby in her arms is actually the mother.

[LisaL]

103. The girl in question is not pregnant and has no children.

[uppityperson]

57. can be hard to tell if is a teenager.

[WolverineDG]

77. Is it THAT hard to tell a 27 year old from a 15 year old? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Apparently it is

LOL

[uppityperson]

102. Wrong comparison.

Is it that easy to tell a 15 yr old from a 17 yr old would be more apt.

This is sort of like me saying it is hard to tell a pit bull from another large headed dog and you saying is it really THAT hard to tell a dog from a cat. But thanks for playing.

[uppityperson]

101. Is it THAT easy to tell a 17 yr old from a 15 yr old? nt

[WolverineDG]

114. 17 is still a minor; 27 is not

CPS is facing a massive civil rights case when all this is said & done.

dg

[uppityperson]

131. Is it THAT easy to tell a 17 yr old from a 15 yr old? Can you answer this?

Can you simply answer? Is it THAT easy to tell a 17 yr old from a 15 yr old?

[WolverineDG]

150. Keep trying to rationalize CPS' actions despite evidence to the contrary

The issue was how to tell the difference between an ADULT and a TEENAGER. CPS insisted that a 27 year old woman was "no more than 15," & spread lies in the media that she & the other women illegally stripped of their civil rights were LYING about their ages and committed identity theft. They did this to 22 other adult women as well, telling the media & the courts that some of them were "no more than 14," when in fact, they were in their 20s.

Each and every one of those women was later declared to be an adult by CPS, using the same documents they themselves had presented to CPS as proof of their ages.

dg

[LisaL]

156. Believe it or not, one of the women CPS said was under 18,

is actually 37 years old. Boggles the mind.
How in the world would someone confuse a 37 years old woman for a teenager?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231372,00.html?pg=2

[WolverineDG]

170. Someone who needed some stats to scare the public with

And as we can see from this thread, lots of people bit & still refuse to believe that CPS could lie about something as easy to prove as age.

dg

[uppityperson]

158. Nope, you can't answer MY question. MY question is...

Is it THAT easy to tell a 17 yr old from a 15 yr old?

Not asking about a 27 yr old and a 15 yr old, but asking you about a 17 yr old and a 15 yr old. I am asking you. Not CPS. Not 27 yr old. Here is question for you.


Is it THAT easy to tell a 17 yr old from a 15 yr old?

[WolverineDG]

169. Get it through your head: Your question is irrelevant

A 17 year old is a minor, as is a 15 year old. A 27 year old, however, at least in my book, is an adult, whether she live in the mainstream culture or in the FLDS.

CPS did not say a 17 year old was really a 15 year old. They DID say, however, that a 27 year old was, and listed a few other 20 year olds as being "no more than 16" or "no more than 14."

I congratulate you on your mental gymnastics on this issue. If it were an Olympic sport, you would get the gold medal, hands down.

dg

[uppityperson]

172. Huh, asking a question is irrelevant. Guess that means you can't answer it.

Guess you can't answer a simple question. Or perhaps you just feel the need to control the conversation? Ah well. You have proven several things here.

One is you don't know that a 17 yr old can have sex in TX without it being statutory rape. Another is that you seem incapable of answering a question which is not on the same simple minded track you've been on. Better to be flexible in a conversation and be able to listen and answer when someone asks you a question, even if it is not what you were talking about.

Ah well.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

209. Insults. That is all you have? No answers. Just insults.

And pretty funny ones. A bigot? Huh. Asking if you can tell the difference between a 15 and a 17 yr old makes me a bigot. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[WolverineDG]

7. One nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Interesting

I wonder if in another group of 440 kids (like perhaps in a school) if there would be more than ONE who was pregnant?

[WolverineDG]

10. 17 in Glouscester, Mass

and yet still no sighting of a tank & paramilitary SWAT team invading the town & taking all the children......

dg

[pnwmom]

14. Those misguided girls chose to get pregnant, or at least, to have sex.

They weren't ordered to by a "prophet" considered to be the voice of God.

[LisaL]

72. There have not been one FLDS girl from the TX ranch,

to this date, to claim that she was forced to get married or have children.
Why do you assume the FLDS girls couldn't have chosen to have children?

[Wizard777]

123. Because they are too egar to counteract what they believe to be FLDS brainwashing with their own

brainwashing. Either way the freewill of these people are trampled under foot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Quick! Call the state and claim to be one of those girls!

Tell them you were forced to have sex with an older man!!

We need a swat team!! PRONTO!!! :crazy:

[LisaL]

73. Nah. School apparently has a child care center on site.

[XOKCowboy]

12. Even if it is just one...

Is it still OK if it's a 12 year old girl forced into "marriage" with a 70 year old elder who is probably her uncle or cousin?

Read John Krakauers "Under The Banner Of Heaven". It documents life in the FLDS secret compounds. It's not a pretty story.

[pnwmom]

15. If only one girl has her heart cut out

as a sacrifice to the Sun god, does that make human sacrifice okay too?

After all, it was only one girl. And random murders happen everywhere, right?

:sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. No one is saying that one pregnancy was okay

The question is - should 400 children have been traumatized and taken away from their families?

[pnwmom]

22. Yes. Since the parents weren't cooperating by identifying their children,

their children's ages, or their children's fathers -- and there were a group of very young looking pregnant mothers living in a communal situation -- taking all the children and mothers off the ranch was the only way to figure out who might be living in situations that could be putting them at risk.

[XOKCowboy]

24. The FLDS very rarely breaks ranks...

They know that they are the true Chosen Ones and to do so would keep them from Heaven. They play the government (I believe they call it Bleeding the Beast). They knew what to do if they ever got raided. Utah and Arizona found out a long time ago that it's hard to prosecute them for anything.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. I disagree

obviously

And if a swat team took over my community and began abducting our children, I would probably lie about who I am and who my children are as well.

[pnwmom]

38. If you weren't part of a family involved in child-rape, it would be stupid

not to identify yourself, your husband, and your children as being separate from the ones who were condoning the practice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. If I was part of a group practicing child rape

There would be more than one pregnancy and evidence of that rape would be discovered in physical examinations of the young girls in my group.

[pnwmom]

46. There HAS been more than one pregnancy.

And the state's evidence hasn't even gone to the Grand Jury yet. Until it does, we won't know how many girls have been victimized.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. One a year?

That would be fairly typical in a group this size.

[Wizard777]

55. The other girls that were pregnant have been proven to be adults.

[pnwmom]

61. Not all of them. That were still several underage mothers. And some of the

adults conceived or gave birth when underage.

[LisaL]

71. Oh boo-hoo.

I got news for you. Teenagers have sex and get pregnant in our mainstream society, day in and day out. Why, only today I was reading right here about 17 teenage girls under 16 in the same high school apparently getting pregnant on purpose, and some by older men.
One father is described as a 24 year old homeless man.

[WolverineDG]

90. Hmmm, funny thing about that

No girl under 16 was found to have been pregnant or to be a mother at the FLDS ranch....

dg

[Wizard777]

54. If your a christian or Jew you can commit any crime without fear of your religion being dragged into

it. If your a pagan or satanist and you kill someone. A reporter will point out that a copies of magic books or the satanic bible was found in your home. They will point out the religious symbols such as a pentagram or the goats head. They do it all with ominous looks and accusatory tones. The whole jist is that the crime could have simply been avoided by these people were going to the right church.

Yet If you are a Christian or Jew you can kill hundreds of people and a repoter will never stand outside your house. Pointing out that a copy of the Holy Bible or Torah was found in your home. With ominous looks and accusatory tones. An absolute compendium of every kind of violence possible that can also serve as a how to guide. They won't point out that there was a sculpture of a dead guy nailed to a cross hanging on the wall. This symbolizes their absolute commitment to the murders and violence in the text. Why don't they do this this to the Christians and Jews? Because these are the churches that the pagans and satanists should have been going to to allow them to simply avoid commiting their crimes.

