Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [Archive] - Page 3

juliekan

05-15-2008, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Details
I just finished all of them. Sounds to me like these people came in with the idea of being support and a listening ear, and a help for the mothers and children. Problem is - this isn't a disaster - this is an investigation. And helping out with communication is fine - but they seem to not accept that there is an investigation going on - that CPS needs to monitor what the mothers are telling the children, cannot just give them cell phones, and does indeed need to perform medical exams.

They seemed shocked that children were upset at being separated from mothers and CPS didn't fix it. There is no fixing that. It's like ripping off a bandaid - you do it as quickly as possible - there's no way you can soothe and comfort the child. The only option that helps at all is if the mother lets the child know it is OK - and even then, it isn't. [/*]

I was thinking earlier today that this wasn't just a mission of mercy but also possibly a criminal case that CPS was dealing with. Thank you for stating my thoughts better than I could have.

Details

05-15-2008, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings
You are assuming that these people all understand how the investigation works.

More importantly it is pretty much common knowledge as far as I know that you do not just do mass medical exams of a group. If there were any sexually traumatized children they would only be damaged further so you want to be sure it is necessary. And if they were not abused, an exam could traumatize them. :no: [/*]I'm saying obviously they didn't get it. It's like being upset at a police officer for asking a grieving husband if he had any marital troubles.

No - I don't know that you don't do mass medical exams. How else are they supposed to know if there are any medical problems that need assistance? They haven't said what the medical exam consisted of - all we know is that it didn't include a standard x-ray. I think you're assuming something highly intrusive - we don't know that. Not that it'd be out of line - but we just don't know.

juliekan

05-15-2008, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by walton
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238520

"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental "The floor was literally slick with tears..."

Here are links to letters written by staff members from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, which provided assistance to FLDS women and children in San Angelo shelters in April. They are critical of conditions in the shelters and how child welfare workers treated the women and children.

The links to the letters are at the link above. Interesting. [/*]

Everyone should check out the links.

Ok it's late at night, lets just pick out the obvious...why was the MHMR person following a 3 year old around that was obviously lost until he found his brother? And then complaining that CPS workers were following him too? That is the biggest bunch of bull or laziness or just "lookin' for trouble" on that person's part. Sorry , no tolerance for :chicken: :chicken: spit tonight.

juliekan

05-15-2008, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

You are assuming that these people all understand how the investigation works.

More importantly it is pretty much common knowledge as far as I know that you do not just do mass medical exams of a group. If there were any sexually traumatized children they would only be damaged further so you want to be sure it is necessary. And if they were not abused, an exam could traumatize them. :no: [/*]

For the past 5 years, both of my children have had a "mass" medical exam. It is required if your child is going to take part in anything extracurricular in school. It takes place at the school, in a large open room...there are about 5 doctors working at 5 stations...and adults and parents everywhere. I can assure you that my children were not traumatized...nor were the other 1000 (and I can assure you I'm low balling the number from 3000 enrolled) other kids traumatized, since they laughed and chatted with each other through the whole thing. You shouldn't sexualize a physical exam...a regular physical exam isn't sexual in the least...of course I've only been a nurse for 20+ years, but I don't know where you got your exams...

lotty

05-15-2008, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by juliekan

For the past 5 years, both of my children have had a "mass" medical exam. It is required if your child is going to take part in anything extracurricular in school. It takes place at the school, in a large open room...there are about 5 doctors working at 5 stations...and adults and parents everywhere. I can assure you that my children were not traumatized...nor were the other 1000 (and I can assure you I'm low balling the number from 3000 enrolled) other kids traumatized, since they laughed and chatted with each other through the whole thing. You shouldn't sexualize a physical exam...a regular physical exam isn't sexual in the least...of course I've only been a nurse for 20+ years, but I don't know where you got your exams... [/*]

Been there done that! One more working his way up...sure I'll do it again.:D

juliekan

05-15-2008, 05:27 AM

coherent and considerate :beer:

evalles

05-15-2008, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by lotty

1.) Please do not tell me what to say.
2.) They all reside at one address. Therefore one address was searched.
3.) When signs of abuse are evident (very young girls obviously pregnant) would be a sign of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse in my mind says get every child out.

And please don't tell me again that you haven't seen it. You weren't there.

As always JMO/IMO [/*]

Why, were there ?
If you don't think ripping innocent children away from innocent mothers is traumatic and abusive, that's up to you.
The ones that weren't abused before, they are now, and all at taxpayer expense.

Roux

05-15-2008, 11:26 AM

I don't know if it has been mentioned but on Oprah's show the house tour that Sara gave Lisa Ling appeared to be the very same house that was toured by Marilyn. Must be their "model home."

mariah79

05-15-2008, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Why, were there ?
If you don't think ripping innocent children away from innocent mothers is traumatic and abusive, that's up to you.
The ones that weren't abused before, they are now, and all at taxpayer expense. [/*]

From what I have read this cult/sect had no problem ripping children from partents? Why don't you have a problem with that? At least the state is trying to protect the children.

walton

05-15-2008, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Why, were there ?
If you don't think ripping innocent children away from innocent mothers is traumatic and abusive, that's up to you.
The ones that weren't abused before, they are now, and all at taxpayer expense. [/*]

Where is the proof that the mothers are innocent? How many of the mothers have shown the authorities real proof that they are indeed the mothers.

Those kids didn't pregnant by just looking at them. How many of those mothers stood up and said " No, my child is not getting married at age 14, 15, and 16."

Where is the proof that any of those mothers cared enough about those kids future that they were not going to show them total disregard for the laws of the land?

Each and everyone of those mothers had heard about the Polygamy Raid in 1953. Some of those mothers were part of that raid. They talked about how hard it was on them and their families and yet they still continued to marry off their daughters to old men. They continued to disobey the law. They warned their children of the Govt. and yet they continued to disobey the law.

Those "mothers" knew what they were doing.

Some great parenthood going on there. jmo

evalles

05-15-2008, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Details

There is no such link. The link you did post contains statements miles short of what you claim - no surprise since even a disreputable professional would never be so stupid as to claim they knew a group of kids "were not abused". What they (or rather - what one, per the report, said - not all of them) did say is: Although this is also interesting considering their complaint:http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/635936.html [/*]

Kevin Dinnin, the president of Baptist Children and Family Services, served as incident commander at the shelter under a contract between his agency and the state. He said he couldn't confirm many of the allegations made by the MHMR workers.

Some of it is unfounded," he said. "Some of it is accurate, depending on your point of view. Were the shelters crowded? Yeah. But it's a shelter. And yes, CPS workers were taking notes and listening. Yes, they were always around. I'm not defending CPS, but it's hard to give people privacy in a shelter."

Dinnin said he remembers an MHMR staffer making announcements at the shelter that contained misinformation to a group of FLDS women. He asked the staffer to leave, and a Department of Public Safety trooper escorted her out.

He has a government contract. Who does he represent ?
He is definitely not w/ out bias and has a financial interest.
If he remembers it so well, why doesn't he say what the announcements were ? Another vague maybe w/ no details, which you're so fond of.

**Two of the MHMR workers did report seeing CPS workers treating mothers and children with friendliness and compassion - including one who also reported being threatened with arrest for challenging a decision to separate special needs children from their mothers after they were told earlier in the day that it would not happen.
***************
This was in reference to a CPS worker that was upset that other CPS officials had misinformed the mothers. When she objected
she was threatened with arrest. Sounds more like they escorted a CPS worker from the building.

CPS worker not MHMR.

evalles

05-15-2008, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by litchfield29

Are you part of the P.R. machine for the FLDS? If you aren't, I apologize for the question. You definitely have an agenda here, but there are few, if any, who share your feelings. In fact, most of the U.S. does not agree with you, I bet. It's one thing for adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. It's another when they involve your girls, and older men. Not legal or moral about that. Certainly can't be mentally healthy for the children either.

my opinions [/*]

I'm not talking about all the FLDS, I'm only referring to the children that were removed from their mothers.
And while public sentiment may not lie with the FLDS, I'm not sure I believe, based on what I've read that the majority of the American people think that the mass removal of 464 children based on a fake phone call and no evidence that the children were abused.

Hey Paula

05-15-2008, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

Absolutely true. But there's a small contingent of posters here who either don't or won't get the concept of 'cult' - the concept of a group mindset and way of behaving. Doesn't matter the evidence. Doesn't matter the logic. Doesn't matter the history of cults or the documentation of same. Doesn't matter the survivors' stories.

None of it matters to the group here that believes the abuse must happen FIRST, before action should be taken to remove the children. In other words, the FLDS'ers have every right to 'parent' their children under any and every circumstance, right up to and INCLUDING abuse. [/*]

I liken the approach, of the group you speak of, to those who would dismiss the use of preventive medicine because they hadn't yet gotten a disease or illness.

Why wait for a crime to happen if it can be prevented? Children cannot care for or protect themselves. It is the duty and obligation of the State/Government to intervene when children might be in harm's way.

IMO

evalles

05-15-2008, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by lotty

ITA! There are few things tougher than sticking your neck out with your first and last name all over it. Anonymous is much easier. [/*]

They had to sign a doc that they wouldn't discuss anything they heard or saw , IMO more to protect the state than the children.
The reports were given to their board of directors. Sad that they're not allowed to speak openly about what these government workers are up to.

lotty

05-15-2008, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Why, were there ?
If you don't think ripping innocent children away from innocent mothers is traumatic and abusive, that's up to you.
The ones that weren't abused before, they are now, and all at taxpayer expense. [/*]

No I wasn't there. That is also why I don't mind saying, we don't know yet. Is it impossible to wait for the process to happen? Based on the history of the FLDS is what people are going off of here. Yes, they have a long and well documented history. From the beginning there is a lot of information on: their religious beliefs, dress, thoughts of the outside world, etc. etc. etc. Yes, I am generalizing and lumping them together. If you were a member and don't agree with what is going on, then you are probably not a member any longer. Or if you were a threat to WJ's power, then you are no longer a member. People that are no longer members speak of their experiences...to discredit each and every one of them would mean having to discredit every person on earth when they try to tell of their own experiences.

I truly believe the women speak the truth of their circumstances...which are not what the general public has in mind. Their frame of reference is very different, that is what every member that leaves FLDS says.

evalles

05-15-2008, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by walton
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238520

"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental "The floor was literally slick with tears..."

Here are links to letters written by staff members from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, which provided assistance to FLDS women and children in San Angelo shelters in April. They are critical of conditions in the shelters and how child welfare workers treated the women and children.

The links to the letters are at the link above. Interesting. [/*]

I know we don't agree on anything, but I'm so glad you posted this link, I tried to find the letters when the article first came out with no luck, I haven't had much time over the last few days.

Details

05-15-2008, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by evalles
...He has a government contract. Who does he represent ?
He is definitely not w/ out bias and has a financial interest.Name the financial interest.

You can't. There isn't one. He's a gov't worker, he's paid salary as they all are at that level, and he'll be paid not a penny more for this. All he gets is extra paperwork and headache. Not taking the kids, turning a blind eye - that would give him less work to do. If he remembers it so well, why doesn't he say what the announcements were ? Another vague maybe w/ no details, which you're so fond of.

**Two of the MHMR workers did report seeing CPS workers treating mothers and children with friendliness and compassion - including one who also reported being threatened with arrest for challenging a decision to separate special needs children from their mothers after they were told earlier in the day that it would not happen.
***************
This was in reference to a CPS worker that was upset that other CPS officials had misinformed the mothers. When she objected
she was threatened with arrest. Sounds more like they escorted a CPS worker from the building.

CPS worker not MHMR. [/*]Yes, I read that, like I read all of the letters. I quoted the bits I found interesting or that had not been quoted before - you'd quoted that bit before, at least once. Yep, sounds like a CPS worker objected to the policy and was escorted out. I'm not seeing a problem here. Heated situation, everyone's got strong opinions when it comes to children, disagreement, and management decides they cannot allow an employee to be there dissenting - maybe becoming a flash point.

It is difficult to deal with these numbers, this situation. Conditions weren't ideal. In such a small community, that is pretty inevitable.

Details

05-15-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by evalles
I know we don't agree on anything, but I'm so glad you posted this link, I tried to find the letters when the article first came out with no luck, I haven't had much time over the last few days. [/*]I think there's a lesson here to be learned.

Evidence that might say something is going wrong, people criticising CPS - and a bunch of the posters (including me) who believe CPS is in the right - go off and read the whole thing, clicking through to every letter, encourage others to do the same. Heck, someone who, as you say, doesn't agree, is the one to find and post the link.

That's a true unbiased viewpoint - you come to a conclusion, but keep reading everything - whether it supports your point of view or not, whether it might change your point of view or not.

Do you do the same? Have you read childbrides, rickross, etc.? Try to find out the facts about the trust, books, trials, etc. - even if they might go against your position?

This is how I look at posters - whether they agree with me or disagree - you can tell when someone is just going with the position they choose to believe when they only read things that support their point of view, and ignore all else. When someone is interested in the truth, they read it all, both sides.

Details

05-15-2008, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by evalles
I'm not talking about all the FLDS, I'm only referring to the children that were removed from their mothers....[/*]What about their fathers? Don't they count at all? Because there are plenty of grieving fathers out there, who lost their wives and children due to a decision by Jeffs to reassign them to someone else. Is that OK?

This is a difficult time for the children - but it's necessary and will have long lasting repercussions on the rest of their life. To go from the type of workday they used to have to being a child playing, to go from mothers taught not to express emotion to even foster care people who are normal - it's already a huge impact.

evalles

05-15-2008, 06:21 PM

This is how I look at posters - whether they agree with me or disagree - you can tell when someone is just going with the position they choose to believe when they only read things that support their point of view, and ignore all else. When someone is interested in the truth, they read it all, both sides.

__________________________________________________ __

You're right on that. All sides. Then they better agree with you.

evalles

05-15-2008, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

Now that they have done it, they can't just return the kids to the sect, how would that look? Maybe thats what was done in the last "raid", numbers too overwhelming to accomodate and people lying to cover up the very crime that is getting kids removed in the first place. They have painted themselves into a corner and with the whole worlds eyes on them they have to do the right thing now. Whatever that may turn out to be. [/*]

Yeah, how would that look ? At this point they have to keep the kids regardless of the damage they're causing.

evalles

05-15-2008, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Details
What about their fathers? Don't they count at all? Because there are plenty of grieving fathers out there, who lost their wives and children due to a decision by Jeffs to reassign them to someone else. Is that OK?

This is a difficult time for the children - but it's necessary and will have long lasting repercussions on the rest of their life. To go from the type of workday they used to have to being a child playing, to go from mothers taught not to express emotion to even foster care people who are normal - it's already a huge impact. [/*]

You read the reports by the mental health workers, right ?

Details

05-15-2008, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by evalles
This is how I look at posters - whether they agree with me or disagree - you can tell when someone is just going with the position they choose to believe when they only read things that support their point of view, and ignore all else. When someone is interested in the truth, they read it all, both sides.

__________________________________________________ __

You're right on that. All sides. Then they better agree with you. [/*]Yeah, because I threaten with death all those who disagree. Oops - nope. Hmm - what do I do again? Oh yeah - point out faults, incorrect information (like the idea that a common law marriage is possible with an underage girl, like the idea that the marriage age is 14, and so on and so forth), and state my opinion. What - you want me to stop linking facts? Or stop stating my opinion? Niice.

Details

05-15-2008, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by evalles
You read the reports by the mental health workers, right ? [/*]As I said:I think there's a lesson here to be learned.

Evidence that might say something is going wrong, people criticising CPS - and a bunch of the posters (including me) who believe CPS is in the right - go off and read the whole thing, clicking through to every letter, encourage others to do the same. Heck, someone who, as you say, doesn't agree, is the one to find and post the link.