The reality is that if you belong to these two religions. The press will not associate any crimes the followers commit with the religion. Even when the priests are convicted of child molesting. The press will assert that has NOTHING to do with the religion. But they only do this for these two religions.

[pnwmom]

62. These people say they are Christians, and that their prophet is on a par

with Jesus Christ. You don't believe them?

[Wizard777]

66. There are simularities. Both were deemed by earthly authority to be criminals.

Except that Warren Jeffs crimes didn't merrit the death penalty like the crimes of Jesus did. Jesus who subscibed to Jewish law. Since they have been through puberty. Jesus would have also understood these people to be adults and not children as you refer to them as being. Prophets tend to cling the old ways while introducing new clarifications. As for Jeffs being a real prophet. That is ultimately between God and him. Nobody else.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. But is one case enough to take 400 kids away from their families?

I have read that book. It's wonderful. I am not denying these people are bizarre and some are indeed evil.

But since there is only ONE pregnancy, was it okay to take all those kids away from their parents??

And remember the phone call to authorities was later found to be faked by someone who wasn't even a part of the community.

[XOKCowboy]

23. Texas isn't Utah

The reason the compound was raided was because of what is known to be going on in FLDS "communities". The problem was that they put this compound in Texas and the town, county and state got nervous and overreacted. I wouldn't want them in my back yard either.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. What is known or what is alleged to be happening?

One pregnancy. Only one.

[pnwmom]

37. You're saying that even though the cases haven't come before the

Grand Jury yet. The local papers say that several girls will be testifying. Why don't you wait to see what happens?

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Will more girls be pregnant by then??

[pnwmom]

48. More past pregnancies may be acknowledged. We shall see. n/t

[pnwmom]

13. If even ONE was raped, then everyone who condoned it and assisted in it

was responsible.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. But does ONE pregnancy

justify taking 400 children away from their families?

Again, let's think of a school. My school has close to 400 kids. Let's say one child at my school is pregnant. Would that justify taking every child in the school away from their families? ONE pregnancy?

[pnwmom]

25. Yes, let's think of a school. Take the religious element out of it.

But it's got to be a boarding school.

You're got a boarding school, run by a principal who assigns girls to sexual-education-unions with very senior faculty (who each have multiple girls assigned to them). The parents of the girls approve of all this and even live at the school too. (At least most of them do. Some of them live on other campuses, but they sent their daughters to be at this wonderful school without them.)

The CPS gets a call from a young woman who gives her name, says she's being raped and is pregnant and that she's only 16. When they arrive, the adults are refusing to identify which children belong to whom and how old the girls are. Some of the girls/young women are visibly pregnant.

Should all the children be removed from this "school" while the CPS sorts out what is going on? Of course.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. Again, if this was true,

there would be way more than only one pregnancy.

In my state (I am very familiar with child abuse investigations since I am a teacher) the identity of the young girl who called would be necessary before the state moved in and seized anyone.

[pnwmom]

35. Why do you think there is only one pregnancy?

At the very least, there are five girls who have been or are pregnant. The single girl who had special conditions put on her, the daughter of Jeffs, is not pregnant, as far as we know.

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. I think it is fairly obvious

that if there was child rape ongoing as is alleged, that there would be far more than one or even five pregnancies.

You can surely connect the dots. I did a few weeks ago. :)

[pnwmom]

40. Their spokesman announced last week that they had changed their practice

so that they would from then on conform to the law in whatever state they were living in.

Before, they were not. Warren Jeffs himself had at least two very young "brides" and he was convicted in assisting in the sexual assault of another young girl. He is now being investigated in the forced marriage of his daughter to Raymond Jessop.

If the FLDS are serious about this decision to stop ignoring age of consent laws, then I think that alone makes it worthwhile to have temporarily removed the children from the ranch.

[pnwmom]

36. The police did have the identity of a girl -- she gave a name,

Sarah Jessop Barlow -- when she called. She gave as much information as is usually known in a similar case -- her name, her age, what she said was happening to her. How were they supposed to know that it wasn't real? Are you suggesting they should have ignored her call? Or tipped off the FLDS so they could arrange for her to disappear?

[FreeState]

45. And they had the phone number it came from and knew it was bogus

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271689,00.html

The woman allegedly has a history of making calls while pretending to be a young girl.

Rozita Swinton, 33, was arrested on a warrant charging her with false reporting to authorities, a misdemeanor, the Colorado Springs Police Department confirmed in a brief statement issued late Thursday. Swinton was arrested at her home on Wednesday in connection with an incident that occurred in Colorado Springs in February, police said.
....
The woman was reportedly obsessed with the FLDS Church, activists told the Deseret News, and had a history of making similar false calls to authorities in the Colorado Springs area.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cRTqltVz2yAJ:https://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8969094+flds+call+colorado+woman&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=us&client=safari

Investigators also executed an evidentiary search warrant at Swinton's home and seized a number of items that indicated a possible connection between her and calls regarding the FLDS compounds in Colorado City, Ariz., and Eldorado, Texas, the Texas Rangers said Friday in a press release. The items, which were not identified, will be evaluated and analyzed at various crime labs in Texas.
....
Three years earlier, police say, Swinton called authorities in Castle Rock - about 20 minutes north of Colorado Springs - saying she was a 16-year-old girl named Jessica who had just given birth to a boy named Jacob.
She told police she had been molested by a family member and feared going home, said Castle Rock police Sgt. Scott Claton. Swinton led police on a three-day goose chase looking for the girl, who claimed she wanted to give up the baby and kill herself, Claton said.

http://www.childbrides.org/news_texas_ABC4_FLDS_abuse_linked_to_Colorado_woman.html

In February, a woman calling herself "Jennifer" called 911 in Colorado Springs from the same number, claiming that her father had locked her in her basement for days, the document said. Swinton was arrested in connection with that incident on April 16 and later released.

Two Texas Rangers accompanied Colorado Springs police when they searched Swinton's home April 16. Texas authorities said the search turned up several items suggesting a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding compounds in Texas and Arizona owned by the Mormon sect, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The items weren't identified.

[pnwmom]

47. There is no evidence that they knew it was "bogus" either before or during

the raid. In fact, the girl was saying things that the investigators thought had to mean she was on the ranch at the time.

It was only later that suspicion came to rest on Swinton.

[FreeState]

51. They had the phone number - they knew

all it takes is one call to Utah or Colarado to find out who owned the phone number. When the raid took place Texas made it clear they were working with Utah and Colorado authorities - I find it extremely hard to believe the phone number of the call was never shared or investigated.

[pnwmom]

53. How do you know that that phone number was easily traced? The ones that you

buy in the drugstore can't be traced at all.

[FreeState]

64. The article I linked stated it was the same number n/t

"In February, a woman calling herself "Jennifer" called 911 in Colorado Springs from the same number, claiming that her father had locked her in her basement for days, the document said. Swinton was arrested in connection with that incident on April 16 and later released.

Two Texas Rangers accompanied Colorado Springs police when they searched Swinton's home April 16. Texas authorities said the search turned up several items suggesting a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding compounds in Texas and Arizona owned by the Mormon sect, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The items weren't identified."

[pnwmom]

65. So? Do you think that every telephone number listed in any 911 report is

available in any other state at the push of a button? How were the Texas police supposed to know that the telephone number in April was sitting in a police report written in another state in February?

[FreeState]

115. Yes - after 911 a lot of money has been spent making the system work just like that

here is the governments site on it if you would like to read more:

http://www.niem.gov/

Or just do a gogle on NIEM or "Law enforcement data sharing" for a lot more information on instant data available to local police.