That's a true unbiased viewpoint - you come to a conclusion, but keep reading everything - whether it supports your point of view or not, whether it might change your point of view or not.

Do you do the same? Have you read childbrides, rickross, etc.? Try to find out the facts about the trust, books, trials, etc. - even if they might go against your position?I quoted a few of the letters, discussed what I saw in them, and, yes, as I said, read every single one. Thank you for your attention to detail.

evalles

05-15-2008, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Details
Yeah, because I threaten with death all those who disagree. Oops - nope. Hmm - what do I do again? Oh yeah - point out faults, incorrect information (like the idea that a common law marriage is possible with an underage girl, like the idea that the marriage age is 14, and so on and so forth), and state my opinion. What - you want me to stop linking facts? Or stop stating my opinion? Niice. [/*]

It's fine to state your opinion, just not as fact. It's misleading.

If you feel that child abuse is ok as long as it's perpetrated by a state agency, knock yourself out.

Details

05-15-2008, 09:16 PM

I don't state my opinion as fact. I state facts as facts. My opinion as my opinion. Simple enough.

evalles

05-15-2008, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by tirante
"It's fine to state your opinion, just not as fact. It's misleading."

Such actions have never stopped you from posting. [/*]

Nor you.

evalles

05-15-2008, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by lotty
<respectfully snipped>

Yep, need real experts that understand the dealings of cults...so important, you are absolutely correct. Lots of training and fast by qualified professionals to anyone working with CPS.

LOL, the format it will get your attention as soon as you see it! Totally different. [/*]

Yep, definitely gotta find someone that agrees with CPS.

evalles

05-15-2008, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Details
Yeah, because I threaten with death all those who disagree. Oops - nope. Hmm - what do I do again? Oh yeah - point out faults, incorrect information (like the idea that a common law marriage is possible with an underage girl, like the idea that the marriage age is 14, and so on and so forth), and state my opinion. What - you want me to stop linking facts? Or stop stating my opinion? Niice. [/*]

I never said common law marriage was possible with an underage girl or that the marriage age was 14

johnielee333

05-16-2008, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

In My Opinion only, all children should be removed when they are being raised within a cult, with immoral and illegal beliefs and "behavior". A cult that thinks it's OK for the men to have sex with minor girls and equally OK to impregnante them after a forced marriage is disgusting, and illegal to boot!! If you think that's OK then I suggest you move there, but most of the general public does not agree it's OK, nor do the authorities.

my opinions [/*]

:beer:

johnielee333

05-16-2008, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

These are not individual people living in individual houses. This is a cult; a mindset; commune lifestyle. They are of like mind; like beliefs; like practices. If it happened to one child, it happened to all of them at one time, or will in the future.

So yes, all the children should be removed from their parents who practice pedophilia, who were likely victims of it themselves, and who've known no other lifestyle. If it isn't stopped now, another generation of mass pedophiles will emerge under the guise of religion.

IMO [/*]

yep

Details

05-16-2008, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by evalles
I never said common law marriage was possible with an underage girl or that the marriage age was 14 [/*]Nor did I say that you did. But those are a few examples of things I stated as facts - they were challenged, and proven true.

Details

05-16-2008, 03:14 AM

"a case"? Wow. I could link you to 50 cases on natural parents - does that make them all bad?

evalles

05-16-2008, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Just to satisfy any future comments, I will link you to a case of CPS abuse against kids & their parents...

http://www.theindychannel.com/station/15302981/detail.html

Sadly not enough of these cases make the news though because everyone just wants to believe that they are saving kids from all the bad guys. No harm in that if that is what they are doing, but every child counts in my opinion and some of the kids that they have made mistakes with will be forever hurt by what was done.

Then there is this document written by a Georgia Senator.

http://fightcps.com/pdf/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf

"The egregious acts and abhorrent behavior of officials who are supposed to protect children can no longer be tolerated." Nov. 16, 2007

Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia

There are no acceptable casualties when it comes to children. [/*]

Senator Schaefer's is the only campaign for public office to which I've ever made a financial contribution.

evalles

05-16-2008, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08
Bratlings I had no idea it was such a widespread thing. Its alot of power to give someone with the title of "social worker". Social work was what we picked for a profession long ago when you couldn't figure out what you wanted to do. I see it has changed alot since the late 70's.
Every social worker I know personally, in real life, is an alcoholic.
I don't know if this is a pervasive problem (alcohol) with them or not. Also every social worker I know has the most screwed up life outside of work its not funny. Just my observation, I have no idea if they are good at their jobs or what-

jmo [/*]

My best friend and her sister ran into a high school friend of her sisters at our annual city festival. She's a CPS worker. She invited them to her house afterwards and my friend was surprised to see that in addition to being drunk, she was smoking pot with her sister on the deck. My friend asked the lady's husband how she could go into someone's house and decide if they should be removed for the same thing. He told my friend that was the reason she was so good at her job, because she did it herself, she knew what to look for.

walton

05-16-2008, 01:33 PM

I went to the diner and sat across from a guy who lived next to a guy who was cousins to the milk man that was married to the girl who delivered the newspaper to the woman who saw the show the Goonies.

She is the one that shared this with the woman who delivered the newspaper that was married to the milk man who was cousins to the guy who lived next door to the guy I sat across from at the diner.

‘In third grade, I cheated on my history exam. In fourth grade, I stole my uncle Max’s toupee and I glued it on my face when I was Moses in my Hebrew School play. In fifth grade, I knocked my sister Edie down the stairs and I blamed it on the dog…When my mom sent me to the summer camp for fat kids and then they served lunch I went nuts and I pigged out and they kicked me out…But the worst thing I ever done — I mixed a pot of fake puke at home and then I went to this movie theater, hid the puke in my jacket, climbed up to the balcony and then, then, I made a noise like this: hua-hua-hua-huaaaaaaa — and then I dumped it over the side, all over the people in the audience. And then, this was horrible, all the people started getting sick and throwing up all over each other. I never felt so bad in my entire life.’

http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/2007/06/22/a-online-confession-from-chunk-of-the-goonies/

lotty

05-16-2008, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by walton
I went to the diner and sat across from a guy who lived next to a guy who was cousins to the milk man that was married to the girl who delivered the newspaper to the woman who saw the show the Goonies.

She is the one that shared this with the woman who delivered the newspaper that was married to the milk man who was cousins to the guy who lived next door to the guy I sat across from at the diner.

‘In third grade, I cheated on my history exam. In fourth grade, I stole my uncle Max’s toupee and I glued it on my face when I was Moses in my Hebrew School play. In fifth grade, I knocked my sister Edie down the stairs and I blamed it on the dog…When my mom sent me to the summer camp for fat kids and then they served lunch I went nuts and I pigged out and they kicked me out…But the worst thing I ever done — I mixed a pot of fake puke at home and then I went to this movie theater, hid the puke in my jacket, climbed up to the balcony and then, then, I made a noise like this: hua-hua-hua-huaaaaaaa — and then I dumped it over the side, all over the people in the audience. And then, this was horrible, all the people started getting sick and throwing up all over each other. I never felt so bad in my entire life.’

http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/2007/06/22/a-online-confession-from-chunk-of-the-goonies/ [/*]:biggrin: barf

evalles

05-16-2008, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by tirante

Somebody from Kansas contributes to a state senator from Georgia? Sure you did.

I thought it interesting, that if one does a search for "corrupt cps", Sen. Schaefer's name comes up right on top.

Your credibility is sinking faster and faster. [/*]

Because she investigasted claims against CPS, and found fraud and abuse in the system, there's something wrong with her ?

It wasn't a large contribution by any means, because she is in Georgia, but I don't see many gov't officials that actually do their jobs, which is to work for the people. Citizens took her their complaints and instead of ignoring them, she investigated their claims.

Funny, instead of commenting on Sen Schaefer's report, you attacked me. Since I don't know you, your opinion of me means absolutely nothing.

evalles

05-16-2008, 02:29 PM

Details

05-16-2008, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
I am responding to your post only to point out had you actually read the links ....

I would think if you cared half as much about children as you claim to, that these allegations would be serious enough for you to actually read. But your comments and actions speak much louder than your words! [/*]I didn't read the links because you described them as "a case" - and no one I've seen doubts that there are some cases where CPS is in the wrong. If you want to encourage people to read the link - provide a non-misleading description of it. By the way - nor does this link answer the question you were asked - to provide a link proving your insinuations that CPS is abusing the FLDS children - not just that some CPS in the world did wrong by some children at some point in history. No organization is perfect - you could find Mother Theresa and Ghandi both as bad if you looked for that standard - but this is about the FLDS case - nothing else.

I would think if you cared about the FLDS children, that the actual facts, established in trials, and stories of FLDS escapees would be serious enough for you to actually read - not just dismiss.

I read both sides, without bias - the article and letters from the MH workers who say CPS was in the wrong, as well as the other side. Do you? Have you looked at the many sites with huge quantities of information about what Jeffs does to those in his cult(as all in the Texas compound were)? Do you read what the escapees and discarded children have to say? Do you know how many girls and boys were found in the compound, and where the statistical anomaly is, and how that ties exactly in to police and other records going back many years?

Details

05-16-2008, 04:14 PM

Mother is not the most thankless job - you've got the child thanking you, society recognizing you - it's a lot of hard work - but a lot of reward too. Even in the worst, you see your child, growing up, becoming an adult - even when they hate you, you know that you created that person.

CPS workers go in and have to be the bad guy - and when they get it perfect, there's only the uncertain reward of knowing that you either returned a child to a good home (meaning they didn't need to leave), or that you prevented a possible tragedy - but you never, ever, know. If they make any mistake, the whole world jumps on them, but when they get it right, they get nothing other than another case. The parent can tell all the lies they like to the media, your hands are tied, and you are not supposed to say anything you know. It's quite the thankless job.

FoxySly

05-16-2008, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
The most thankless job of all you even forgot to mention! The mother,

~Snip

That is YOUR OPINION.

Being a MOTHER is the MOST THANKFUL REWARDING JOB I have ever had and the GREATEST JOY my life has known.
My Son feels the same of being a Father.

Way sad that there are those who have Children who feel that is is "the most thankless job of all. :no:
IMO some should have to be able to pass a test and get a license before they are allowed the caring and nurturing of a LIFE.

Sly

mariah79

05-16-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

:rolleyes: Look up the big words you dont understand before replying because thankless does not have anything to do with whether something is rewarding or not.

I did not say it is not rewarding, it is. I am saying it is thankless.... meaning much of a mothers job is taken for granted. [/*]

Isn't that what Mother's Day is all about?

lotty

05-16-2008, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by FoxySly
Originally posted by Bratlings
The most thankless job of all you even forgot to mention! The mother,

~Snip

That is YOUR OPINION.

Being a MOTHER is the MOST THANKFUL REWARDING JOB I have ever had and the GREATEST JOY my life has known.
My Son feels the same of being a Father.

Way sad that there are those who have Children who feel that is is "the most thankless job of all.
IMO some should have to be able to pass a test and get a license before they are allowed the caring and nurturing of a LIFE.

Sly [/*]

Originally posted by Bratlings

:rolleyes: Look up the big words you dont understand before replying because thankless does not have anything to do with whether something is rewarding or not.

I did not say it is not rewarding, it is. I am saying it is thankless.... meaning much of a mothers job is taken for granted. [/*]

"MOST THANKFUL REWARDING JOB"...IMO I believe thankful is the word before rewarding...if her son is appreciative...that is probably all that matters. I only care that my children appreciate me for the job I do for them. It's not like CPS is supposed to show up to my house and say "Thank you so much, for doing your job as a mother."
As always IMO/JMO

Details

05-16-2008, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
There is a day to recognize virtually everyone. That is not the point, and you know it. [/*]OK - point out CPS appreciation day.

That sure is the point - as a mother - aside from the thanks you do get from your child, aside from the I love you's, and the rewards of doing it, aside from the societal value placed on mothers (and this is high!) - there's even one day a year where much fanfare is devoted to thanking your mother.

LLaFren

05-16-2008, 08:05 PM

Tempers are starting to run high, be careful we don't get o/t.

going to read what I've missed, see you guys soon.

LL:seeya:

evalles

05-16-2008, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by tirante

No attack. Just suspicious of your claim. Too convenient, by far. [/*]

What claim ?

evalles

05-16-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

Well, now, I guess I'll need a link to some stats from you that point to a generalized lack of experience and education of CPS workers.

And a link to stats regarding the frequency of self-medication among CPS workers.

Your whole argument here is that we're accusing the innocent. Surely you're not doing the same with regard to CPS workers?

Oh ... and if we're to insure that no CPS workers are self-medicating, how would you propose to monitor that? [/*]

In Texas, CPS investigators don't have to be licensed or know anything about investigations, they don't have to have a degree in anything child related.

A bachelors degree in anything will do. Arts, Science, Business, Chemistry 4 years and you can be a child protection svcs worker.
Do I have to have a degree?

Yes, to be a caseworker you must have a four-year bachelors degree. It doesn’t have to be specifically a social work or human services degree, but those are preferred.
Condition of Employment

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/ComeWorkForUs/cpsinv.asp

Must possess and maintain a valid Texas Motor Vehicle Operator's License. CPS will also request a Criminal Background Check and CPS History check on all applicants.

Roux

05-16-2008, 09:53 PM

Regarding religious teaching, cults have in common the control of people, taking away free will. Even God does not take away our free will. It is power and control in matters of money, sex, and power that is seen in all these types of "religion."

evalles

05-16-2008, 10:33 PM

I'm sure everyone already know this,but I believe it's the Wall's girl that's gonna be on 20/20 at 9pm.

evalles

05-16-2008, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by tirante

C'mon. You posted that the only political candidate that you ever gave money to was Shaeffer. You are from Kansas, Shaeffer is from Georgia. Where did you find a link to someone that "happens", to agree with your position? Suspicious, to say the least! You just "happen" to find a politician that agrees with you? What a bunch of unbelievable BS.

You looked for something to back your anti-CPS posts, and found her, using an internet search. It is so obvious, it is laughable.

You can BS your family, and perhaps your friends; but not everyone. Your family and friends are too polite to call you out on your obfuscations, not me.

Exactly what campaign of hers did you contribute to? And when? Any receipt? You can photo it, and post it with your name, etc., obscured. [/*]

I learned of Sen Schaeffer through one of the several on-line family advocacy groups I belong to. Another mamber is head of a Georgia Family Rights Group and she posted the link. I've had a couple of e-mail correspondences w/ her office. I appreciate that she has the guts to speak out. As you probably know from these boards, many that believe in parental rights or that criticize CPS are accused of supporting child abuse, so I have a lot of respect for her.
Would you be so irate if you knew that I contributed a measley $20 ? I paid w/ my debit card on her campaign site.
I'm not wealthy enough to make large contributions anywhere.
It was significant for me because I'd never done it before, the gov't gets enough of my $$ and I don't want to give them anymore.
I can access my bank acct on-line. Tell me how to get you the charge to my acct without giving you my bank information. I also saved the e-mails from her, dated 2 or 3 months ago, if that'll do.
Just let me know how to get you the information.

It's not right to suggest that someone's a liar when you don't even know them.

evalles

05-16-2008, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by tirante
Just print out the charge on your computer, cover your personal data, and post it. Sorry, I do not believe you gave to a senator 1200 miles away, for a cause that had no effect on you. Too convenient.

Call it reasonable doubt. I do not believe you gave $1.00, much less $20.00. [/*]

I'm looking, I can't remember the month. I don't keep a check register. I will find it, I might have a thank you e-mail.
I found this e-mail from her office dated way before this board was started.

Re: CPSþ
From: Senator Nancy Schaefer (senatornancyschaefer@windstream.net)
Sent: Sun 2/24/08 8:00 AM
To: (evalles9670)

Dear Esther,
Remain calm and under control, but remember you have rights too.
Fight for your child.
Do not give up. Do not sign any papers.
I have legislation filed here in Georgia to begin changing things.
Turn to the Lord in Prayer.
God bless you.
Nancy Schaefer
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District
P.O. Box 294
Turnerville, Georgia 30580
706-754-1998 Phone
706-754-1803 Fax

323 * CLOB
18 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
404-463-1367
Tel: 706-754-1998
Fax: 706-754-1803

323- A Coverdell Office Bldg.
18 Capitol Square,S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Tel: 404-463-1367
Fax: 404-463-1388

From:
To: Senator Nancy Schaefer
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:37 PM
Subject: RE: CPS

Dear Senator Schaefer,

I hope it's true that you can judge a man by the caliber of his enemies. CPS is the most powerful I've ever come across and I'm proud that everyone in the local office hates me.
12 court dates in a year because I yelled at my teenager. I'm sure the tax payers would be thrilled if they knew.

Any help or advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated. They can't continue to hurt families as they've been allowed to do for so long.

Keep up the good work..

Sincerely,

By the way, my daughter decided she wanted to come home. CPS isn't too happy with her now, and I've learned even more about their disturbing actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John7878

05-16-2008, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

If my kids were taken, I would do whatever the people who took them asked of me to get them back. If that meant leaving a cult, I would do it. [/*]

So if the situation was reversed and a civilization of FLDS people came and took your kids away, you'd join their idea of what was right to get your kids back??

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

I know they have been brainwashed and programmed, but they are *not* sincere when they cry and moan that their kids have been ripped from their arms and yet they hide the truth about whose kid is whose, lie and deliberatly try to throw off the very people who are trying to get at the truth. [/*]

They HAVE to lie, or police would charge them for having a loop hole for having more than one wife.

Texas laws said that 14 yr olds could marry before 2005, but that was changed expressly because they knew the FLDS was moving into the state.

They aren't paranoid that the authorities are persecuting them, the authorities ARE targeting them.

And as I think they should be against the LEADERS, but not the whole group.

evalles

05-17-2008, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by tirante
I give up. You win! And Google. [/*]

Google ? ?

evalles

05-17-2008, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by tirante

Yep. When asked a question, you google until you get a response that suits your theme.

Just as you did the Georgia senator. [/*]

A response that suits my theme ?

I didn't post the link on the Georgia Senator. Although, I've had it saved since I believe it came out when a group member sent it to me. I went through 4 months of bank statements on-line. There's some $20 drafts, but they don't say what they're for.
I'm gonna check to see if I paid it with a credit card instead.
I found an e-mail asking for a contribution 4/9 so I'm thinking it was after that. I haven't been very organized this past year. If I don't find it, I'll ask Sen Schaefer to send or e-mail me something.

evalles

05-17-2008, 12:46 AM

You're saying I just googled it ? E-mails
From Subject Date Size
Senator Nancy Schaefer Your Help is Needed!þ 4/09/08 36 KB
Sen. Judson Hill RE: SB 415þ 3/05/08 14 KB
Senator Nancy Schaefer SB 415 vote Wednesday - Senator Schaefer needs your helpþ 3/04/08 40 KB
GAFamilyRights Re: [TAFUnited] Re: Senators Investigationþ 12/10/07 23 KB

GAFamilyRights Re: [TAFUnited] Senators Investigationþ 12/07/07 19 KB
GAFamilyRights Re: [TAFUnited] Senators Investigationþ 12/07/07 20 KB
Senator Nancy Schaefer Re: CPSþ 12/06/07 7 KB

evalles

05-17-2008, 02:34 AM

Grits for Breakfast
Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

So for those who continue to believe this warrant was executed in good faith, here are the facts.

Authorities knew before the raid that Dale Barlow was in Arizona, had spoken to him, but made no effort to have him arrested or detained by his probation officer.
The caller mispronounced the name of the town (there's a long "a" in Eldor-A-do), used terminology that did not match FLDS religious lingo, and only gave details about the group and the ranch that could be easily gleaned online.
Authorities knew the calls to the shelter didn't come from Texas, and with minimalist investigation would have identified the caller as a routine hoaxer.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/authorities-ignored-leads-evidence-that.html

Rainkiss

05-17-2008, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by John7878

So if the situation was reversed and a civilization of FLDS people came and took your kids away, you'd join their idea of what was right to get your kids back??

They HAVE to lie, or police would charge them for having a loop hole for having more than one wife.

Texas laws said that 14 yr olds could marry before 2005, but that was changed expressly because they knew the FLDS was moving into the state.

They aren't paranoid that the authorities are persecuting them, the authorities ARE targeting them.

And as I think they should be against the LEADERS, but not the whole group. [/*]

Did I read that right? Did you call the whole "spiritual marriage" thing a "LOOPHOLE"? Let's not pretty things up, it's a deliberate dodge to get around polygamy laws. The fact that they're comparing what they do to the adulterous affairs of men in the rest of the worls is laughable, considering how seriously they take adultery within their own community. (Elissa Ward was informed by Warren Jeffs that in order to be forgiven for her adultery, she would need to blood atone... That's a death sentence, folks.)

Yes, Texas law stated that 14 year olds could marry. The fact that they knew the FLDS was moving in may have caused them to examine and change that law, but that does not make the law any less valid.

They have already moved against Warren Jeffs, which is a good start. I don't know if they've declared a new prophet, but it looks like Willie Jessop is standing in, at least in public, and I agree, he should be looked at, next. I believe one of his wives was specifically noted in the second warrant as likely being underage.

The one thing I haven't heard was being present was pretty significant... Where are the marriage licenses for the girls they say were married at sixteen, and therefore it was permissable for the old men to have sex with them? Where are the written permission forms from the parents legally giving consent to these marriages? Without those, any of the girls under 18 were, by the laws of the state of Texas, molested children.

walton

05-17-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by evalles
Grits for Breakfast
Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

So for those who continue to believe this warrant was executed in good faith, here are the facts.

Authorities knew before the raid that Dale Barlow was in Arizona, had spoken to him, but made no effort to have him arrested or detained by his probation officer.
The caller mispronounced the name of the town (there's a long "a" in Eldor-A-do), used terminology that did not match FLDS religious lingo, and only gave details about the group and the ranch that could be easily gleaned online.
Authorities knew the calls to the shelter didn't come from Texas, and with minimalist investigation would have identified the caller as a routine hoaxer.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/authorities-ignored-leads-evidence-that.html [/*]

How many of the FLDS transplants could pronounce the name Eldorado? How many of the transplants even knew that there was a world outside of the YFZ ranch?

While your out there digging evalles keep a look out for Patricia Keate.

Thanks

evalles

05-17-2008, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by walton

How many of the FLDS transplants could pronounce the name Eldorado? How many of the transplants even knew that there was a world outside of the YFZ ranch?

While your out there digging evalles keep a look out for Patricia Keate.

Thanks [/*]

Keep commenting on the least important aspects of any link Walton.

LLaFren

05-17-2008, 05:03 PM

Gotta love those people who post blog links as fact...

Walton, Keep right on doing what you do best, find the facts and post them as such.

3 cheers for Walton (and katydid and all the others on this board who post FACTS!)

:beer:

xray ra

05-17-2008, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by LLaFren
Gotta love those people who post blog links as fact...

Walton, Keep right on doing what you do best, find the facts and post them as such.

3 cheers for Walton (and katydid and all the others on this board who post FACTS!)

:beer: [/*]

ITA Why do people think that Blogs are actually anything other than published message board posts? HeHe!!!

My pages are getting shorter and shorter if you get my drift:patriot:

Makes it alot easier and faster to catch up on each and every thread.

evalles

05-17-2008, 05:18 PM

evalles

05-17-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Rainkiss

Did I read that right? Did you call the whole "spiritual marriage" thing a "LOOPHOLE"? Let's not pretty things up, it's a deliberate dodge to get around polygamy laws. The fact that they're comparing what they do to the adulterous affairs of men in the rest of the worls is laughable, considering how seriously they take adultery within their own community. (Elissa Ward was informed by Warren Jeffs that in order to be forgiven for her adultery, she would need to blood atone... That's a death sentence, folks.)

Yes, Texas law stated that 14 year olds could marry. The fact that they knew the FLDS was moving in may have caused them to examine and change that law, but that does not make the law any less valid.

They have already moved against Warren Jeffs, which is a good start. I don't know if they've declared a new prophet, but it looks like Willie Jessop is standing in, at least in public, and I agree, he should be looked at, next. I believe one of his wives was specifically noted in the second warrant as likely being underage.

The one thing I haven't heard was being present was pretty significant... Where are the marriage licenses for the girls they say were married at sixteen, and therefore it was permissable for the old men to have sex with them? Where are the written permission forms from the parents legally giving consent to these marriages? Without those, any of the girls under 18 were, by the laws of the state of Texas, molested children. [/*]

There's no law against having one legal wife while sleeping with others. Also no law against calling everyone you sleep with your wife.

As far as Willie Jessop, maybe she's underage, maybe not. It's already been proven that the state has lied about at least girls being underage.
Who knows if there aren't licenses ? Maybe the state has those to.

LLaFren

05-17-2008, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

So news reports are facts then? [/*]

I do believe Bratlings, that I'm going to find a reputable news source more believable than a blog.

Don't you?

walton

05-17-2008, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Keep commenting on the least important aspects of any link Walton. [/*]

What do you mean least important? It was important enough for the guy writing the blog to mention it. But think about it. Some of those people that moved to Eldorado have never been outside the compound. Some of them probably didn't even know which way town was located much less how to pronounce Eldorado the Texan way.

Didn't make a bit a difference if Barlow was in Arizona or not at the time of the raid. They were not going in there to protect Barlow. They were going in to protect Sarah.

The phone numbers were not known before or during the time of the raid. They found out after the raid.

If you want me to only comment on certain parts of your links please let me know which part.

So have you seen anything about Patricia Keate?

walton

05-17-2008, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by evalles

There's no law against having one legal wife while sleeping with others. Also no law against calling everyone you sleep with your wife.

As far as Willie Jessop, maybe she's underage, maybe not. It's already been proven that the state has lied about at least girls being underage.
Who knows if there aren't licenses ? Maybe the state has those to. [/*]

Actually I think it is against the law to "set up house" and call someone your spouse when legally they are not. You can not call someone your spouse when you fill out tax papers and you can not call someone your spouse on insurance papers. I believe it is called fraud.

jmo

evalles did you watch 20/20?

Annie143

05-17-2008, 08:20 PM

Actually I think it is against the law to "set up house" and call someone your spouse when legally they are not. You can not call someone your spouse when you fill out tax papers and you can not call someone your spouse on insurance papers. I believe it is called fraud. in States that have a common law provision (cohabitation), it is legal. Here in Florida, it is not recognized, i.e. a "common law wife". If it is legal in the state you reside in when you file your federal income tax return, you can claim that person on your income tax.

I am not sure if just calling them "wife" would be illegal on insurance papers. IF the name was correct and you provided all the proper identification as to you being the person named, I dont know that the designation would mean anything. What if at the time the insurance was put in force, you were the wife but there was a subsequent divoirce and it was never changed on the beneficiary form.......? They would not deny you the proceeds, I dont think. I have some familarity with taxes and insurance.

Details

05-17-2008, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by evalles
...Who knows if there aren't licenses ? Maybe the state has those to. [/*]And FLDS is keeping quiet just out of the goodness of their hearts. Suuure. A marriage license is a matter of public record - there's no reason they wouldn't present it - if it existed.

evalles

05-17-2008, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Details
And FLDS is keeping quiet just out of the goodness of their hearts. Suuure. A marriage license is a matter of public record - there's no reason they wouldn't present it - if it existed. [/*]

They had a birth certificate and ID showing one of the "underage minors" was an adult and the state stated in a court document that she was 15 or 16. There's evidence that they lied.
I'm sure they have access to those records to and they still LIED.
Do you support a government agency filing false documents ?
Or do you think it's ok if it's against the FLDS ?
The 'blog link' I posted earlier has links to the actual court documents that show this.

evalles

05-17-2008, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by walton

Actually I think it is against the law to "set up house" and call someone your spouse when legally they are not. You can not call someone your spouse when you fill out tax papers and you can not call someone your spouse on insurance papers. I believe it is called fraud.

jmo

evalles did you watch 20/20? [/*]

Yes I saw 20/20, Elissa Wall looked very happy in her wedding photos.
Funny, that she doesn't care that publishing her book before her ex's trial might make it impossible for him to get a fair trial, therefore the charges might be dismissed.
Between money and justice, the cash won out. With all the publicity surrounding the case, it's obviously the most profitable time to release it. Haven't a lot of posters here already bought it ? She's a smart girl.

Who said anything about calling someone their spouse on any legal documents ? I could call my neighbor my spouse if she didn't object and I don't know on what grounds I could be arrested.

evalles

05-17-2008, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by walton

What do you mean least important? It was important enough for the guy writing the blog to mention it. But think about it. Some of those people that moved to Eldorado have never been outside the compound. Some of them probably didn't even know which way town was located much less how to pronounce Eldorado the Texan way.

Didn't make a bit a difference if Barlow was in Arizona or not at the time of the raid. They were not going in there to protect Barlow. They were going in to protect Sarah.

The phone numbers were not known before or during the time of the raid. They found out after the raid.

If you want me to only comment on certain parts of your links please let me know which part.

So have you seen anything about Patricia Keate? [/*]

How do you know they didn't know before ?

evalles

05-17-2008, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by LLaFren

I do believe Bratlings, that I'm going to find a reputable news source more believable than a blog.

Don't you? [/*]

The blog has links to actual court cases. You didn't see those ?

evalles

05-17-2008, 09:43 PM

If this link has already been posted, I'm sorry.
Posting this link goes against the 'agenda' some posters insist I have.

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About/News/2008/2008-05-02_eldorado_counts.asp

There's a lot more info on this site.

There are 250 females and 214 males.

Mimi428

05-17-2008, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by walton

Actually I think it is against the law to "set up house" and call someone your spouse when legally they are not. You can not call someone your spouse when you fill out tax papers and you can not call someone your spouse on insurance papers. I believe it is called fraud.
[/*]

Texas recognizes common law marriages. Three elements must be present in order for the courts to accept that man & woman are indeed in a valid common law marriage. Link here tells more about it...

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp

Q: What makes a common law marriage?
A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.
First, you must have "agreed to be married."
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.

walton

05-17-2008, 10:50 PM

mimi

take a look at this and would it apply?
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.006.00.000025.00.htm

1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(*) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or

(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person
in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under
circumstances that would, but for the person's prior marriage,
constitute a marriage
(*) lives with that person in this state under
the appearance of being married.
(*) For purposes of this section, "under the appearance of
being married" means holding out that the parties are married with
cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1)
that the actor reasonably believed at the time of the commission of
the offense that the actor and the person whom the actor married or
purported to marry or with whom the actor lived under the appearance
of being married were legally eligible to be married because the
actor's prior marriage was void or had been dissolved by death,
divorce, or annulment. For purposes of this subsection, an actor's
belief is reasonable if the belief is substantiated by a certified
copy of a death certificate or other signed document issued by a
court.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the lawful wife or
husband of the actor may testify both for or against the actor
concerning proof of the original marriage.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree, except that if at the time of the commission of the offense,
the person whom the actor marries or purports to marry or with whom
the actor lives under the appearance of being married is:
(1) 16 years of age or older, the offense is a felony
of the second degree; or
(2) younger than 16 years of age, the
offense is a
felony of the first degree.

walton

05-17-2008, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Yes I saw 20/20, Elissa Wall looked very happy in her wedding photos.
Funny, that she doesn't care that publishing her book before her ex's trial might make it impossible for him to get a fair trial, therefore the charges might be dismissed.
Between money and justice, the cash won out. With all the publicity surrounding the case, it's obviously the most profitable time to release it. Haven't a lot of posters here already bought it ? She's a smart girl.