[pnwmom]

121. This is a work in progress. They're not there yet. n/t

[FreeState]

173. LOL okay keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better n/t

[Wizard777]

56. Then why did the sheriff tell the Anti FLDS abuse hotline to record the call.

Instead of telling them to tell her to call 911. She wouldn't even have to say anything. Just call 911 and hang up. That's all the police would need to enter the compound without a warrant to look for an endangered person.
I'll tell you why. The second that call came into 911. The operator would know that wasn't comming from inside Texas more or less the compound. They were conducting an investigation and doing everything possible to try not to discover the truth. That is par for the course with religious persecution.

[pnwmom]

58. Do you have a link for that? And how do you know they have enhanced 911

for cell phones in little old Eldorado?

My mother is in San Angelo, and she doesn't think they have it there.

[Wizard777]

70. You first. You started it with your "bogus" claim. Do you have a link for that?

Since your side of this whole argument is the one being consistently proven wrong. Don't even try to pretend that your some kind of an authority on this unless proven otherwise by a link. In fact your the one that should have to provide a link for every last word utter on this subject. I don't know about everyone else. But I'm tired of doing your homework for you. Especially when you learn nothing from it and go right back to spouting stuff that has already been disproven. I don't know which is worse. This or having to consistently remind the freeper that there were no WMD in Iraq yesterday. There will be no WMD's in Iraq today, and there will be no WMD's in Iraq Tomorrow. But it's the same feel.

Yes Eldorado has enhanced 911. How do you know Rozita was using a cell phone? Do you have a link for that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. They don't have caller ID?

:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. They could have investigated more thoroughly before they sent in the swat team

I have a feeling that agency is capable of tracing a phone call. Since that call came from CO, I would think that would have been enough to proceed a bit more cautiously.

[Wizard777]

118. They had been investigating for 4 years with the help of an inside informant. They had nothing.

Until this call came into the hotline. If they didn't get Rozitas permission to record teh call. That's an illegal wiretap. Since it occured across state lines. That's federal jurisdiction.

[uppityperson]

105. How many of those are females ovulating? Your numbers are suspect.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. You are doubting there wee 400 kids seized?

I would think that number can be easily verified.

But let's use 400 to do some math.

Now let's guess 100 of them (a fourth) are teens.

Or let's go with 80 (a fifth).

One pregnancy is still not indicative of widespread abuse.

[uppityperson]

128. No, try reading it again. Here...How many of those are females ovulating?

How many of those are females ovulating? Your number of 400 is not ovulating females. How many of those are females ovulating?

That is what I ask and want to know. How many of those are females ovulating? Not how many kids were seized, but how many of those are females ovulating?

Not how many of the female teens have or will be shown to have had a baby, but How many of those are females ovulating?

Simple question: How many of those are females ovulating?

[proud2BlibKansan]

134. I didn't check ovulation

Only one pregnancy is rather significant, don't you think? Regardless of how many are ovulating.

[uppityperson]

137. Did you check how many were male, or under ovulation age?

Those that could not get pregnant? How many were females of ovulatory age?

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. You keep reducing the pool

But there is still only one pregnancy. Regardless of the math games you play, only one pregnancy.

[uppityperson]

141. If you have 440 boys, none will be pregnant. Pregnancy(or not) only counts if able to get pregnant.

"reducing the pool"? wtf?

Boys don't get pregnant. Children who are too young to get pregnant can't get pregnant. How many of those 440 were females physically able to get pregnant.

Hey, guess what? The daycare down the street has 68 kids and none of them are pregnant! Guess they do a good job counseling about contraception!

No, it is not "reducing the pool" but counting how many of those 440 are able to get pregnant.

[proud2BlibKansan]

143. Only. One. Pregnancy.

[uppityperson]

145. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Combined with a refusal to answer.

[pnwmom]

188. Where do you get that fact? You keep repeating it. How do you know? n/t

[Wizard777]

59. At this point I have no problems with believing the dumbasses at CPS lost her in thier screwed up

system. They are just flying by the seat of their pants making this all up as they along. Why does that sound so familiar? Oh yeah, those other dumbasses from Texas. Bush & Cheney.

[pnwmom]

63. They didn't lose her. She was supposed to be living at a certain address

with her mother and siblings. If they can't find her, it is because she is being hidden.

[Wizard777]

67. She was supposed to remain in state custody. If CPS can't find her. They screwed up big time.

[cornermouse]

76. You have been pro-cult since the beginning of this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. Expecting a state agency to act responsibly is pro cult?

Believing that using a swat team to raid this camp and seizing over 400 kids after only a phone call from an imposter - is pro cult?

[WolverineDG]

92. Apparently, yes in this case

Logic has no place in a witch hunt. It messes up the tail-gate parties at the witch burnings.

dg

[pnwmom]

183. You are well enough informed that I'm sure you know perfectly well

that the girl was not in state custody. She was released to her mother just after the other kids started to go home.

Your comment here is just encouraging ignorance.

[uppityperson]

191. And we learn to not assume too much.

[pnwmom]

185. Deliberately lying about the facts is mostly likely pro-cult.

It is a fact that this girl was released to the custody of her mother, in an order signed by the judge (with special conditions, including where she was to live and who was to be kept away from her) just a day after the order was signed for the other children.

I'm not accusing YOU of lying here, but there are others here who are spreading deliberate lies. The girl was NOT in the custody of the state, anyone who promotes that idea is suspect.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[Wizard777]

135. Oh and what is being done to the FLDS isn't broadbrush?

I call them the way I see them. This deja vu all over again. This isn't nearly as nasty as some of the things that were said to me for simply defending the US constitution and principles of democracy.

[uppityperson]

148. Perhaps reading DU rules might educate you on what insults are allowed here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html
"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll."

Or contact the mods about broadbrush insults allowances.

[Wizard777]

159. I pasted the rules to my complaints to the mods who did nothing.

It's also against the rules to carry over conversations from other threads. Like you have been pro cult since the begining of this. Notice the mods didn't remove that post. People have accused Lizzy of being a FLDS plant. Also against the rules. nothing done. They have tried to make people feel unwelcome here. Again nothing done.The second you put FLDS in the thread title. That thread should be moved to religion. That's not being done either. You don't have to mention the FLDS to discuss child abuse.

[uppityperson]

163. Maybe they don't consider that against the rules. Perhaps you should email them and ask.

Maybe that isn't against the rules, where calling someone a freeper is. No, it is not against the rules to carry over conversations from other threads. You don't have to ignore everything everywhere ever posted with every post on each new thread. Alert on posts, and the mods get to make the decisions. If you want to question them, calling them out in a topic is not the way to go. Email them, or contact them through PMs.

You seriously believe that this FLDS issue is about religion? I thought you keep arguing The Constitution? I disagree that this is about religion. If you want to talk about the FLDS religion, then that is religion. This is about child abuse, state abuse, constitutional issues, all sorts of things.

[Wizard777]

171. Freedom of religion is a constitutional matter.

Actually if you go back through the legislative record when they raised the age of consent. It had nothing to do with child abuse. It was all about preventing the FLDS from legally practising their religion in Texas on a heads up from Utah. The FLDS was the main topic of discussion.

[uppityperson]

175. Age of consent worldwide graphic

Utah is 16/18, interesting.

So do you think it was unconstitutional for Texas to change the age of consent there?

Do you think it should be a national standard, like alcohol or tobacco? Just wondering, as long as we're not actively insulting each other's intelligence or morals right now. I'd like a national standard, and it would be probably older than you may like.

Website giving ages in USA.
http://www.ageofconsent.us/


Graphic from wiki

[Wizard777]

215. I think you have that backwards.

Texas didn't change Utah's age of consent. Utah sorta changed Texas' age of consent. As far as nationalizing the age of consent. I'd have to think about that for a lil while. I can immediately think of many Pro's and Con's to that. On one hand we have two possibly three states conspiring against an establishment of religion through their age of consent laws. Nationalizing it would take that weapons away from them. But children in different area's mature at different rates. I grew up in the city and you grow up quick there. I'm 76. City kids these days grow up even quicker than I did. Kids in the suburbs don't mature as quickly as city kids. I've had a few country girls teach this city boy a thing or two. By leaving it to the states. They are able to decide what's best for their locality. Nationlization could create more freedom for some than they can rightly handle. It may create untenable restrictions for others.

We might be of like mind on what it ought to be. But I also use the bible for my formulation. Life expectancy for biblical times was 35. We have more than doubled that to 75. Age of consent was puberty. But we'll convert that to a number say 13. That should also be more than doubled to about 28 to fit the scale. That way you still have biblical principles on a more modern scale. But these reforms woould have to come from within each church. I'm totally against the state forcing anything upon a Church. If only because the Constitution will not allow it.

[uppityperson]

222. 2 things.

1) To clarify: So do you think it was unconstitutional for Texas to change the age of consent in Texas?

2) Indeed life expectancy has changed since early biblical times. So, since the recommended age of marriage in the bible was based on living until you were 35 (rounding numbers) and now we live until 70, what impact should this have on marriage/sex age?

Combining replies into 1 place.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3492787&mesg_id=3500051

It seems that interpretations of what is recommended, of the "whats" rather than the "whys" should evolve also. I disagree that kids grow up faster in the city, or faster today than they did 70-1500 yrs ago. Yes, some city kids have a hard sort of edge to them, but I don't see them as more mature or adult or able to take care of themselves.

Evolution of religious actions seems like a good thing as what is possible now, what is common, what is socially acceptable, even what technology is readily available to us all, changes. No longer is it common to leave your enemy's heads on a pike in front of your house until it rots, leading to a rule that it must be taken down after a certain amount of time. No longer do people (on average) die at 35 leading to them needing to have their children be mature by then.

The way people spend their time, what they do, is different now than 1500 or even 70 yrs ago in many ways. Keep the "whys", the be good people/etc beliefs, but change the whats.

[Wizard777]

225. Clarification.

1) No it's not unconstitutional for Texas to change their age of consent laws. But it is unconstitutional for them to force those laws upon the church. Especially when it comes to the ancient religious ritual of marriage. To the best of my knowledge. America is the first place in world history that you could get married someplace other than a church and by someone other than a priest. Does America own the ritual of marriage and have absolute authority over it? No Absolutely not. Civil marriage plagiarizes the church ceremony. It's copy cat impersonations. It's a johnny come lately impostor of the original.

Personally I believe there should be two forms of marriage in America. Church and civil. It's real easy. If you are married in a church. Your marriage is governed by the laws of that church. If your married at the courthouse. Your marriage is governed by the laws of the state.

That's another thing about this. These aren't your typical aqualung Letch in grey sitting on the park bench eying little girls with bad intent. To use them, abuse them, and toss them away. Leaving them as damaged goods for another man. They marry the girls and provide for them and their children. You know what they call making an honest woman out of them. As for the age differences. Which seems to be the heart of the outrage. May December romances happen. They happen for a variety of reasons. The old guy wants a hot young wife. The young girl wants a rich old husband. Sometimes it's just true love. That's what I would look for in these relationships to determine the true nature of the relationship. The presence of love. That would be the first question I would ask these people. Do you love him? Do you love her? Where you have Love you have God. "Let no man put asunder that which God has brought together."

As for the evolution of religion. I agree with you on that. Just like man religion does evolve. In my religion, Mazdaism, I am that next evolution. But that's neither here nor there. Not only does man and religion evolve. So does Democracy. We have yet to perfect our own Democracy. So by what right do we demand perfection from the evolution of religion? That's another reason for religion to trump law. Religion has been at the evolutionary and refining process a whole lot longer than the state has. So they are empirically a higher authority on the processes. The framers didn't want their new social experiment to derail the ancient religious experiments. The first amendment does not demand one or the other. It demands we allow for both.

[uppityperson]

226. An unmarried woman is not an "honest woman"?

You can believe as you like, laws legislate actions. There are reasons for laws, for people are not always decent people.

Secular, legal, marriage laws basically dictate finances, and belongings (who owns what, who is responsible for what) which are protections for both men and women. Church marriage is different and I can understand why some may not want to be bound by the Laws of the Land, but they are and for, in my opinion, good reason as not everyone who would be Church married is indeed such a kind and moral person that they would not turn assholish if they were to part ways.

May/December romances happen, people of wildly differing ages do marry for various reasons. But that is very different from A Leader proclaiming which female minor must be partnered with which older male. Are you further saying no FLDS man ever divorces "his" woman?

And you seem to be further saying that a divorced woman is "damaged goods", while being married makes a woman "an honest woman".

[Wizard777]

230. In terms of religious morality no she not. Harlot or even prostitute are the terms.

Now I know those old traditional conservative ideals come with much flamage on this liberal board. But Tradition dictates that a bride should be a virgin. In teh cases of the wealthy or royalty. The bride must undergo an examination to verify that she is a vigin with hymen in tact. Lady Diana Spencer had to undergo this exam before becoming Princess Diana. "Damaged goods" refers to a hymen broken out of wedlock. Not a divorced woman. Some religions are so strict on bridal requirements. If you are not a virgin. They will not allow you to marry. If you are a divorcee. You cannot remarry.

Arranged Marriages also happen. In the jewish religion the person that chooses your spouse in called a Yenta (matchmaker.)This is also prevalent through out Asia and Asia Minor.

[uppityperson]

232. Origin of word Virgin meant belonged to no man. Hence, independent woman.

nothing to do with sex. Didn't belong to father, or husband. Belonged to herself.

Regarding an "intact hymen", here is link to stuff on hymens:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3492787&mesg_id=3497974

[Wizard777]

236. No it doesn't. It's more relevant to purity or hymen. As in Virgo Intacta (Virginity Intact).

It also means maiden (virgin or unmarried) that root is maghu (young) That is from Avestan maghu maghi means Young Priests.

[uppityperson]

106. Delete. Not worth talking with someone whose mind is made up.

[Wizard777]

120. Yep, my mind is made up. She is claiming to be abused and I believe her.

This is what I have said all along. I don't want to hear it from you. I don't want to hear it from CPS. I want to hear it from the alleged victims. Because until they are ready to say they are victim that have been abused. Any efforts are a waste of time. They will go right back to their abusers. If you lock them up and throw away the key. They replace the abuser with someone just like them. This is why I say it's not abuse until they say it abuse. Then it is inarguably abuse.

[uppityperson]

127. Oh total crap there.No one is abused until they acknowledge they were?

They are not victims of abuse until they acknowledge they are? If they go back an abuser, and get abused further, they still are not abused until the victim acknowledges they are abused?

I guess for all your legal experience you have never worked with Domestic Violence and the problem that the abused sometimes return to the abuser, but yes, they still have been abused. Even if they return.

Abuse is not predicated on a victim stating they were abused. It is that simple. Abuse can take many forms and no, it is not necessary for a victim to say they were abused to make it abuse.

It also is not necessary for a minor to say they were abused to make it statutory rape.

[Wizard777]

152. This is what you are failing to understand. To break the cycle of abuse. The person must admit

the problem exists. Until they do there is really nothing you can effectively do for them. This is true in all forms abuse from spousal abuse to child abuse to drug & alcohol abuse. I also understand teh need for intervention in cases of abuse. But if the participant is unwilling and you continue anyway. Because of course you know better than they do. That's not treatment. When you take them to the rehab against their will. That's kidnapping. When you hold them at the treatment center against their will that is false imprisionment. There have been Drug rehabs successfully sued for this. They call it comming in Baskins Robbins. The courts call it Kidnapping and False Imprisionment. There were several cases against the Psychiatric Institues of America for this won by the plantiffs. They are headquartered in, of course, Texas. But you cannot break the cycle of abuse until they are willing to admit they have a problem.

[uppityperson]

157. To break the cycle of abuse, yes they need to admit it. But they ARE abused whether they admit it or

not. That is what I am saying.

Whether or not someone is abused is in no way dependent upon them saying they are.