Who said anything about calling someone their spouse on any legal documents ? I could call my neighbor my spouse if she didn't object and I don't know on what grounds I could be arrested. [/*]

Concerning Elissa Walls ex- I hadn't heard that they would even follow thru with a trial. But even if there is one it would be a lot more fair trial for him than the one she had before Warren Jeffs now wouldn't it? She was damned to eternal damnation if she didn't listen to him and follow his ways.

You sure are worried about these people selling books and making money.

Something tells me they would loved to have grown up in a time where their fathers and mothers didn't trade them out at these early ages. Something tells me that they would loved to have not waken up to days of resenting the person laying next to them or going to sleep fearful of their days ahead.

But for all the ugly things that have happened to them in their lifetime they have not gotten so cold that they have closed their eyes and hearts to others that hurt. They have not slammed the doors on those that seek help and guidance.

If you could not see the pain in Elissas eyes or hear her pain, you evalles have it much worse than these women ever did. They sought a way out of their misery. You imo enjoy being miserable. I don't feel sorry for you. You are exactly where you want to be.

I tried putting you on ignore once but I kept reading your posts thru others replies. But I sure am going to try real real hard to ignore your cold and callous comments.

walton

05-17-2008, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Of course it applies but that is rarely prosecuted and some States have an agreement not to. I do not see what the point of that would be anyway. You cant prove a spiritual marriage occurred unless someone involved cooperated and they why would they?

With all of these complaints about nationwide welfare fraud and men not taking care of their children you think we should start enforcing something like this with men who have 20 kids that he supports? [/*]

Just how are those men supporting those big families?

Mimi428

05-17-2008, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by walton
mimi

take a look at this and would it apply?
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.006.00.000025.00.htm

1) he is legally married and he:
[/*]

<snipped>

Oh, it definitely applies. The whole trick is that the male KNOWS he is married already - yet he holds himself out to be married to someone besides the person he is legally & originally married to.

This is way different than some tomcatting guy who is married but goes around having sexual relationships with other women & has children with them. He can do that day in & day out - and as long as he does not represent himself as being married to someone other than his legal wife - no bigamy has occurred.

And it really IS easy to establish a common law marriage, if each party wishes to do so. If you live together & present yourself as married - in Texas, that is good enough.

The tricky part comes in when one party wants to dissolve the marriage. . .(especially if there are children and/or property).

I think the difficulty with the FLDS is that those within the community will deny that the couples every presented themselves as being married. And in such a closed society, who can refute what they say? They would need someone who was in, but has left & can give credible sworn testimony, IMO.

walton

05-17-2008, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

They are a totally self sufficient small town unto themselves are you kidding me? How self serving of you to assume they are all on welfare and that YOU are supporting them. [/*]

Don't be biting at me Bratlings. Tell me how they support themselves.

I must have missed the many stories, any story about how these people from the YFZ Ranch are supporting themselves.

They might grow their own food but they still have to have cash dollars to buy those big pick up trucks, cell phones, etc.

Mimi428

05-17-2008, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

They are a totally self sufficient small town unto themselves are you kidding me? How self serving of you to assume they are all on welfare and that YOU are supporting them. [/*]

I did not see anything in walton's post that indicated she was assuming the Eldorado group was on welfare.

I do think it is valid to have questions about whether & how the Eldorado group is 'self sufficient'. Were they truly self sufficient? Were they sent funds from another FLDS group? Did they in any way benefit from the welfare fraud that has been perpetrated in other states? Did they benefit from government contracts? If they received government contracts, was the labor being legally done by adults old enough to be in the work force?

That big ol' temple wasn't built out of rocks & stones found on their compound in Eldorado, Texas - & their clothing was probably not spun from cotton raised on their own land. There are probably a huge number of things that could be pointed out as being impossible to acquire except by purchase with real money. I think it is reasonable to question how such money was obtained.

JMO

Mimi428

05-17-2008, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Yes it was! [/*]

Thanks for that link! I did not realize there was a quarry on that property.

hammer on me for that error. My apologies to all.

walton

05-18-2008, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Currently the ranch, home to approximately 500 people who relocated from Arizona and Utah communities, houses a temple, a waste treatment facility, a 29,000-square-foot (2,700 m²) house for FLDS church president Warren Jeffs, a meeting house, and several large log and concrete homes.[6] There are generators, gardens, a grain silo, and a large stone quarry that was cut for the temple. The ranch is thought to be self-sufficient.

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

Now that you know these men actually DID support their children it changes things a bit huh? You still want to rip away their father over bigamy? [/*]

I beg to differ. They built a Temple. They built houses. Where did they get the money?

The ranch is thought to be self-sufficient. Doesn't mean that it is self-sufficient.

Were they selling grains? Cattle? veggies? cheese? If so was there a registered business filed within the county? the state? Nope. They were not listed as a Church either.

Check this out: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:313592

Colorado cops arrested little brother Seth Jeffs on Oct. 28, after Pueblo Co. deputies were called about a possible drunken driver near the city of Pueblo. Police found Seth Jeffs and cousin Nathaniel Steed Allred in an SUV; Allred told police he'd been hired by Seth Jeffs to provide sexual favors to his cousin. Also inside the car, police found more than $140,000 in cash, numerous letters addressed to Warren Jeffs, and a glass bowl, affixed with a photo of Warren and labeled "Pennies for the Prophet." Seth Jeffs told authorities he didn't know where his brother was and was simply acting as a "messenger," taking the money and letters to a church bishop inside the new FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas, just south of San Angelo.

walton

05-18-2008, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings
"Leaders of the Eldorado Success newspaper in Schleicher County, Texas, get weekly updates on the site. Photos of a massive building that resembles one of the first LDS temples are posted, as are pictures of large houses, a dairy operation, rock quarry, orchards, gardens, a warehouse and other buildings."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600123730,00.html [/*]

Saw all that. Dairy operation. So..... When I lived in Utah I saw people with 2 cows in their backyard. Did that make them ranchers? No. It made them a family with 2 cows in their backyard. jmo

With 500 people living inside 4 walls they needed a dairy operation. Where they hauling milk off to someplace else? Where? Where is the listing that states they were doing business? What was the business called?

P.S. Don't fall for the it was a hunting retreat story. They purchased the land by telling people that they were going to open up a hunting retreat. They lied. They repeated the same story in 2 other states I believe.

xray ra

05-18-2008, 12:08 AM

I believe Bigamy and/or Polygamy is still against the law in the United States of America. :patriot:
I don't believe they were self sufficient. I believe that the network of 10,000 members in North America were told to support the YFZ ranch.
The cult members at this particular ranch were supposedly hand picked by the prophet, Warren Jeffs.

BTW, Does anyone have a problem with the pictures of WJ on every wall in the houses. He is, after all, a convicted child predator!!!
It would be like going into someone's home and finding multiple pictures and candles honoring the memory of Ted Bundy!:confused:

xray ra

05-18-2008, 12:12 AM

:biggrin:

I let my siggy line say it all!

walton

05-18-2008, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

They worked and supported themselves!

http://gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/16/flds-linked-to-low-bid-construction-firms/ [/*]

Who do you suppose supported those families of workers who turned all their monies right back over to Jeffs?

Did you watch Banking on Heaven? Have you read any of the books? any of the links?

Have you seen the figures for the Colorado City and Hilldale area that speaks about the Welfare Programs and the Dollars being spent?

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy428.html

A construction company in Hildale has been fined $10,395 for using boys, including a 12-year-old, to do roofing work.

The firm, Paragon Contractors, also failed to pay the boys, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division.

This is just one story.

KatyDid

05-18-2008, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by walton

I beg to differ. They built a Temple. They built houses. Where did they get the money?

The ranch is thought to be self-sufficient. Doesn't mean that it is self-sufficient.

Were they selling grains? Cattle? veggies? cheese? If so was there a registered business filed within the county? the state? Nope. They were not listed as a Church either.

Check this out: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:313592

Colorado cops arrested little brother Seth Jeffs on Oct. 28, after Pueblo Co. deputies were called about a possible drunken driver near the city of Pueblo. Police found Seth Jeffs and cousin Nathaniel Steed Allred in an SUV; Allred told police he'd been hired by Seth Jeffs to provide sexual favors to his cousin. Also inside the car, police found more than $140,000 in cash, numerous letters addressed to Warren Jeffs, and a glass bowl, affixed with a photo of Warren and labeled "Pennies for the Prophet." Seth Jeffs told authorities he didn't know where his brother was and was simply acting as a "messenger," taking the money and letters to a church bishop inside the new FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas, just south of San Angelo. [/*]

Don't they need money to buy the cattle, seeds, grain, and all the other stuff it takes to start a ranch and keep it going? A ranch doesn't just pop and and become self-sufficient. There has to be seed money to start this kind of endeavor.

FLDS bought two large parcels of land here in Colorado using the same 'lie' they told in Texas...a hunting retreat for wealthy clients.

IIRC, they just bought two more large parcels not far from Canon City, CO. These parcels are not far from the Mancos property they have already established a 'locked' compound on.

:shrug: so where does all the money come from? Didn't Wisan say the UEP Trust was drained.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy862.html

Bruce Wisan, an officer for the sect's $100 million real estate trust, said he believes sect spiritual leader Warren Jeffs drained the trust to pay for the YFZ Ranch and improvements there now valued at $21 million altogether.

"Warren was converting trust assets into cash at fire-sale prices to get the cash to build up the community in Eldorado," Wisan said.

walton

05-18-2008, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I dont even care why they bought it or what lies they told. It is their business. Why do you care? [/*]

Child labor ok with you? Babies being born with health issues don't concern you? Young teenage girls who can't even get their ears pierced (if they wanted to ) are getting married to old men that they might be related to doesn't bother you?

Tax dollars being spent to support them is ok with you when Grandma down the street can't get in the system because there is no money left, is alright with you?

walton

05-18-2008, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I expected that because most peoples entire basis for hating them is that they are all supposedly on welfare and molesting children... When it all falls through you will need a new excuse but until then you will hang on to it as long as possible. [/*]

Hating them?

Boy are you wrong.

evalles

05-18-2008, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by walton

Concerning Elissa Walls ex- I hadn't heard that they would even follow thru with a trial. But even if there is one it would be a lot more fair trial for him than the one she had before Warren Jeffs now wouldn't it? She was damned to eternal damnation if she didn't listen to him and follow his ways.

You sure are worried about these people selling books and making money.

Something tells me they would loved to have grown up in a time where their fathers and mothers didn't trade them out at these early ages. Something tells me that they would loved to have not waken up to days of resenting the person laying next to them or going to sleep fearful of their days ahead.

But for all the ugly things that have happened to them in their lifetime they have not gotten so cold that they have closed their eyes and hearts to others that hurt. They have not slammed the doors on those that seek help and guidance.

If you could not see the pain in Elissas eyes or hear her pain, you evalles have it much worse than these women ever did. They sought a way out of their misery. You imo enjoy being miserable. I don't feel sorry for you. You are exactly where you want to be.

I tried putting you on ignore once but I kept reading your posts thru others replies. But I sure am going to try real real hard to ignore your cold and callous comments. [/*]

You base my being miserable on ? I have healthy, beautiful children, a good husband who works his butt off for us, a good job, a nice house in a great neighborhood, good friends, wonderful neighbors, I have enough money to pay my bills and give my children everything they need. I regret not being able to afford staying home with my kids and I have a strained relationship with my teenage daughter, but this does not make me miserable. I wouldn't want you to feel sorry for me, there's no need to. I'm finally recovering from the worst year of my life and I'm grateful that I didn't lose my job from taking so much time off.
I'm planning for our trip to Mexico in December and just finished my flower bed.

I am exactly where I want to be. Except, Id like to take off the weight I put on last year, I think due to all the stress.

I'm sorry that I don't see misery and fear in Elissa Wall's wedding photo's. To say that money isn't a huge motivator for many (even good people) is ludicrous.

Her statements do show that underage marriage isn't as common as believed. She said that both her sisters married at 18 and that she was shocked that they would want her to marry at 14, she didn't know of people marrying that young. If you believe everything she says, I don't expect any more posts that all girls are married off at 13 or 14. She doesn't claim to have been molested by her father or even told about sex before that time. She was hardly "taught" from a young age to be "pedophile fodder.

I believe some of her pain is caused by her estrangement from her family.

walton

05-18-2008, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

ONLY people who live on the compounds are involved in their communities. Including their employees. They do not pay rent, bills etc so when they work it is understandable that it would constitute their contribution and payment. [/*]

Wrong again.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7121/very-unique-ties-with-flds-spell-trouble-for-bank

Take Holm, for instance.

Using funds borrowed from the Bank of Ephraim, Holm said, he bought 140 model homes on a defunct California military base and, as a donation, moved about 60 of them to the community for use as residences.

In exchange, the community’s work crews were to help Holm move the rest of the buildings to Littlefield, Ariz., where he expected to sell them.

But Jeffs expelled Holm from the faith in November and, according to Holm, the work crews were told to have nothing to do with him.

xray ra

05-18-2008, 12:38 AM

Verifiable links have been posted. Some just chose to ignore the evidence.

Those posters will go by the way side when the evidence is presented in court and all of the charges against the FDLS/YFZ members are compiled.

This happens in every single case/thread I have followed!!!

LOL out loud!

xray ra

05-18-2008, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by walton

Hating them?
Boy are you wrong. [/*]

I feel so sorry for them. I pray for the children and even for the adults that know deep down that Warren Jeffs does NOT have a direct communication with God.

I saw a film clip of him in jail during visitation saying that "God was still directing him" What a nutball!! IMO JMO, ect.....
BTW, all his communication is monitored by video or audio. So all will be known. :D

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:02 AM

No matter how "rare" , any sexual union with an underage child is against man's laws and God's laws.
hammer

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:06 AM

:shrug: Whhaaaaatttttt?????????????

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:08 AM

"Although it might be rare"
Not my words.:)

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
For even one girl under the age of 18 to be married to a much older man is one too many. I am sure that there are more horror stories then we care to know about. I do not call it being a girls own decision to be married when she is told that it will be eteral damnation if she does not do what this supposed prophet tells her to do. That is just putting more fear into these children.

I do not know how they are making money, but I am sure not all of it is legal. I also do not agree with making the young boys being as young as 12 doing roofing jobs as being right.

I have heard comments about living for free in the homes, but I do not believe anything is free. There is always something attached when somebody offers something for free to you. It seems to me that they in a sense lost their life by following the ways of the FLDS.

jmoo [/*]

Hi Grammy, I care!! And I know that alot of us out here care about what you think and how much you have contributed to this board. Your insight has been invaluable.
Love RA

:seeya:

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:38 AM

lotty

05-18-2008, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Why is education so important to you in their regard? They do not believe that a womans role is anything other than caring for her family, so why would they want more than that? Many religions believe that, except they are not closed societies. [/*]

Ignorance leads to servitude. You are very informed about their beliefs. As always JMO/IMO.

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:44 AM

Nite Nite all you West Coast folk,

It is way past this old lady's bedtime. HeHe:)

lotty

05-18-2008, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

That is your opinion, these people are far from ignorant. [/*]

Correct. That is why it says JMO Just My Opinion/IMO In My Opinion.

xray ra

05-18-2008, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by lotty

Ignorance leads to servitude. You are very informed about their beliefs. As always JMO/IMO. [/*]

Ignorance for sure. Education would empower them.

lotty

05-18-2008, 01:55 AM

What on earth does Fred Phelps have to do with FLDS? As always JMO/IMO.

evalles

05-18-2008, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

I find the majority of your posts to be rude in the extreme. Given your signature line, it's a bit hypocritical.