To break the CYCLE of abuse, they need to acknowledge it.

Seems we are talking 2 different things here.

[Wizard777]

165. It's ineffective to do anything for them until they are willing to call it abuse (admit the problem)

That's all I'm saying. Also in America we have the right to consent to things others might consider to be abusive. I got a tattoo. Why would you allow someone to stab you repeatedly with a needle? That's just abusive. There are people that pierce their skin with hooks and are hoisted up and left to hang there. Extremely abusive. We had our daughters ears pierced. You allowed someone to stick a needle all the way through your daughters ears? Unfit parents no doubt. They allow their children to be skewered. What about cutting off the old foreskin? You allowed your childs genitals to be mutilated? We don't care if God said to do this and it's in the bible. The mutilation of an infants genitals is exactly that. The mutilation of an infants genitals. We can't allow to keep your male children. You will just mutilate their genitals. To a certain degree abuse is relative to the will of the person. I even had a girlfriend break up with me because I wouldn't hit her when she flew off the handle. As far as she was concerned that meant I didn't truly love her. She met a guy that would do that. They've been happily married every since. Like I said, once they say it's abuse. That clearly defines their will and then it is inarguably abuse. But most of all I refuse to part with freewill. Because without freewill there is no need for a Constitution or any Religion. Because then we are no longer people living life. We are just andriods following a program.

[uppityperson]

166. Not apt comparisons.

An adult getting a tattoo voluntarily is not abuse. Tattooing someone against their will is abuse. An adult participating voluntarily in a Sun Dance is not abuse. Piercing a child's ear is not on the same level as having intercourse with her.

Hitting someone is abuse. Not allowing yourself to become an abuser is good.

Being hit is being abused. Even if you "flew off the handle". Even if you wear makeup or don't go out until your broken nose or black eye heals. Even if you continue to live with the person who hit you. It is still abuse.

But stopping the cycle? Acknowledgment is necessary. As is wanting to make a change. As is getting the help to do so as it is not an easy thing to do. And I know. I was abused and it wasn't easy breaking the cycle.

And I continue to work with DV programs, and have dealt with abused kids while a nurse.

1 little kid, 3 yrs old. Beaten to shit. Black eyes, nose, arms, legs. Repeating over and over in a squeaky high voice "I spilled the juice, I spilled the juice, I spilled the juice". She loved her daddy. But spilled the juice. She wanted to be with daddy still. But was placed elsewhere while daddy got the help he needed.

People need to acknowledge the issue to change. But they don't need to acknowledge the issue to have it BE abusive.

[Wizard777]

174. What about the infant genital mutilation? That's right along these lines.

Ritual sexual abuse under the guises of religions as you would say. The child can't consent to this. How do the parents know that he won't want that extra inch when he grows up? Have you ever heard of a man that doesn't?

I was going for a full range of abuse. Which includes self abuse. But you kinda skipped the most pertinent part. Infant genital mutilation. Btw, hitting someone isn't always abuse. Getting hit can be the result of self defense. Which is only abuse if the force used is excessive for what is necessary to stop the attack.

[uppityperson]

176. I am very much against circumcision without a proven medical need.

I've helped with them and they hurt. A baby may not remember, but it is traumatic and they hurt. If anesthetic is used, it burns as it goes in and hurts. I do not like circumcisions unless there is a medical need. Used to be parents were told to shove back foreskin to clean under it, and guess what happened. There were tears which scarred and needed to get a circumcision done to fix. Argh. Now we are told to gently clean and don't worry about retracting it as it will do so on its own later and there is less need to follow-up circumcisions.

As far as getting a circumcision because of religious belief, I think it was from a time when it made sense, but doesn't make sense anymore. Evolution of what you do, acts, seems likes a good thing. There is a difference between a belief and an act, if that makes sense. I think as we evolve as a culture (perhaps wishful thinking) we will not have the need for genital mutilation of minors, will not have this be socially acceptable, will figure out other ways to fulfill the religious bit.

Getting hit, hitting can be self defense. I meant non-self defense hitting is abuse. And yes, hitting beyond what is necessary is abuse. Whether it be just a person, or a law enforcement person.

[Wizard777]

177. I don't have a problem with that until you start forcing your decission on others.

That goes into freedom of choice. Which is hugely being threatened these days. I'm just waiting for Congress to put an end to an age old argument and legislatively decide for the entire country once and for all. Are we going to order Italian or Chinese? Coke or Pepsi? There can only be one! Is usally the battle cry. People demand freedom of choice. But they don't like to extend that freedom to others. They like to make their choice then immediately try to keep others from making their choice. Because, you know, they've already done that for you. If you don't agree with decission they have made for you. You're just a horrible person. I can't stand that and will not tollerate it in the least. Freedom only exists in a choice. Anything else is a mandate or dictum.

[cornermouse]

179. And yet you, yourself, are trying to force your

decision on others.

[Wizard777]

184. No I'm trying to preserve a state of freedom. That's another thing people fail to understand about

the Constitution. Especially authoritarians. Our forefathers primary concern was preserving freedom. Not punishing every last infraction of the law to the nth degree. In a legal system that would make the fire and brimstone of Judgement Day look like a liberal love fest. They made it very difficult for the government to take someones freedom and imprision them. Yes there are absolutely means by which a person can say, Oh yes I did break the law and oh no you can't put me in jail for it. One of those is freedom of religion in the first amendment. Some would say that's fine. It only applies to REAL religions.......like mine. Well the framers futher hobbled the government. The Government cannot declare what does and does not constitute a real relgion. If you want to worship a head of lettuce as God. You are free to do that. The government can't say that's not a real religion.

[uppityperson]

190. But you can't steal that worshipped head of lettuce as that is illegal.

You can worship it, but certain acts are legislated. What you believe is free, what you do may not be.

That is something people fail to understand also about the "freedom of religion" thing.

[cornermouse]

192. Your "freedom" is infringement on the children's rights

to protection from those who would harm them, even parents. Human beings have a strange need to interact. That interaction inevitably leads to someone's rights or freedoms being trampled on. Taxes, stop lights at busy intersections, driving too fast or too slow, even as small a thing as waiting your turn can be limitation or deprivation of the rights of the people behind you while the other person is allowed to proceed.

Your argument doesn't really hold water.

[uppityperson]

194. Thoughts are free, actions are limited.

You are free to believe as you like. You are not free to DO as you like. You put it well, thank you.

[Wizard777]

219. But there is a moral authority involved in religion. In fact SCOTUS vows and declares that our

Governments moral authority is derived from religious moral authority in the form of Mosaic law aka the 10 Commandments. They even have a mural of Moses on the ceiling as part of a depicted history of American law. So no you can't just do anything you want under the guises of religion. Things like Murder and theft are universally prohibited by the moral authority of religion. That the problem with this. Religions also universally place adulthood at puberty. From Zoroastrianism to Judeism to christianity (which draws from Judeism) to Islam. They all place adulthood at puberty. In fact if Warren Jeffs places adulthood anywhere other than puberty. That can be used to prove that he is not a Prophet. Prophets come bearing new wisdoms, traditions, and customs. But they cannot cannot break with or change the fundamental message of all the previous prophets. That line of prophets begins with Zoroaster and his message has not been changed by the prophets of Judeism, Christianity, Islam, or the FLDS.

Also With the higher age of adulthood. You have the new theory and it's up to you to justify teh wisdom of it. It's not up to the age old time tested and honored tradition to justify it's self in the presence of your new tradition. It's this new tradition that has the onus.