Two or more people are gathered on this message board - perhaps you could ask God for His guidance in adopting a more Christ-like way to respond to other posters here. [/*]

And you would be the expert on being rude to the extreme.
Golly G Wiz--- Here are a few of your Christian like posts..

There are surely some CPS workers who drink too much and medicate themselves in other ways, just as cops are known to do.
I would too, if I spent my days looking at the darkest sides of people, trying to sort out their messes, all the while being criticized and judged by people like you. [/*]

Me thinks someone has gone off her meds.

Let's not forget your first concern here - and that's the polygamist parents of those 464 children.

I don't think God appreciates hypocrites.

Jesus indicated that those who practiced hypocrisy would be sent to hell,16 indicating that they were really non-believers. In other books of the New Testament, the writers associate hypocrisy with such things as evil,17 lying,18 perverting the gospel,19 envy and slander,20 and jealousy and selfish ambition.21 James contrasts the evil of hypocrisy with the "wisdom from above," which is characterized as being "pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering

What is hypocrisy?The dictionary definition of hypocrisy is:

hy·poc·ri·sy [hi-pok-ruh-see]
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
an act or instance of hypocrisy

My definition is ...Someone that doesn't practice what they preach.

evalles

05-18-2008, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

There's considerably more documented information to back up my theory than you have for yours.

The 'lost boys' got lost on the compound among the adult men? ... Please. You created that one out of whole cloth.

I realize you're a terrific bully, Bratlings - and clearly quite proud of yourself, but if you think you're bullying anyone here into believing you know much of anything about the Eldorado FLDS sect, you're seriously mistaken. [/*]

Bullying is something else you recognize from experience.

evalles

05-18-2008, 02:36 AM

Some of the foster care facilities the FLDS children are staying in have racked up violations.

The Deseret News conducted an online check of the inspection records and reports for the facilities the judge ordered the children to stay in. They are publicly accessible on the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services' Web site.

"Foster children are being spanked with a belt as a form of discipline," said one 2007 report for the Presbyterian Children's Homes & Services in Waxahachie, Texas

Foster child was made to stand on one foot in a closed closet as a form of discipline," said another report on the facility.

The Kidz Harbor Home in Liverpool, Texas, was written up in February for two residents having sex at the facility. The Cal Farley's Boys Ranch in Amarillo was written up in February for not reporting a child's critical injury in a timely enough manner. It was also written up that same month for having a staff member becoming aware of a child's bruises, but failing to report it

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695277366,00.html?pg=2

evalles

05-18-2008, 03:27 AM

The arrest warrant for Rozita Swinton.
It shows that the shelter and the police knew the call wasn't coming from the ranch and was in fact a # that had been used by Rozita Swinton to make other fake calls.

http://kidjacked.com/pdf/CO_arrest_warrant_for_Rozita_Swinton.pdf

It seems they knew the calls were fake and still used them to obtain a warrant.

This is government abuse at it's worst.
Who's next ?

evalles

05-18-2008, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I have read reports about this in the news, which law enforcement wanted us to believe was just a mere "possible" explanation for the call but this just sickens me that they knew for certain and used that as an excuse to take 460 kids. I am even more outraged now!!!! [/*]

What more are they trying to cover up ?

Why do you think they're doing this ?

I have a feeling this case goes way beyond CPS.

Rainkiss

05-18-2008, 09:32 AM

First off, having your children work at your company is one thing. However, there are laws about what a child under the age of 18, or 16, may do. Construction work, being inherantly dangerous, is definately on the "not" list.

Department of Labor (http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/)

Also, ANYBODY who works must be paid. If you're paying them room and board, that also must be reported. Pay is to be TAXED. Every time the FLDS uses unpaid labor, it costs you and me, because they're not paying their taxes.

Second, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate the FLDS. I think they're terribly misguided, and have been more so, since Warren Jeffs took over. They've got every right to practice their own faith, up to the point where their practice runs up against the laws of the land. Now that they've been caught breaking the law, they need to be investigated, and those who have been breaking the law need to be punished appropriately. The rest need to be educated about what the laws really are, and need to agree to follow them.

Rainkiss

05-18-2008, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

As I understand it they were actually being paid but then turning it back over, some of them at least. I do not believe you are correct though about what a child can do. I know that the Duggar family kids built a house! [/*]

More Specific Department of Labor Site (http://www.youthrules.dol.gov/selfassess_nonAgri.htm)

This is the Department of Labor's site which allows employers to assess if they are in compliance with the underage workers laws. I believe it has been linked on these boards before that the FLDS companies have been fined more than once for not being in compliance with these laws. Some of the guidelines:

With regard to any employee under the age of 18, do any of them:

Work in or about plants or establishments manufacturing or storing explosives or articles containing explosive components?
(RK Note: Many construction companies use explosives)

Drive or serve as an outside helper on any motor vehicle (including, but not limited to, automobiles, trucks, golf carts, etc.) on a public road or highway?

Operate or assist in the operation of any power-driven hoisting apparatus (including a forklift)?

Operate or assist in the operation of any power-driven hoisting apparatus (including a forklift)?

Operate or assist to operate, set-up, adjust, repair, oil, or clean any power-driven circular saws, bandsaws, or guillotine shears?

Work in any occupation involved in wrecking, demolition, or shipbreaking operations?

Work in any occupation in roofing operations or perform any work on or about a roof?

Work in occupations in excavation operations?

If you answer "Yes" to any of those questions, you are likely not in compliance.

With regard to any employee under the age of 16, do any of them:

Work during school hours?

Work before 7:00 a.m. on any day?

Work past 7:00 p.m. between Labor Day and May 31st?

Work past 9:00 p.m. between June 1st and Labor Day?

Work more than 3 hours on a school day, including Fridays?

Work more than 8 hours on any day?

Work more than 18 hours in any week when school is in session?

Work more than 40 hours in any week when school is not in session?

Operate any power-driven machinery other than office machines?

Work in occupations in connection with construction (including repair)?

Perform any work requiring the use of ladders, scaffolds, or their substitutes?

Are any of your employees under 14 years of age?

Do you fail to maintain a record providing proof of age for all employees under 19 years of age?

Helping your parents build their own home is one thing. Working for a construction company is a WHOLE different thing. If you are under 16, you flat out can't work for a construction company. If you're under 14, you can't work for a company at all. They need to maintain records with proof of age for each of the children who CAN work.

These are the federal laws, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, states may have more restrictive guidelines.

Is that enough, or shall I dig up the exact quotes from the law for you? This is the easiest to read and understand.

evalles

05-18-2008, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08
evalles- empty your mailbox please. [/*]

Just did.

John7878

05-18-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

. Theres perversion in any community, for sure. For all I know the same things is going on in a house down the street from me. [/*]

QUOTE"There is no evidence that suggests domestic violence is any more prevalent in Amish communities than among other groups."

Looks like your right.......:(

KatyDid

05-18-2008, 06:44 PM

Lyndawitha"Y

05-18-2008, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

You're absolutely right about the big disappearing act that could occur the second those kids are handed back over to the FLDS. In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere (no clue where, at the moment) that the YFZ compound is all but abandoned now. The parents have presumably moved to be closer to their children in foster care.

It will be interesting to see how they regroup as a sect down the road, since it seems that for the foreseeable future, the state of Texas intends to hold them accountable to accomplish the tasks and goals that were recently published. [/*]

I truly hope you are correct in your estimation of Texas's abilities..These sects and their control of women and children must be curtailed and stopped. I have nothing against having multiple wives or having many children, but my tolerance stops at wholesale movement of these chattles as commodities by a handful of people..and using the freedoms of religion to fuel their agendas! All this mindset does is fuel radical thinking and yes there seems to be a few here in that mindset..scarry to me..
LMS:seeya:

evalles

05-18-2008, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

I'm hardly a bully, but I do occasionally run out of patience.

It's annoying enough to me that there are people who would prefer to give the FLDS parents the benefit of the doubt, even if it means sacrificing more children to abuse. In order to argue that point, one has to completely ignore the massive amount of evidence that has come to light over the years that abuse - both subtle forms of it and the very worst examples of it - are part and parcel of the FLDS way of life.

What upsets me more is the horrible cynicism toward the stories of the survivors, and toward the survivors themselves. [/*]

As many have chosen to ignore the evidence that not only was the call that lead to the raid a fake but that the authorities knew before they requested the warrant. This is gov't corruption at it's worst. And it's being paid for with our money.
Why is everyone so quick to say all the kids were abused when there's massive evidence that CPS and state officials lied ?
Why should anything they say be believed ?
There were 11 eye-witness reports regarding the disrespectful and abusive treatment of the mother's and their children by CPS workers. Those reports have been discounted by many. I've heard speculation that the FLDS mothers themselves might have written the letters or that the workers were inexperienced, etc.
How could this be true when the reports were submitted to the supervisor of these workers ? He knows who they are. The families are being abused by the very system in charge of protecting them.
I'm sure that the reports are true. The commissioner that released the reports was outraged, there was nothing in it for him, he wants civil rights attorneys to represent the victims. Although their reports are anonymous -NOW, they're going to be able to testify in court. We'll know who they are when the mother's attorneys call them as witnesses. If the state can't find a way to keep them quiet, CPS is going to be hit hard when they're able to actually talk to the media.

warhorse46

05-18-2008, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by evalles

As many have chosen to ignore the evidence that not only was the call that lead to the raid a fake but that the authorities knew before they requested the warrant. This is gov't corruption at it's worst. And it's being paid for with our money.
Why is everyone so quick to say all the kids were abused when there's massive evidence that CPS and state officials lied ?
Why should anything they say be believed ?
There were 11 eye-witness reports regarding the disrespectful and abusive treatment of the mother's and their children by CPS workers. Those reports have been discounted by many. I've heard speculation that the FLDS mothers themselves might have written the letters or that the workers were inexperienced, etc.
How could this be true when the reports were submitted to the supervisor of these workers ? He knows who they are. The families are being abused by the very system in charge of protecting them.
I'm sure that the reports are true. The commissioner that released the reports was outraged, there was nothing in it for him, he wants civil rights attorneys to represent the victims. Although their reports are anonymous -NOW, they're going to be able to testify in court. We'll know who they are when the mother's attorneys call them as witnesses. If the state can't find a way to keep them quiet, CPS is going to be hit hard when they're able to actually talk to the media. [/*]

They knew the call was fake before they requested a warrant? That is not believable, especially since a Judge must issue the warrant & strong evidence for it must exist for him/her to do so. What kind of reports were reported to what supervisor? I have heard on 3 separate news reports just the opposite--that the CPS workers & police were very respectful & courteous to everyone during & after the warrant was served. Nobody @ the state level is preventing the FLDS parents from talking, they are free to talk to anyone they want so why are you saying the CPS is going to be hit hard when they can talk? The system is protecting the ones it is supposed to protect---the children. And for the millionth time nobody has said ALL of the children were abused, if you are going to quote us please get the quote correct. At this point some of the children have evidence of abuse & Texas law requires children be removed from an abusive situation until it can all be sorted out. That is exactly what has been done.

Mimi428

05-18-2008, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by evalles

If the state can't find a way to keep them quiet, CPS is going to be hit hard when they're able to actually talk to the media. [/*]

<snipped>

Who are you referring to specifically when you say "them"?

If you mean the FLDS members - neither CPS nor the state of Texas is preventing them from speaking out whenever & wherever they want. They can call up every radio station, TV station, newspaper & website & sing out at the top of their lungs.

If the mental health workers were not hired by the state, they can speak out right now, too.

The ONLY people who are presently prevented from speaking out about any specific person, child or bit of evidence are LE, CPS & every other state worker. I imagine some choose not to, but others - CPS workers in particular - are absolutely NOT ALLOWED - by LAW - to go to the media & speak about the basics nor the specifics of the case. The only options they have are to testify & present evidence in court. The laws protecting the privacy of minors are very strict.

Mimi428

05-18-2008, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by grammybear

If the real mothers comply then they should be given the opportunity to have their children back but if they will not comply then they will have to find their own way.

[/*]

<snipped>

After seeing how many children are listed as incompletely identified on the public notice, I am having strong doubts as to whether their biological mothers will ever step up to the plate & act according to the best interests of their child(ren).

For all the tears we have heard about, I am still very uncertain as to what distress caused the tears. I believe the CPS workers & the others involved in removing the children made it very clear to the women that it was of the utmost importance for the children to be completely identitied - yet we see that there are a very large number of children incompletely identified. That begs the question of WHY the mothers refused to cooperate?

Why were they too afraid to act in the best interests of their children? Is it because there was no one instructing them from the FLDS group as to what to do & they were too afraid to take any actions without prior instructions? Is it because they were instructed by one or more men from the compound to not cooperate?

Were their tears at separation a manifestation of mothers' anxieties over concern for their children's immediate needs? Is it possible they fear that once the children have been exposed to the outside world that Warren Jeffs will find a reason to kick them (mothers) out? Or instruct them to give up working for their children's return, in order to protect the FLDS from further scrutiny? Are they fearful that they will be seen by the hierarchy of the FLDS as having not done enough? Too much? Do they fear a punishment or reassignment for what they may have said to the investigators?

I firmly believe that any parent with typical & usual feelings towards their children would be quick to provide full names & as much identifying info as they could possibly cough up once they were told that it was a necessary step toward getting their children back - yet THIS group of 'mothers' left a huge number of their children unidentified by anything other than a first name.

Has to be a very powerful force & fear in them if they are not willing to take that very logical first step - identify everyone & sort out which child(ren) belong to which parents.

JMO

Mimi428

05-18-2008, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by grammybear

I know there is a lot of talk about how CPS just took all the children out without just cause but we were not there. We do not know what the authorities saw to make the determinations that they did that these children could be in danger of being abused. [/*]

<bandwidth snip again>

I get Austin news here & although I cannot provide a link to the TV newscasts which have aired, I can attest that it has been reported repeatedly, since very early on, that when it comes down to courtroom time - there is going to be a LOT - a WHOLE LOT of evidence presented pertaining to what was observed & found on & at the compound. We are reminded in just about every story that laws in place to protect these minor children prevent the public from hearing about this evidence before it is submitted to the court. It cannot be revealed by state workers, they would not only lose their jobs, they could be charged with breaking the law if they were to tell a news person what they found, what they saw, what they will present in court.

As of right now, I am confident that when the proper time comes, the court will learn about a mountain of things which led to CPS deciding that every child must be removed. Just because the public hasn't been given every detail does not mean those details don't exist.

In the meantime, while I may believe that the FLDS is trying like crazy to create a huge outcry against the state & is doing everything they can think of to paint a picture of sainted mothers & fathers living a simple life & wanting protect their children from the evils of the modern world . . . I fully expect that the judge(s) will hear SWORN testimony & that evidence will be presented that thoroughly rebukes those rosy fairy-tales.

And much as I hate to contemplate it, I am dreadfully concerned that the tears were falling as much out of fear of punishment by the elders as they were falling out of motherly love & concern. I believe wholeheartedly that the FLDS men are well versed in knowing how to kiss up (to the public right now & their prophet always) & kick down (on the women & children).

JMO

walton

05-18-2008, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

You are searching desperately to find ways to have men who are not molesting their children and fully supporting them arrested. Yes, that is hate. [/*]

I am searching desperately to find ways to better educate those that don't have a clue....

KatyDid

05-18-2008, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by walton

I am searching desperately to find ways to better educate those that don't have a clue.... [/*]

I hear ya walton!
Some people just can't seem to grasp it is what these people are taught. It is what they live and breath every day to follow the warped teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet. Even Jeffs confessed he was not a prophet while in prison ON TAPE, but they still believe the warped teachings.