[Wizard777]

216. We cannot allow children to be used as a loose thread to unravel the rights of adults.

We can't allow children to be used as crow bars to pry us off our rights. Like toy companies use your children as a crow bar to pry your wallet open. I think this sets a very dangerous precedent. If we establish that it is okay to take peoples children from them because the state feels the parents religious belief as a threat to the child. Here comes the next step on that slippery slope. Mc Cain steals the elections the neocon's attack Iran. There's the video of your kids on the front page of DU telling the world what a horrible person President McCain is and how what he is doing is wrong. There's CPS at your front door. Your teaching your child to question the Neocon's authority and allowing your child to make treasonous statements in public. You are obviously an unfit parent. You cannot be allow to keep your children. Your political beliefs are a threat to them. If we can't respect what has been called for thousands of years. "Your God given right." The rights you give yourself or get from your fellow Americans are even less important and even more easily challenged. Neocon is your God and Government now. Don't think for a second those Hitler lovin' bastards wouldn't do that to you. That's right up their alley.

[cornermouse]

217. You know. You're absolutely right.

It's not like kids have any right to go to sleep in their own bed without fear, is it? Your rights end where the child's right to safety and security begins. n/t

[Wizard777]

221. Congratulations! You just overturned Roe v. Wade.

If that right actually exists. Then a child being able to develope in it's mother womb without fear of being murdered is a no brainer. What about the children of Iraq and their supreme right to sleep in their beds without fear of being killed by our bombs in Shock & Awe. We bombed them for three days. But no such right currently exists.

Btw, I'm prochoice and I choose life. But I'm a man so what I think has no legal bearing on anything. When it comes to reproductive law. I'm nothing more than an ATM Machine. If I'm not, then I'm a hostage being held by the state for ransom. The ironic part is that before the child could come crawling out of a womans womb. It had to come shooting out of my penis. Not the womans oviary empty shell factory.

[uppityperson]

224. Not what Roe v Wade was about, homunculus, Real life of woman trumps that of potential.

I do hope you are being sarcastic and don't believe in homunculi.


Roe v Wade was not about rights of women over fetus. It was based on equal access to the ability to have an abortion, not just based on whether you were rich enough to afford your own doctor vs having to have an illegal unsafe one. However, the rights of a woman who is alive does trump the rights of the embryo or fetus, who is not on its own.

And yes, you are responsible for your sperm. If you put sperm in or near a female, you are responsible for what happens. Keep it away from a woman and you won't have problems.

[Wizard777]

227. As an alchemist I can assure you that that the theory of homunculi is incomplete.

It does not take into account the metamorphosis or transmutation that occurs within the crucible (ovum). The theory needs tweaking and updating. In more modern terms of science. The fetus is the maturing sperm cell. Yes the mother contributes genetic information to the fetus. But the mothers genetic information is useless without the sperm from the male to start the whole process. At this point in time. It would be far easier to create an artificial womb than an artificial sperm cell. But that hypothesis could dramatically change soon.

Don't be so quick to write of alchemy. We now stand at the threshold of achieving an alchemical goal. The combining of the base elements of life to create life. Man made life. There is a college that is real close to creating the worlds first synthetic cell. Nicolas Flamel would be (is?) so proud of them. Look out Immortality! Here we come.

[uppityperson]

229. "The fetus is the maturing sperm cell."? No. A maturing fertilized egg.

You do know that the sperm cell is tiny compared to the ova, the ova provides the bulk and 1/2 the dna?

As a nurse, I can assure you that no, in more modern terms of science a fetus is not a "maturing sperm cell". It is a maturing fertilized egg.



Would a synthetic cell have a soul?

[Wizard777]

233. Right the two become as one.

But the sperm cell is what becomes the fetus. It's the sperm cell that begins to dvide. Not the ovum. The ovum becomes the placenta. Men create life and woman bear this life. Yes women provide half of the genetic marterial and get 100& of the say in pregnancy. The flip side of your argument about men not letting their sperm anywhere near a woman and we won't have to pay for babies. If women could keep their legs closed they wouldn't have worry about having baby they will have to pay for. If you open the door sooner or later someone's gonna come in. It goes to first cause. Also an alchemical argument.

In accordance to alchemical beliefs. No it would not have a soul. It also would not have a will of it's own. It would only be able to do what it's creator told it to do. We're no where near being able create a soul if we ever will be. Common belief is that God is the only one that can create a soul. All souls are just a spark from His Fire.

[uppityperson]

237. No, wrong. Way wrong. Your physiological knowledge lacks a bunch.

Are you pulling my leg, or do you really believe the sperm and ova remain separate? The sperm penetrates the egg, then its nucleus fuses with the ova's nucleus, making a fertilized egg. Then that cell is what divides. That is why each person is made of dna from each of parents. Sperm has 1/2, ova had 1/2, then join to make full.

No, the sperm does not develop into the fetus and the ovum the placenta. They fuse into 1 thing, then that cell divides, and divides, finally a sort of "switch" is done and it changes from a ball of cells to a longer one, and differentiation starts happening.

If you seriously believe the sperm turns into the fetus and the ova into the placenta, you need to do some more research.


http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/fertilization.html

Usually, several sperm cells reach the egg at the same time. However, only one of them penetrates it, because immediately upon first penetration a chemical change in the outer layer of the egg prevents any additional sperm cells from breaking through. As soon as it enters the egg, the sperm cell loses its tail. The compact sperm swells and forms a small nucleus which then unites with a similar small nucleus developed by the egg. The entire process is called fertilization. It is complete when the twenty-three chromosomes derived from the nucleus of the sperm have joined with the twenty-three chromosomes derived from the nucleus of the egg. Thus, a new cell containing forty-six chromosomes is formed. It combines the inheritable characteristics of both man and woman. This new cell, which is the direct result of fertilization, is called a zygote.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/reprod/fert/fert.html
Following fusion of the fertilizing sperm with the oocyte, the sperm head is incorporated into the egg cytoplasm. The nuclear envelope of the sperm disperses, and the chromatin rapidly loosens from its tightly packed state in a process called decondensation. In vertebrates, other sperm components, including mitochondria, are degraded rather than incorporated into the embryo.

Chromatin from both the sperm and egg are soon encapsulated in a nuclear membrane, forming pronuclei. The image to the right shows a one-cell rabbit embryo shortly after fertilization - this embryo was fertilized by two sperm, leading to formation of three pronuclei, and would likely die within a few days. Pass your mouse cursor over the image to identify pronuclei.

Each pronucleus contains a haploid genome. They migrate together, their membranes break down, and the two genomes condense into chromosomes, thereby reconstituting a diploid organism.

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

[uppityperson]

186. However, freedom of religion does not mean freedom to act in a certain way if it is against the law.

Freedom of religion means you can have whatever religion you want, but it does not mean you can DO whatever your religion may tell you to do. There is a difference between the religious beliefs and actions.

There is a difference between thoughts and actions. You cannot legislate thoughts, so they legislate actions. Freedom of thought, not freedom of action.

[Wizard777]

198. This what you are overlooking "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Exercise is a verb. It shows action. So you're religious actions are also protected. Even if they conflict with secular law's that would prohibit them. That assertion does not hold true with any decission SCOTUS has ever made. Catholics were allowed to continue serving wine durring Prohibition. That was far more than a violation of law. That violated a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Alcohol. DEA Schedule do not prevail over entheogenic(sacramental) uses of those otherwise illegal substances. Religion continuously trumps the law, as the Constitution demands, at SCOTUS.

[uppityperson]

203. So you can make up a "religion" then do whatever you want with impunity?

Doesn't work that way.

Edited to add this DU link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3495717&mesg_id=3495717

[Wizard777]

218. That violates seperation of church and state and the teacher wasn't their parent.

In some parts of Africa the tribes still practice scarification and facial tattoos. A child is held down and his face and chest repeatedly cut with a broken shard of glass to produce a pattern. A teenage girl must lay still as she's stabbed in the face repeatedly with a thorn to produce the Tattoo. With the facial tattoos the must chose to get the tattoo. But the scarification of the males is mandatory. If you don't have the marks you are not a member of the tribe. You do not live in their village. You do not eat their food. You are not protected by their Gods. If these people move here to the USA. Do they have to leave their old world religion and traditions behind? No they do not.