All anyone has to do is read what these people read and listen to 24/7 to know what is on the outside is only a facade. The teachings are pure evil, IMO.

evalles

05-19-2008, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by warhorse46

They knew the call was fake before they requested a warrant? That is not believable, especially since a Judge must issue the warrant & strong evidence for it must exist for him/her to do so. What kind of reports were reported to what supervisor? I have heard on 3 separate news reports just the opposite--that the CPS workers & police were very respectful & courteous to everyone during & after the warrant was served. Nobody @ the state level is preventing the FLDS parents from talking, they are free to talk to anyone they want so why are you saying the CPS is going to be hit hard when they can talk? The system is protecting the ones it is supposed to protect---the children. And for the millionth time nobody has said ALL of the children were abused, if you are going to quote us please get the quote correct. At this point some of the children have evidence of abuse & Texas law requires children be removed from an abusive situation until it can all be sorted out. That is exactly what has been done. [/*]

I've never seen the law that states they can take kids until it all gets sorted out.
If every child wasn't abused, every child shouldn't have been removed.
They won't be hit hard by the FLDS, it will be outraged citizens and and mental health providers. I think there'll even be some CPS workers that have consciences that eventually speak out.

Who cares about the news reports when 11 mental health workers who are eyewitnesses reported on the horrible conditions and the inhumane treatment of the women and children?
It doesn't sound like you read the reports by the social workers from the mental health center. I can't wait til they testify in court.
__________________________________________________ __
Children living in crowded quarters that led to upper respiratory illnesses. Youngsters plagued with diarrhea from unhealthy foods they usually did not eat. Distressed mothers enduring widespread rudeness - such as flashlights shined in their faces as they tried to sleep.
Mental health professionals who helped care for FLDS women and children in the weeks after an April raid on the YFZ Ranch describe conditions and treatment they perceived as harsh and unnecessary.
"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community
Staff members met with the center's board of trustees last week, leaving them "spellbound." The board has gathered nine written statements critical of Child Protective Services.
Chairman John Kight said he wants state legislators and the governor to hear the employees' stories. "You have damaged these children for their lives," he said. "This is an agency that looks like it's gone out of control."

Not all Texas CPS employees were criticized by the Hill Country employees. One young man was described as sitting for two hours comforting a toddler separated from his mother. The Texas Rangers were "respectful and polite," according to another statement.
*Why couldn't they all have been like this young CPS worker ?
A boy estimated at age 3 walked along a row of cots asking for someone to rock him after he was separated from his mother, one employee wrote. Two CPS worker trailed the youngster taking notes but not helping him. His brother, age 8, eventually took the child into his arms and sat with him in a rocking chair.
"That little boy will always be in my mind," the employee wrote. "How can a beautiful, healthy child be taken from a healthy, loving home and forced into a situation like that, right here in America, right here in Texas?"

Nice, huh ? Our tax dollars at work.
An 8 year old boy has more compassion than these adult CPS workers.
Mothers who initially were allowed to stay with their children were later required to leave if their child was older than 12 months. Describing that day, one employee wrote, "the floor was literally slick with tears in places."
After the separation, a baby was allegedly left in a stroller with no food and water for 24 hours and ended up in a hospital, according to another statement.

If he would have died, I don't think anyone on this board would dare to blame the great child protectors.
Why isn't someone there to remove them from the state's custody for abuse ?????
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238520

The shelter had caller ID and the numbers used were known to have been used by Rozita Swinton.

evalles

05-19-2008, 01:01 AM

A CPS worker confesses - it's NOT about the best interests of the child:

She thought she was hired to protect children. But instead, a city child abuse investigator discovered that betraying her clients was part of her job description. Tales from a year inside the Administration for Children's Services.

By Akka Gordon

http://www.fixcas.com/journal/gordon.htm

evalles

05-19-2008, 01:08 AM

CPS Worker who is also a Foster Parent, charged with murdering her foster child - duct taped, tied to chair in basement...

Hope none of these kids wind up like this little girl.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fostercare/marr/

Just something to ponder while thinking about how much better off these children are.

She was a CPS worker and a foster parent.

Details

05-19-2008, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
As with every other criminal case that is investigated there is always evidence that is not told to the public. Where Texas is trying to do what is right for these children they have to keep important information away from the public. I also believe that when the time comes all of this information will come to light. I am afraid that it will be very nightmarish for the public to hear of these issues. I also agree with the tears being for themselves also because they know what will happen to them from the men in their life.
...
I am sure that a lot of this group do not know what the laws are. They are and have been purposedly been kept in the dark. But this ignorance will not protect them if they break the laws.
I think that Alan Steed was just as much in the dark as Elissa about the ways of the world, but that does not excuse him for what he did. I suspect that will be refleced in the sentencing phase of his trial. Jeffs sure did a good job on these young people. He will forever have to answer for the awful things he has done.

jmoo [/*]Yep - ignorance is not an excuse - from the sounds of what some experts say, it may be getting the parents a second chance if they haven't been excessively abusive - but that's about it. I think Alan Steed will also get a bit of that type of break. Jeffs, obviously, got none, and deserved none - he knew what he was doing.

xray ra

05-19-2008, 03:22 AM

I went to the "Hill Country Mental Health" home site. Very interesting.
Sounds to me like a pricey private facility that does some contract work with the State and Fed govt. in order to qualify for federal funds.
The workers were not "fired". They were highly paid private contractors that the State of Texas could no longer afford! IMO

Naturally, these private workers probably looked at their CPS couterparts as not equally qualified and the CPS workers naturally thought their area was being usurped.
I also checked out the Hill Country privacy policy and it definately states that no worker can comment on any "Client" to the press!

Sounds like a cat fight to me! <hisssssss>

ETA: jmo

Rainkiss

05-19-2008, 07:35 AM

Found out where everyone is disappearng to...

postchronicle.com (http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212147867.shtml)

They're buying land and building in Colorado, where...

The unfettered age of consent in Colorado is 17, however there exist in the legislation close in age exceptions which allow those at least 15 and less than 17 to engage in acts with those less than ten years older and those less than 15 to engage in acts with those less than four years older.

18-3-402(1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if: (d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or (e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim

The found a lower age of consent. Hoping Colorado takes a good look at their laws and revamps 'em before they get settled in.

Mimi428

05-19-2008, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Not all Texas CPS employees were criticized by the Hill Country employees. One young man was described as sitting for two hours comforting a toddler separated from his mother. The Texas Rangers were "respectful and polite," according to another statement.
*Why couldn't they all have been like this young CPS worker ?
A boy estimated at age 3 walked along a row of cots asking for someone to rock him after he was separated from his mother, one employee wrote. Two CPS worker trailed the youngster taking notes but not helping him. His brother, age 8, eventually took the child into his arms and sat with him in a rocking chair.
"That little boy will always be in my mind," the employee wrote. "How can a beautiful, healthy child be taken from a healthy, loving home and forced into a situation like that, right here in America, right here in Texas?"

An 8 year old boy has more compassion than these adult CPS workers.
Describing that day, one employee wrote, "the floor was literally slick with tears in places."
After the separation, a baby was allegedly left in a stroller with no food and water for 24 hours and ended up in a hospital, according to another statement.

[/*]

<bandwidth snip>

Left in a stroller for 24 hours? Floors slick with tears? Little BOYS having more compassion? Texas Rangers (majority if not all, MALES) are ok? Young MAN sitting for 2 hours with a toddler?

If you honestly believe those things happened - most especially the toddler story - you have my profound sympathy.

Does it not strike you as rather convenient that (surprise, surprise) MALES (ya know, the gender that's exalted in this group?) are magically presented as being something akin to 'saviors' in those stories?

If the baby left for 24 hours story was true - the media would have been all over that story, reporting from the hospital where this baby would have been taken. While the news folks have not been allowed into the buildings, they have undoubtedly been informed & report on hospitalization events - such as the 2 births.

JMO

Rainkiss

05-19-2008, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<bandwidth snip>

Left in a stroller for 24 hours? Floors slick with tears? Little BOYS having more compassion? Texas Rangers (majority if not all, MALES) are ok? Young MAN sitting for 2 hours with a toddler?

If you honestly believe those things happened - most especially the toddler story - you have my profound sympathy.

Does it not strike you as rather convenient that (surprise, surprise) MALES (ya know, the gender that's exalted in this group?) are magically presented as being something akin to 'saviors' in those stories?

If the baby left for 24 hours story was true - the media would have been all over that story, reporting from the hospital where this baby would have been taken. While the news folks have not been allowed into the buildings, they have undoubtedly been informed & report on hospitalization events - such as the 2 births.

JMO [/*]

What gets me... If the MH worker KNEW that there was a baby left in a stroller, or saw that little one looking for someone to hold him... What WAS that worker doing? Sitting for 24 hours and watching that stroller, waiting for a CPS worker to do something? Standing watching a crying child wander around?

Now, with a lack of beds, cribs, and such, I can certainly see an infant being left in one of the comfy strollers I've seen, a lot of those'd make a lot better bed than, say, a crib made for an older child. But... where was that infant's mother? The mothers of the children under a year old were, as far as I've heard, permitted to be with their children.

Nah, doesn't ring true. Has anybody checked to see if that contracting firm has connections with the FLDS? I know they've got ties with mental health in other states, threats of sending women off to mental health facilities is how they're controlled elsewhere.

evalles

05-19-2008, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Rainkiss

What gets me... If the MH worker KNEW that there was a baby left in a stroller, or saw that little one looking for someone to hold him... What WAS that worker doing? Sitting for 24 hours and watching that stroller, waiting for a CPS worker to do something? Standing watching a crying child wander around?

Now, with a lack of beds, cribs, and such, I can certainly see an infant being left in one of the comfy strollers I've seen, a lot of those'd make a lot better bed than, say, a crib made for an older child. But... where was that infant's mother? The mothers of the children under a year old were, as far as I've heard, permitted to be with their children.

Nah, doesn't ring true. Has anybody checked to see if that contracting firm has connections with the FLDS? I know they've got ties with mental health in other states, threats of sending women off to mental health facilities is how they're controlled elsewhere. [/*]

Maybe you should read it again. It didn't say infant, the child was 24 months (2 years).
Remember thr child that was in ICU for dehydration after being removed from his mother ???
Children over a year old were removed.
This facility had worked for CPS before. As far as the mental health worker not doing anything, how do you know she wasn't tending to another child? Maybe she thought the CPS worker would eventually tend to the child, as any other human being would. In one of the letters, the MH worker said she was getting ready to go to the child and then she saw the 8 yr old intervene.

The CPS worker was the one following the child around and doing nothing.
Amazing how those that say the children need to be protected at all costs, ignore this. This should certainly fall into the possible risk category. How many times have posters said that a child should be removed at the slightest sign of risk ?? Does that only pertain to parents ?
It doesn't ring true for you, because obviously you didn't read the article thoroughly enough to even know the child's age.

If you cared about the children, you'd be outraged that it could even be possible that within twenty-four hours of being removed "for his own good" he had to be admitted to the ICU for neglect by the child savers.

Your theory that the MH facility has ties to FLDS is laughable. If it were Utah, maybe, but they haven't been in TX that long and there's nothing to back it up. I'm sure we'll find out the truth when it goes to court.

And you claim that some are oblivious to the evidence ?

evalles

05-19-2008, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<bandwidth snip>

Left in a stroller for 24 hours? Floors slick with tears? Little BOYS having more compassion? Texas Rangers (majority if not all, MALES) are ok? Young MAN sitting for 2 hours with a toddler?

If you honestly believe those things happened - most especially the toddler story - you have my profound sympathy.

Does it not strike you as rather convenient that (surprise, surprise) MALES (ya know, the gender that's exalted in this group?) are magically presented as being something akin to 'saviors' in those stories?

If the baby left for 24 hours story was true - the media would have been all over that story, reporting from the hospital where this baby would have been taken. While the news folks have not been allowed into the buildings, they have undoubtedly been informed & report on hospitalization events - such as the 2 births.

JMO [/*]
They also talked about a female CPS employee that was outraged that the mothers had been lied to, they threatened her with arrest when she challenged them. The actual reports talk about other caring CPS workers. I hope they have the courage to speak out eventually.
The media did report on it. Remember the 2 year old they couldn't find ? Then the 2 year old was in ICU for dehydration.
Men think differently. IMO, women would be trying to take care of everything and therefore likely to overlook things. I can see a man taking note of one issue and focusing on that particular problem.

I believe it all happened, and I definitely don't want your sympathy. The media report that a toddler (same age as this one) was in ICU for dehydration the day after he was removed from his mother backs it up.
There were several posts on this as well as a link at the time it happened. I don't think you were commenting at that time.

evalles

05-19-2008, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
I thought there would be some kind of contract with employees or independent workers on cinfidentiality. I cannot imagine that these so called workers would tell the press anything.
A cat fight is right.

I sure hope members of this board will stick to facts . I am sure some people have issues with the state or CPS but you cannot let what happens to you color your outlook on this situatioon.

I will be checking in for new updates on the court hearings with the children.

jmoo [/*]

They didn't tell the press anything.. They reported it to their board of directors and the chairman who is also a former court commissioner released the reports.
Why ? IMO, so many people are spreading malicious gossip and CPS is making vague unsubstantiated claims to support their agenda that this man got pi$$ed off and wanted the truth to come out. I've read comments made by him and he's angry at the way these familie's were treated.
That's his agenda, he wants the truth to come out before all these mothers are tried and convicted in the media.

evalles

05-19-2008, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
Just because a person is a social worker and a foster parent does not mean that these people are any better then the rest of society. We will find good and bad in all walks of life.

When I hear about someone who supposedly worked in the mental health department and are saying some bad things about the treatment of people involved, I have to wonder what the ulterior motive is.

I think anyone can report to the media anything they want but if they can't provide documentation from the proper department then I have to think twice about what they are reporting.
Also if these mh workers saw things that were wrong why did they not report it to their supervisors or even further up the chain that any kind of abuse was going on and dealt with accordingly.

I learned a long time ago that everything that is in print is not always the absolute truth. We have to read and figure out for ourselves if what is reported is the truth or if there has been someone's slant on their side of the truth.

jmoo [/*]

Right, they may not be any better, but that's where these kids are.

evalles

05-19-2008, 11:03 AM

Why were the Mental Health Workers required to sign a nondisclosure agreement before they went in to work with the FLDS parents? But the Bishop's List was released without protecting the 'privacy' of the children, and published on the Eldorado Success website and in their paper.

Roux

05-19-2008, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Right, they may not be any better, but that's where these kids are. [/*]

I am not aware that any child has been placed in an individual foster home. It was my understanding that they have all been placed in group homes. And IMO these group homes, without exception, are providing excellent care for the children. There has been a tremendous outpouring from the public helping with infant furniture, linens, clothing, hygiene items, etc.

evalles

05-19-2008, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Roux

I am not aware that any child has been placed in an individual foster home. It was my understanding that they have all been placed in group homes. And IMO these group homes, without exception, are providing excellent care for the children. There has been a tremendous outpouring from the public helping with infant furniture, linens, clothing, hygiene items, etc. [/*]

I read they were placed in foster care and sent to foster homes all over the state.
You may be right, the only thing I could find was that they were in 16 different group homes. I was sure that I read that the older kids were in group homes and the younger ones were sent to foster homes.

evalles

05-19-2008, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by xray ra
I went to the "Hill Country Mental Health" home site. Very interesting.
Sounds to me like a pricey private facility that does some contract work with the State and Fed govt. in order to qualify for federal funds.
The workers were not "fired". They were highly paid private contractors that the State of Texas could no longer afford! IMO

Naturally, these private workers probably looked at their CPS couterparts as not equally qualified and the CPS workers naturally thought their area was being usurped.
I also checked out the Hill Country privacy policy and it definately states that no worker can comment on any "Client" to the press!

Sounds like a cat fight to me! <hisssssss>

ETA: jmo [/*]

I don't agree that they could no longer afford them. If they were contracted by the state, they had to agree on the terms/costs before they were employed. I'd imagine it's just like with insurance and that the gov't doesn't pay them the standard rate.

Based on the letters, they were also called to go back when the kids were being removed.
Hmmm, did they comment on any client ??
I didn't see a single name in any reports !!
There's nothing indicating that they are biased.
Even thought the state has legal custody, the parents still have parental rights. I wonder if they could authorize the MH workers to release the info ?
To me it sounds like Good vs. Evil.

evalles

05-19-2008, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by KatyDid

I hear ya walton!
Some people just can't seem to grasp it is what these people are taught. It is what they live and breath every day to follow the warped teachings of a self-proclaimed prophet. Even Jeffs confessed he was not a prophet while in prison ON TAPE, but they still believe the warped teachings.

All anyone has to do is read what these people read and listen to 24/7 to know what is on the outside is only a facade. The teachings are pure evil, IMO. [/*]

Oh, I get confused, whenever it's stated that this was based on their religions or beliefs, someone says no, it's about child abuse.
When there's no evidence of child abuse, their beliefs are the abuse.

evalles

05-19-2008, 12:17 PM

warhorse46

05-19-2008, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by evalles
A CPS worker confesses - it's NOT about the best interests of the child:

She thought she was hired to protect children. But instead, a city child abuse investigator discovered that betraying her clients was part of her job description. Tales from a year inside the Administration for Children's Services.

By Akka Gordon

http://www.fixcas.com/journal/gordon.htm [/*]

:lol: :lol: :lol: That article was published in 2000 & is about a case worker in New York! Geez you are not even in the ballpark with this one.

warhorse46

05-19-2008, 04:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by evalles

I've never seen the law that states they can take kids until it all gets sorted out.
If every child wasn't abused, every child shouldn't have been removed.
They won't be hit hard by the FLDS, it will be outraged citizens and and mental health providers. I think there'll even be some CPS workers that have consciences that eventually speak out.

Who cares about the news reports when 11 mental health workers who are eyewitnesses reported on the horrible conditions and the inhumane treatment of the women and children?
It doesn't sound like you read the reports by the social workers from the mental health center. I can't wait til they testify in court.

snipped for length

Perhaps you should do a lot more research, starting here
http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/fa/005.00.000261.00.html

(d) If, before an investigation is completed, the
investigating agency believes that the immediate removal of a child
from the child's home is necessary to protect the child from further
abuse or neglect, the investigating agency shall file a petition or
take other action under Chapter 262 to provide for the temporary
care and protection of the child.

warhorse46

05-19-2008, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by evalles
CPS Worker who is also a Foster Parent, charged with murdering her foster child - duct taped, tied to chair in basement...

Hope none of these kids wind up like this little girl.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fostercare/marr/

Just something to ponder while thinking about how much better off these children are.

She was a CPS worker and a foster parent. [/*]

Apples & Oranges. Would you please get into the state of Texas where this case is taking place?

warhorse46

05-19-2008, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Why were the Mental Health Workers required to sign a nondisclosure agreement before they went in to work with the FLDS parents? But the Bishop's List was released without protecting the 'privacy' of the children, and published on the Eldorado Success website and in their paper. [/*]

They were required to sign the nondisclosure document because that is the law in Texas. Read the link I have provided you in an earlier link. The Eldorado Success website is not a part of any investigating agency, is not involved in investigating this case thus not bound by the law.

warhorse46

05-19-2008, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Oh, I get confused, whenever it's stated that this was based on their religions or beliefs, someone says no, it's about child abuse.
When there's no evidence of child abuse, their beliefs are the abuse. [/*]

There is evidence of child abuse re pregnant underaged females, multiple broken bones, mental abuse evidence, developmental delays.

evalles

05-19-2008, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by warhorse46

There is evidence of child abuse re pregnant underaged females, multiple broken bones, mental abuse evidence, developmental delays. [/*]

I've heard those rumors, but not evidence to support them.
2 of the underaged minors are were adults and all but 6 ot 8 of the others could be adults, their ages are in dispute.

Mimi428

05-20-2008, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by evalles

I believe it all happened, and I definitely don't want your sympathy. The media report that a toddler (same age as this one) was in ICU for dehydration the day after he was removed from his mother backs it up.

There were several posts on this as well as a link at the time it happened. I don't think you were commenting at that time. [/*]

Hmmmm - who was it who just wrote this post...?

I've heard those rumors, but not evidence to support them.

What measuring device do you use to sort out what things you decide to believe & what you don't? If we had at least some explanation on how you decide what to believe & what to discard, it would be significantly easier to try to have a discussion & debate.

There may well have been several posts & links I did not comment on at the time they were written, but that is simple consequence of real life taking priority over message board. Either way, I find it strange that if the story is that the FLDS lied - you don't believe it. If the story by the same source is that CPS lied - you DO believe it. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but in all fairness, it gives the impression that endeavoring to have a discussion with you about anything factual is pointless & more than likely a waste of time.

But carry on - to each his own, etc.

JMO

Rainkiss

05-20-2008, 06:39 AM

This sums it up, really...

"Jeffs" is Nora Jeffs, not one of the women said to be the mother of Warren Jeffs' children.

"I agree to follow all recommendations so long as they don't conflict with my religious beliefs," Jeffs said.

The judge voiced some concern about her response.

"We all know why we are here. You have a right to religious freedom up until the point where it breaks the law," Gossett said.

There's the problem, in a nutshell. These people believe they have the right, granted by God through his prophet, to break the law. What that woman implied was that she'd be happy to protect her daughter, right up until the day that Warren Jeffs, or whoever is named "prophet" to speak for God next, tells her to marry her daughter off at fourteen.

Source link: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/polygamist.retreat/index.html)

It sounds like a template for a plan was distributed to the parents they could find, and it needs to be customized for each family situation. Since it sounds like CPS hasn't been able to meet with each parent to do it before court, that's the next step.

LLaFren

05-20-2008, 07:00 AM

The mothers mantra has been "give us back our children" right?

I like the idea of this being the judges response to each one:

"We all know why we are here. You have a right to religious freedom up until the point where it breaks the law," Gossett said.

KatyDid

05-20-2008, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

Exactly right. There's no way these people can abide by the state-ordered service plans without forsaking their prophet, many of the foundational doctrines of their religion, and essentially - their entire lifestyle.

We're already at the point of a standoff ... it's just that nobody's willing to admit it yet.

What concerns me is that as soon as the FLDS'ers figure out that more lying for the lord is called for, they'll pencil whip the service plans and put in place whatever other facades are necessary to convince the state they've completed their tasks and goals.

The kids will then go back to them, and let's face it ... there won't be the resources available to monitor the situation from there. Especially when these people relocate out of Texas, a plan for which is surely already in place. [/*]

You know your last para is correct, otherwise, one of Warren Jeffs' wives WOULD NOT have agreed so quickly to the 'plan' and agreed she would SIGN it. She knows as soon as she gets those children they are headed to a 'house of hiding'. I seriously doubt she would go against her husband and prophet.

warhorse46

05-20-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Rainkiss
This sums it up, really...

"Jeffs" is Nora Jeffs, not one of the women said to be the mother of Warren Jeffs' children.

There's the problem, in a nutshell. These people believe they have the right, granted by God through his prophet, to break the law. What that woman implied was that she'd be happy to protect her daughter, right up until the day that Warren Jeffs, or whoever is named "prophet" to speak for God next, tells her to marry her daughter off at fourteen.

Source link: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/polygamist.retreat/index.html)

It sounds like a template for a plan was distributed to the parents they could find, and it needs to be customized for each family situation. Since it sounds like CPS hasn't been able to meet with each parent to do it before court, that's the next step. [/*]

I have said that from the start of this. Everyone of us has religious freedom but that does not give any of us the right to violate any laws. That applies to the FLDS followers as well as to the rest of us. I don`t give a flying fling what the adults do in any of those compounds as long as no laws are broken, the adults can have as many spiritual marriages as they want. And no matter which way it is sliced, having sex with a minor child is a violation of our laws.

evalles

05-20-2008, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Hmmmm - who was it who just wrote this post...?

I've heard those rumors, but not evidence to support them.

What measuring device do you use to sort out what things you decide to believe & what you don't? If we had at least some explanation on how you decide what to believe & what to discard, it would be significantly easier to try to have a discussion & debate.

There may well have been several posts & links I did not comment on at the time they were written, but that is simple consequence of real life taking priority over message board. Either way, I find it strange that if the story is that the FLDS lied - you don't believe it. If the story by the same source is that CPS lied - you DO believe it. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but in all fairness, it gives the impression that endeavoring to have a discussion with you about anything factual is pointless & more than likely a waste of time.

But carry on - to each his own, etc.

JMO [/*]

I never posted that I believe everything the FLDS say. I'm sure there are men that aren't submitting to DNA because they've been with minors. I don't think (I don't know) that this is going to be rampant and I believe most of the minors will be over 16. I wouldn't be surprised to find out there were a few pervs that were with 14 or 15 year olds. I believe the MH workers, I think they'll end up testifying for the mothers. The post pertained to a MH worker's statement that a 24 month old boy was left in a stroller for 24 hours and was hospitalized for dehydration after the mothers were removed. There's a link to a story exactly like this on one of these boards.
I don't doubt that there's lies being told by the FLDS and CPS, they both have a lot at stake.
I want the children that haven't been abused to go home with the non-abusive parents. And no, I don't think a parent should get any of their kids back if they've sexually abused even one of them.
I'm sorry, but I'll never believe that the families that aren't guilty of abuse should be separated because they belong to the FLDS.

evalles

05-20-2008, 09:10 PM

Evidence of broken bones and sexual abuse hasn't been presented in any of the court cases, as far as I know.

warhorse46

05-20-2008, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by evalles

I never posted that I believe everything the FLDS say. I'm sure there are men that aren't submitting to DNA because they've been with minors. I don't think (I don't know) that this is going to be rampant and I believe most of the minors will be over 16. I wouldn't be surprised to find out there were a few pervs that were with 14 or 15 year olds. I believe the MH workers, I think they'll end up testifying for the mothers. The post pertained to a MH worker's statement that a 24 month old boy was left in a stroller for 24 hours and was hospitalized for dehydration after the mothers were removed. There's a link to a story exactly like this on one of these boards.
I don't doubt that there's lies being told by the FLDS and CPS, they both have a lot at stake.
I want the children that haven't been abused to go home with the non-abusive parents. And no, I don't think a parent should get any of their kids back if they've sexually abused even one of them.
I'm sorry, but I'll never believe that the families that aren't guilty of abuse should be separated because they belong to the FLDS. [/*]

<<<I want the children that haven't been abused to go home with the non-abusive parents. And no, I don't think a parent should get any of their kids back if they've sexually abused even one of them.>>>

And that is exactly what will happen once the investigation is completed. But until the investigation is completed & it is sorted out what child belongs to what parents, what child has not been abuse, what child has been abuse, what the abuse is then the state is obligated to remove the children from potential abuse & keep them. You don`t seem to understand the process.

warhorse46

05-20-2008, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Evidence of broken bones and sexual abuse hasn't been presented in any of the court cases, as far as I know. [/*]

Probably because there have been no court cases yet. It all is still under investigation. Court cases will come later.

evalles

05-21-2008, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by warhorse46

<<<I want the children that haven't been abused to go home with the non-abusive parents. And no, I don't think a parent should get any of their kids back if they've sexually abused even one of them.>>>

And that is exactly what will happen once the investigation is completed. But until the investigation is completed & it is sorted out what child belongs to what parents, what child has not been abuse, what child has been abuse, what the abuse is then the state is obligated to remove the children from potential abuse & keep them. You don`t seem to understand the process. [/*]

I don't agree with the process. I believe in due process. There needs to be a trial, now. They need to treat each case individually and in cases where there are no signs of abuse, they need to give the kids back now. Obviously, they know the identities of the families that were in court over the last two days.
It's ridiculous that they're not presenting any evidence of abuse, yet still keeping these kids. It doesn't make sense, and it's not right.

evalles

05-21-2008, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

I am shocked that you actually think the environment in which those children lived was suitable and OK. Clearly, you seem to be an advocate for the FLDS and think their way of life is acceptable. Well, it isn't. It's a filthy cult, with filthy beliefs and behaviors.

Every post I have read of yours makes it clear to see where your loyalties lie. Well, that's fine, but it isn't OK for innocent children to live in that kind of filthy environment. You aren't convincing anyone that it's OK with your posts. I don't know why you bother to try. BTW, I don't care if you don't like "the process". People smarter than you or I know what is best for the children and how the process must go.

all my opinions [/*]

Of all the boards on other sites that I've been reading, this board by far has the most irrational posters.
It's wonderful that you're all in agreement that the government should be in charge of your children. Keep right on feeling that way until you or someone you care about become targets.
As long as you stay on this board, you'll continue to feel self-righteous. I wouldn't venture much further because contrary to what you might believe the majority does not agree that all these kids should have been taken. I can't force rationality on anyone here.
Smart people don't leave babies in strollers for 24 hours like CPS did.
There are four more girls that were classified as children that are actually adults. That's 6 in a week.
Smart people don't look at a birth certificate and driver's license of a 22 year old and classify her as a 15 or 16 year old.
Remember, this isn't supposed to be about belief's, it's supposed to be about child abuse. In court today a CPS worker admitted that a boy wasn't abused, but they still plan on keeping him for a year.
I can't understand that. It doesn't make sense.

evalles

05-21-2008, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

You have made many statements of fact here without providing links to credible sources to substantiate your statements. Please provide them, or start noting that your posts are your opinions only.

The majority of this country believes what CPS and the State did and is doing is 100% appropriate and long overdue.

IMO, it is you who is irrational.

my opinions [/*]

Read my signature.
Funny how you want me to provide links. Then you make essentially the same claim, only to your benefit.

*The majority of this country believes what CPS and the State did and is doing is 100% appropriate and long overdue.*

Without providing the link to credible sources that you demanded of me.
If you think irrational is wanting evidence that each child was abused before disrupting their lives, I don't know what to tell you.

evalles

05-21-2008, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

I do see your signature line, but frankly it's quite obscure as many poster's have sig lines and most of us overlook them. I apologize. However, I do not apologize for my opinions on your stand in this matter. I respect your right to think whatever you want, but I think the way you keep trying to beat it into our heads is a little disingenuous. Quite typical though.

my opinions [/*]

Because I haven't allowed you to beat it into my head doesn't mean that I've been forcing it on you. I would feel the same way if these were a bunch of Catholics, Jews, Baptists, even Atheists.
The State didn't have the right to take all these kids based on their beliefs and the claims of a bunch of ex- members.

Rainkiss

05-21-2008, 07:35 AM

It looks like they are finding young women over 18 who were taken by CPS. The total is up to ten. However:

But also Tuesday, two cases came up that revealed girls as young as 15 and 16 had been unified in spiritual marriages with older men.

One of those girls, now 19, was ruled an adult by the courts but not before she said in a conference call to the court that she could have been no older than 16 when her daughter was born on Aug. 19, 2005.

And in another courtroom, information gleaned from the records of a 17-year-old indicated she had to have been 15 when her first child was born.

CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins denied any suggestion that the agency's massive case may be on the verge of collapse, adding: “The numbers aren't important to us.”

What is important, he said, is that the children that were purportedly abused are now safe and protected. He said CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families, which made establishing ages nearly impossible.

He added that his agency never intentionally misled anyone when it said it believed it had more than two dozen females who were being sexually abused as minors.