[uppityperson]

182. Circumcision does not take an inch off the length of a penis, by the way.

It removes the foreskin. In an uncircumcised man, when he gets an erection, the foreskin does not add any length. And yes, I do know men who would not prefer to be longer since if it is too long it can poke and hurt the participating partner and they must be careful to not do that.

[pnwmom]

187. Both her lawyer and her guardian ad litem say that she told them of abuse

when she is alone with them. When Willie Jessop, one of the elders is present, she clams up. Who would expect otherwise?

[pnwmom]

181. You're flat out wrong.

She was not in state custody, she was released to her mother, the order being signed with conditions just a day after the order for the rest of the kids.

[LisaL]

69. No. It's because she went to San Angelo to see a judge.

[pnwmom]

189. Do you have a link for that? n/t

[WolverineDG]

78. Or maybe she was out shopping

or at a museum, or visiting friends, or going about her normal business. There is no law that you requires you to sit & wait for the cops to show up & serve you with a subpoena. What are you going to require next? Calling CPS & getting permission to leave the house everytime she needs to go somewhere? Ankle-monitoring systems? A GPS tracking device on her body so the cops can track her every move?


dg

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. And you know this because???

[Wizard777]

122. Because she appeared before a judge and said that she was being abused.

The judge ordered that she remain in state custody and issued protective orders.

[LisaL]

149. No, the girl isn't claiming she is being abused. Her lawyer is

saying it. The girl wants another lawyer.

[Wizard777]

167. Interesting, I was under the impression this was her claim.

I guess I'll have to watch this more closely. I do find it troubling that she was not allowed to replace her lawyer if she felt that she was not being properly represented. In fact that can be grounds for a mistrial. Denial of proper and competent representation.

[uppityperson]

168. Could also be she is 16 and being influenced by others also.

Could be either way or something else. Does she truly want to replace her lawyer? Is she considered mature enough to do so? Is she being influenced by (?) to change her lawyer to someone else who is not as capable? Lots of questions. Not offering an opinion as I don't know enough, but brainstorming questions here.

Edited to add 2 links and articles. Still lots of questions. Still a mess.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9655230
Texas judge has temporarily barred an FLDS spokesman accused of intimidation from contacting a daughter of polygamous sect leader Warren S. Jeffs. Attorney Natalie Malonis, joined by guardian ad litem Connie Gauwain, filed a motion Friday asking for a restraining order against Willie Jessop.
Fifty-first District Judge Barbara Walther granted the request just before court closed. The judge also ordered Annette Jeffs, the girl's mother, to notify law enforcement if Jessop attempts to contact her. Walther set a hearing on the matter for next week.
Malonis and Gauwain allege that Jessop has intimidated and improperly influenced the 16-year-old girl, encouraging her to seek a new attorney and to avoid service of a subpoena to appear before a grand jury next week in Schleicher County.
On Thursday, the girl filed her own letter with Walther asking for a new attorney because Malonis has "made untrue statements about me and has tried to make me admit things that did not happen."

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700236618,00.html
A lawyer for a 16-year-old girl taken in the raid on the FLDS Church's YFZ Ranch in Texas obtained a restraining order Friday against a high-profile member of the polygamous sect.

The restraining order accuses Fundamentalist LDS Church member and spokesman Willie Jessop of trying to coerce the girl into avoiding a subpoena to testify at next week's grand-jury proceedings.

"Based on my dealings with Willie Jessop, I believe that he exercises a great deal of control over (the girl), and I am certain that he is interested in protecting the church's interests and the interests of certain influential male members as opposed to (the girl's) legal interests," court-appointed attorney Natalie Malonis wrote in an affidavit filed in a San Angelo court and obtained by the Deseret News.

Judge Barbara Walther signed a temporary restraining order late Friday afternoon that also prevents the girl's mother from having any contact with Jessop. A more formal and detailed restraining order is likely to be filed next week and a hearing on whether to continue it will be held on Tuesday.

[Wizard777]

178. Another possibility. The lawyer doesn't realize that she doesn't work for CPS.

She works for that girl. CPS has been known to do their coercion through subordinates like psychologists. It would not surprise me to find that they are coercing this girl through the lawyer. CPS also use intimidation and out right threats. It appears that the lawyer is trying to coach the girl on her testimony. Trying to put words in her mouth. At least according to the girls statements. That's a no no. That's witness tampering.

[pnwmom]

202. Neither the lawyer nor the guardian ad litem think they work for CPS.

But they have both heard the girl -- when she isn't too intimidated by the presence of Willie Jessop.

[LisaL]

207. And what did the girl say?

[pnwmom]

210. That she was "married" to Raymond Jessops at the age of 14. n/t

[LisaL]

213. Have a link for that?

[pnwmom]

200. It IS her claim -- when a FLDS male elder isn't sitting there, breathing

down her neck.

[LisaL]

206. Now, do you have any proof of that?

I've not seen anything suggesting the girl herself is saying she was abused.
In fact, according to Brooke Adams, her lawyer Malonis was claiming the girl might have had a child, claimed by another woman. The girl doesn't have a child, which Malonis now admits. So, when did the girl ever said she was being abused?

[pnwmom]

208. The lawyer and her guardian ad litem testified that she told them.

And I trust them more than I'd trust Willie Jessop.

[LisaL]

212. Told them what? Do you have link for that?

According to Brooke Adams, the lawyer was claiming the girl might have had a child. It's not true, she is not pregnant and has no children.
So, what did the girl tell her lawyer?

[pnwmom]

197. She told both her lawyer AND her guardian ad litem that she was being

abused. And there is clear evidence that she was "spirtually united" with Raymond Jessops.

It is only when a FLDS elder is with her that she clams up. Now emails are being sent -- supposedly from her -- denying the abuse. Why should we believe the emails are coming from her, when she has told both her lawyer and the ad litem the opposite in person?

[LisaL]

239. When did she ever tell them anything of the sort?

She is not missing, she wants another lawyer, and she says she is not a victim of abuse.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700237022,00.html

[LanternWaste]

228. I imagine that you would have to believe that

"They are just flying by the seat of their pants making this all up as they along. Why does that sound so familiar?
Because we read your posts...


"At this point I have no problems with believing the dumbasses at CPS lost her"
I imagine that you would have to believe that in order to cintinue your justifications of the cult and demonizations of CPS. Just as I'm sure that regardless of how this turns out, you'll continue holding the CPS responsible, and continue your cult of absurd defenses for the FLDS.

But, after having read your posts accusing CPS of engagng in Genocide, and having read your post asserting that modern physics can prove the existence of God, well... I imagine you have quite a few rather imgainative ideas, separated from reality, but looks good on a bumper sticker. Yet since you seem to hold to them as absolutes, I imagine you'll receive no more credibility than is due.

[Wizard777]

234. I refuse to believe that CPS can do no wrong. Yes Genocide was commited.

I've seen CPS abuse first hand so yes it does happen. Long story short The CPS Agent that was harrassing some friends. Should have paid more attention to the sticker I placed on their front door. "you are being recorded." When their lawyer played the tape in court. :wow: "As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a fit parent. You will never see your children again! Because you don't get you children back until I say you get your children back. The only thing the judge will do is rubber stamp anything I say." The judge called a recess and summoned her supervisor to the courtroom. Played the tape and told the supervisor. "Get her out of my courtroom before I put her in jail!" The CPS Agent retorted, You can't do that I have immunity! The supervisor spuna round an told her. "Not anymore. If you know what's good for you. You will leave NOW." Then the judge awarded full custody to the parents. CPS could not conduct any further investigations against them without her approval.

It kind of horrified me to see what that, now former, CPS Agent told my friende absolutely play out in Texas. The judge just rubber stamping everything CPS said. Thank God the higher courts backhanded that Judge.

[uppityperson]

238. rather like...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3492787&mesg_id=3501074
"But the sperm cell is what becomes the fetus. It's the sperm cell that begins to dvide. Not the ovum. The ovum becomes the placenta. Men create life and woman bear this life."

[uppityperson]

60. k&r, oh damn.

[LisaL]

68. She is not missing.

She had traveled to San Angelo to ask that Malonis be replaced with another attorney.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5848504.html

[pnwmom]

193. The article at your link says the girls lawyer thinks the girl was avoiding service

due to coercion by Willie Jessops.

"A court-appointed attorney, Malonis wrote that there was another reason authorities couldn't locate her client: "I believe that (the girl) was avoiding service because of coercion and improper influence from Willie Jessop," whom she accused of intimidating herself and her client."

[cornermouse]

74. I'm just blown away by the number of people on this thread

who are adopting what used to be considered a republican, even neo-con stance on this issue. It's quite strange.

[Frank Cannon]

75. I, too, am absolutely appalled

I hope it's for the same reason.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. Actually sending in a swat team and seizing 400 kids is more of a neo-con stance

than believing these people (in spite of their funny religion) still have some rights which were grossly violated.

Isn't it the Republican party who is trashing our constitution?

[cornermouse]

89. Believing that the government has no rights with which to protect the

weak and poor from the strong and wealthy in vintage neo-con.

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. And when the govt uses those "rights" irresponsibly?

[WolverineDG]

96. It's also vintage neo-con

to readily believe without question the propaganda that has been spread about this group in the media & then continue to perform mental gymnastics to rationalize your support of the State's actions when each & every allegation they have thus far made has turned out to be a big fat lie.

dg

[cornermouse]

100. Based on your argument then, it is clearly wrong

to prosecute those poor hapless parents who use religious grounds to withhold or deny medical care, food, water, and other basic necessities that we would give a pet or livestock. Apparently children (women next?) are chattel and nothing more. The government is inherently evil in every aspect and must be shrunk and drowned in the bathtub.

Does that sound like Pat Buchanan?

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. Oh come on

You guys just get more and more ridiculous. Stick to the facts. So far we know that these people lived together on a ranch in Texas and an imposter called the authorities and falsely claimed she was a girl who lived there and had been raped.

Based on that false allegation, the state of Texas moved in and removed 400 children from the custody of their parents.

ONE was a pregnant girl. ONE. Out of 400. So the claims of sexual abuse are unproven.

Your claims of denying medical care, food, water and other basic necessities are from a NOVEL written about the religion these people belong to. None of those claims about this particular group in Texas have been proven in court. Not. One.

A history of fundamentalist polygamist Mormons mistreating their children in another state is not evidence.

Warren Jeffs and his criminal history is not evidence that these people in Texas are abusing their children.

A phone call from an imposter making a false allegation is not evidence.

Hey maybe they moved away from the others in Utah because they didn't agree with their practice of child sexual abuse. Just a thought . . .

If you cherish your constitutional rights in this country and want them upheld (and restored) this case would outrage you.

At first I also was on the hang em first and ask questions later bandwagon. Then I started reading and realized this raid was based on this ONE phone call. That's it. The state sent in a swat team and seized 400 kids after receiving ONE call from a girl with a history of making false allegations to authorities.

Now we find out there is only one pregnancy.

This smells worse every day.

[FreeState]

116. I agree with you mostly however

"Hey maybe they moved away from the others in Utah because they didn't agree with their practice of child sexual abuse. Just a thought . . . "


Nope - the ranch was set up by Jeffs. He hand picked who lives there.

http://wcbstv.com/national/Yearn.for.Zion.2.698278.html

"Polygamist sect members who were moved to a Texas compound from their longtime homes along the Utah-Arizona line were hand-picked for their fierce loyalty to leader Warren Jeffs, and that allegiance may be a stumbling block for law enforcement, authorities say."

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. Fair enough

:)

[uppityperson]

133. Don't you think the law knew what was going on already?

Don't you think they were watching them already, trying to figure out how to stop the illegalities?

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. I have no idea

I just know that if they were indeed watching them all along, they bungled it with this swat team raid.

[WolverineDG]

112. A government that resorts to threats, violence, & lies

to try an unpopular minority group in the press & attempt to deny them access to the courts & a fair trial to justify the abduction of their children is the very definition of evil.

dg

[Richard Steele]

88. Every single FLDS thread, the same handful show up to defend the child-raping creeps.

And there's just no argument too ridiculous for them to use-
they'll say anything to obfuscate and cloud the issues at hand.

It's absolutely disgusting.

[WolverineDG]

91. It's called the Constitution

I suggest you read it.

dg

[Richard Steele]

93. Show me where that Constitution says child sex slavery is OK. You just prove my point.

Thanks for the assistance.

[WolverineDG]

95. Prove that this was occurring

You can't. And where in the Constitution does it say that authorities can invade private property with a tank & a paramilitary force?

dg

[Richard Steele]

99. Prove? That's what TRIALS are for. Looks like I'm not the one who needs to do some reading.

Again, thanks for the assistance. Your agenda is clear
to everyone who isn't automatically defending child rape.

[uppityperson]

107. Yup. I made the mistake of joining in here. Why bother.

Thanks for trying and for being more civil than I.

[proud2BlibKansan]

111. Okay I am going to call today

and tell the authorities in your state that you are sexually abusing kids and I am a victim.

When that swat team arrives to break up YOUR family, be sure and tell everyone who speaks up and says this is wrong that they are defending child rape. :crazy:

[Wizard777]

126. I already offered to do that. Nobody wants to play this game with THEIR kids. Just other peoples.

[WolverineDG]

113. And how many trials have there been in this case

which leads you to say that the allegations made have been proven? Answer: None.

dg

[proud2BlibKansan]

136. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Did the Bush administration throw that out too?

[Wizard777]

180. For everyone but them. They're innocent even when proven guilty.

[Wizard777]

125. Oprah did an entire show on people falsely accused and convicted of being "child raping creeps."

These cases had a common thread. CPS coercion by CPS psychologists. So when CPS coerces a kid into falsely accusing you of being a "child raping creep." You will thank the good Lord that there people like us that will want to see the evidence before they jack the jail up and put you under it. Don't think for a second it can't ever happen to you.

[Richard Steele]

211. Well then, we should NEVER investigate cults who openly call child sex slavery "DOCTRINE", right?

Spare me your nonsense. After the ridiculously laughable claims
you've made here, you're in no position to lecture those of us
who are open and honest about who we are and what we do.

Silly name and all, I'm a REAL person who has led a REAL life.

You, on the other hand, are the guy who was defending these
SELF-DECLARED child-raping creeps on the "legal" basis that
women and children are PROPERTY.
And claiming that you had "8 floors of lawyers under you" to back up
that claim. :eyes:


I'd LOVE to see you spend ten minutes in front of a camera with Oprah.
That would be some FINE television right there!

[uppityperson]

223. I think you are in error.

I thought it was 12 floors.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[kaiden]

79. If you are interested in reading more about FDLS . . .

Please read Jon Krakauer's non-fiction book, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN. It's a horrifying read into the mindset of Warren Jeffs and his followers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. I have read it

And I still believe the state of Texas over reacted in this case.

[usaftmo]

199. That's good she's missing;

now maybe we won't hear anymore of this cult.

[uppityperson]

204. You are glad a child is missing so you don't have to hear about FLDS. WTF?

Or is this humor in a serious thread so you deserve what you get, to be ignored?

[old mark]

214. LDS has a long history of murdering those who are in their way.

going back to the 19th century.

mark

[Wizard777]

220. So does the Roman Catholic Church. So what's your point?

2,000 years of murdering their way into the mainstream. WHOA! Flashback to Adam and Eve standing in the river trying to get back into Paradise. Hmmm..... or is that a flash forward?

[WolverineDG]

231. There's more Catholics than LDS or FLDS so that's okay nt

[Wizard777]

235. The establishment of some religions get more respect than others.