So... while they may be 18 or older now, at least some of them were victims of child molestation.

Source Link-mysanantonio.com (http://www.mysanantonio.com/salife/family/stories/MYSA.052108.FLDShearings.EN.39759c4.html)

Simple fact is, there were children at that address who'd been sexually molested. They're still investigating the physical abuse suggested by the broken bones. Still sounds to me like there was cause to investigate. And, with the adults actively working to hide the children, hinder the investigation, and lie and confuse the issue from the beginning, I STILL can't see what alternative they had. I've heard broad "Identify the children who WERE being abused, and leave the rest" statements... but, I haven't heard how they should have done that. I haven't heard how to tell which childrens are siblings, so the ones who needed to be removed from abusive parents could be removed, leaving the "innocent" families intact. (And I use the word "innocent" reservedly, as, at the very least, they HAD to have known there were pregnant young women, and young girls being married off and molested, and did nothing.)

John7878

05-21-2008, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by evalles

I never posted that I believe everything the FLDS say. I'm sure there are men that aren't submitting to DNA because they've been with minors. I don't think (I don't know) that this is going to be rampant and I believe most of the minors will be over 16. I wouldn't be surprised to find out there were a few pervs that were with 14 or 15 year olds. I believe the MH workers, I think they'll end up testifying for the mothers. The post pertained to a MH worker's statement that a 24 month old boy was left in a stroller for 24 hours and was hospitalized for dehydration after the mothers were removed. There's a link to a story exactly like this on one of these boards.
I don't doubt that there's lies being told by the FLDS and CPS, they both have a lot at stake.
I want the children that haven't been abused to go home with the non-abusive parents. And no, I don't think a parent should get any of their kids back if they've sexually abused even one of them.
I'm sorry, but I'll never believe that the families that aren't guilty of abuse should be separated because they belong to the FLDS. [/*]

They don't get it evalles.

The next time a Catholic priest is accused of a sex crime against his congregation, will all the kids there be taken into foster care?

Parents knew there had been deviant priests in that "cult" and yet they didn't stop going to protect their kids?? Then they don't deserve to keep them.

How about the boy scouts? If we find another abuser leader in there will the whole troop being taken into foster care??
Parents should have been aware that some leaders were abusers and should have taken action. So if they can't take care of their kids, the government will do it for them.

I know it sounds silly to some people here, but once you start calling someone else's religion a 'cult', you can do it to anyones.
And once they slap that label on you, they can do anything they want to you.
All it takes is the first move, and that has been taken by Texas.

I also believe that the leaders of this religion broke the law and should be punished, but I think they should be real careful how they go about it.

2¢

Rainkiss

05-21-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
These last two girls talked about are over 18 but from what I gleamed fron the article these girls were like 15 and 16 when they had their first baby.
I actually don't think there is any other way that Texas could have handeled this case. Who knows what would have happened had any of the children been left at the compound.
Also the actions of the people at the compound at the time the raid was made is very telling. Stalling lying and whatever has not helped their case one little bit. I can certainly understand why the State would not take the word of this group.
Knowing that there are at least 100 children that there is no link to their parents is also very telling. I also think that the FLDS thought that they could get these women to do interviews and shed a few tears and the state was going to be all over them and give the kids back. No way no how.
I think it would be a mistake for the state to just give all the children back. Not knowing who the children belong to as well as knowing that these girls are married off at a young age to me is a good enough reason to keep them in custody.

jmoo [/*]

That's what happened back in the 50's. They cried, there was a huge public outcry, and the children were returned. A governor lost his job, IIRC, and Utah has been VERY careful not to move against them again.

walton

05-21-2008, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by John7878

They don't get it evalles.

The next time a Catholic priest is accused of a sex crime against his congregation, will all the kids there be taken into foster care?

Parents knew there had been deviant priests in that "cult" and yet they didn't stop going to protect their kids?? Then they don't deserve to keep them.

How about the boy scouts? If we find another abuser leader in there will the whole troop being taken into foster care??
Parents should have been aware that some leaders were abusers and should have taken action. So if they can't take care of their kids, the government will do it for them.

I know it sounds silly to some people here, but once you start calling someone else's religion a 'cult', you can do it to anyones.
And once they slap that label on you, they can do anything they want to you.
All it takes is the first move, and that has been taken by Texas.

I also believe that the leaders of this religion broke the law and should be punished, but I think they should be real careful how they go about it.

2¢ [/*]

Is it really a Religion if you are told to Lie for the Lord?

Nahh I don't think so. It is a Cult.

Is it really a Church when you have to hide behind closed doors and continue to break the law?

Nahh I don't think so. It is a Cult.

jmo

walton

05-21-2008, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Rainkiss

That's what happened back in the 50's. They cried, there was a huge public outcry, and the children were returned. A governor lost his job, IIRC, and Utah has been VERY careful not to move against them again. [/*]

They should have followed thru with Gov. Pyles plan and we wouldn't have this problem today.

The reason that Utah and Arizona have such issues today is because they shut their eyes and hoped it would go away. It didn't. The numbers grew and so did the victim list.

jmo

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by John7878

They don't get it evalles.

The next time a Catholic priest is accused of a sex crime against his congregation, will all the kids there be taken into foster care?

Parents knew there had been deviant priests in that "cult" and yet they didn't stop going to protect their kids?? Then they don't deserve to keep them.

How about the boy scouts? If we find another abuser leader in there will the whole troop being taken into foster care??
Parents should have been aware that some leaders were abusers and should have taken action. So if they can't take care of their kids, the government will do it for them.

I know it sounds silly to some people here, but once you start calling someone else's religion a 'cult', you can do it to anyones.
And once they slap that label on you, they can do anything they want to you.
All it takes is the first move, and that has been taken by Texas.

I also believe that the leaders of this religion broke the law and should be punished, but I think they should be real careful how they go about it.

2¢ [/*]

Do you really think all Catholic parents knew which priests were pedophiles, yet chose/agreed to have their children abused by them nevertheless? Ditto for perverted boy scout leaders or any other occupation/profession where parents trust their children will be safe.

How on earth can you compare deviants, who don't live with these children or father them, but prey on them instead, to a cult where mothers witness and allow their children to be abused daily in the name and guise of religion?

John7878

05-21-2008, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
These last two girls talked about are over 18 but from what I gleamed fron the article these girls were like 15 and 16 when they had their first baby.[/*]

Since the law was changed in 2005, both of these would have been legal.
(I'm not saying right, just legal.)

Originally posted by grammybear

I actually don't think there is any other way that Texas could have handeled this case. Who knows what would have happened had any of the children been left at the compound.[/*]

I think there WAS a better way to handle this.
But most people seem to be fixated on the young girls/old guys being married.
(And in their minds unwillingly.)
There are a few cases where this was true, but is it for the most part?

And the cases where it IS true, the people should be charged and jailed.

Originally posted by grammybear

Also the actions of the people at the compound at the time the raid was made is very telling. Stalling lying and whatever has not helped their case one little bit. I can certainly understand why the State would not take the word of this group.[/*]

Imagine coming out of church with police surrounding it with assault rifles and a ring of police cars, with a armored car at the ready.
What would YOU think??LoL
"We're from the government and we're here to help you"

Originally posted by grammybear

Knowing that there are at least 100 children that there is no link to their parents is also very telling. I also think that the FLDS thought that they could get these women to do interviews and shed a few tears and the state was going to be all over them and give the kids back. No way no how.[/*]

Very telling?? I wonder just what you mean?

Listen we ALL know that these people are breaking the law, by having more than one wife.

They know it, the police know it.

These people ALSO know that they can NOT tell police certain stuff without going to jail for it.

Because they are persecuted for their beliefs in their religion, they are kept from telling the truth.

Give them immunity for multiple wives, (NOT abuse) and then investigate.

Originally posted by grammybear

I think it would be a mistake for the state to just give all the children back. Not knowing who the children belong to as well as knowing that these girls are married off at a young age to me is a good enough reason to keep them in custody.

jmoo [/*]

I think it was a mistake to take ALL the kids in the first place.
Does anyone on here REALLY think ALL the kids were in immediate danger of abuse??

Married at a young age, isn't a valid reason.

FORCIBLY married at a young age, IS a valid reason.

John7878

05-21-2008, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by walton

Is it really a Religion if you are told to Lie for the Lord? [/*]

So the Catholic priests told the boys to go tell the truth about what happened to them????

Naw, its a cult.

Originally posted by walton

Is it really a Church when you have to hide behind closed doors and continue to break the law?[/*]

Like when all the higher ups in the Catholic church kept this quiet, when they KNEW there was abuse going on???

Yup, its a Cult.

walton

05-21-2008, 09:03 AM

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html

Arizona Governor Howard Pyle hired private detectives to investigate Short Creek. Subsequently, on July 26, 1953 Pyle ordered a massive police raid. He said, "Here is a community...dedicated to the wicked theory that every maturing girl child should be forced into the bondage of multiple wifehood with men of all ages for the sole purpose of producing more children to be reared to become mere chattels."

Polygamist men from Short Creek were jailed in Kingman, while their plural wives children stayed behind. Arizona officials took days to sort through the families, determining who was related to whom. The LDS Church-owned Desert News supported this government action. But the raid became a public relations nightmare for Pyle, when people saw newsreels of children separated from their parents. The net result was only one year of probation for 23 polygamist men. But the negative publicity ironically helped Short Creek avoid interference from law enforcement for many years to come.

Crazy isn't it? Breaking the law just a little. BS

A person can only get so many speeding tickets before their license is taken away. Why do you suppose that is?

Hiding behind the word Religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to continue breaking the law.

jmo

walton

05-21-2008, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by John7878

So the Catholic priests told the boys to go tell the truth about what happened to them????

Naw, its a cult.

Like when all the higher ups in the Catholic church kept this quiet, when they KNEW there was abuse going on???

Yup, its a Cult. [/*]

Are all Catholic Priests perverts? No.

Should the Church officials done something? Yes.

Are all Polygamists practicing polygamy? Yes.

John7878

05-21-2008, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

Do you really think all Catholic parents knew which priests were pedophiles, yet chose/agreed to have their children abused by them nevertheless? Ditto for perverted boy scout leaders or any other occupation/profession where parents trust their children will be safe.[/*]

Not at first they wouldn't have. But after the first cases, did the parents take a reasonable course of action to make sure their kids were safe, or did they just take the word of their priest??
Same for all the others, did parents take pains to see to the safety of their kids?
And by whose standards of safety are we talking?
If it was not deemed enough, will the kids be taken away?

Originally posted by Hey Paula

How on earth can you compare deviants, who don't live with these children or father them, but prey on them instead, to a cult where mothers witness and allow their children to be abused daily in the name and guise of religion? [/*]

Ok, so what your saying is that if the fathers move out, they can molest kids the same as the priests???

Or are you saying that since Catholic mothers now know there are pedophiles in the Catholic church, they should have their children taken away, if they don't quit that cult??

John7878

05-21-2008, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by walton
Are all Polygamists practicing polygamy? Yes. [/*]

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the FLDS is NOT a cult, and it is a 'real' religion.

Should a 'real' religion be persecuted for practicing polygamy, among LEGAL age people??

John7878

05-21-2008, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by grammybear
I cannot believe that people think it is ok for a 15 and 16 year old girl to be spiritually married to a man much older then herself and bear this mans children. [/*]

I can't believe that people are still accusing anyone not readily agreeing with them of being FOR this abuse.

So if they married them off to younger men you would be ok with this?

If she actually WANTED to marry a guy, you wouldn't approve if he were TOO old??

See? EACH case is going to be different. And everyone on here seems to want a 'blanket' solution to the problem.

There isn't one, welcome to the real world.

Originally posted by grammybear

That is not a religion in my book. One man has had total control over all of its members. [/*]

You mean like the Pope???? :D

walton

05-21-2008, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by John7878

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the FLDS is NOT a cult, and it is a 'real' religion.

Should a 'real' religion be persecuted for practicing polygamy, among LEGAL age people?? [/*]

Yes. Real religion or not- it is against the law. Either the laws need to be changed or the practice of Polygamy needs to end.

Polygamy is very rarely just about adults.

Wendell Nielson is a prime example of why Polygamy needs to end.

Warren Jeffs another example.

John Kingston

Ross LeBaron

more at link: http://www.rickross.com/groups/polygamy.html

walton

05-21-2008, 09:36 AM

A 15 or 16 year old can't even get their ears pierced with out having written permission.

Can a 14, 15 or 16 year old even sign a lease agreement?

In some states a 15 year old can't work past 7pm.

Some can't get medical attention unless they are with a parent.

And you think that they have the wits about them to be involved in a relationship with a man with 3-22 wives?

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by John7878

Not at first they wouldn't have. But after the first cases, did the parents take a reasonable course of action to make sure their kids were safe, or did they just take the word of their priest??
Same for all the others, did parents take pains to see to the safety of their kids?
And by whose standards of safety are we talking?
If it was not deemed enough, will the kids be taken away?

Ok, so what your saying is that if the fathers move out, they can molest kids the same as the priests???

Or are you saying that since Catholic mothers now know there are pedophiles in the Catholic church, they should have their children taken away, if they don't quit that cult?? [/*]

I do not believe most mothers, if any, knew which priests were pedophiles, or if in fact any of the priests in their church were pedophiles. Unlike the teachings of the FLDS, pedophilia isn't part of the Catholic religion. To the contrary, it is considered a sin and a transgression against God.

For any Catholic mothers (and fathers too) who witnessed priests abusing their children, but allowed it to continue, yes, their children should be taken from them too. All parents who knowingly and willingly place their children in harms way and/or subject them to physical and/or sexual abuse should have their children taken from them because the child's well-being and safety is paramount.

Once again, the FLDS cult/commune lifestyle, where pedophilia is practiced and is an integral part of their religion, by men who father the children they sexually abuse and even procreate with, and the mothers who witness this and approve of it as part of their religion, cannot be compared to pedophiles who have abused and betrayed the trust and confidence of parents who have sent their children off to school, church, a scout outing, etc. To lump them together is not only unfair, but cruel to the parents who have already suffered the violation of their children by perverts who have betrayed their position of trust. Those parents believed their children would be safe.

IMO

John7878

05-21-2008, 10:00 AM

How did we get down to 12yr olds???

Anyway I agree with you, unfortunately the sad fact is that girls are getting pregnant too young everywhere.

But that has always been the problem with young people, you just can't seem to save them from themselves.

But on the other hand there have been marriages that have worked out with younger people.

But on the other hand it doesn't mean that down the line someone else couldn't use the same argument against any church where suspected abuse is going on.
And thats my point, be careful what you let them do to these people. Don't let them do anything that you wouldn't want done to you.

NEWS:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080521/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

SAN ANGELO, Texas - Child welfare officials have said in the opening days of individual custody hearings for members of a polygamist sect that at least eight mothers once held in state custody as minors were actually adults. One is 27.

The disclosures, which have dribbled out in hearings held across five courtrooms, brings the number of underage mothers in state custody to 23, eroding statistics state officials have cited to bolster their claims of widespread abuse.

Rainkiss

05-21-2008, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by John7878

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the FLDS is NOT a cult, and it is a 'real' religion.

Should a 'real' religion be persecuted for practicing polygamy, among LEGAL age people?? [/*]

Honestly, I don't care who or what they worship or believe. I think polygamy among adults should be permitted, myself, along with homosexual marriages. To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less if a group of adults wants to get together, worship a turnip, dance naked in the moonlight, and swap spouses every other day of the week.

But we're not talking about adults, here. We're talking about raising children to believe that what they do is the one, true, and ONLY way for salvation. We're talking about children being married off. We're talking about a culture where a fourteen year old girl knows that if she doesn't agree to marrying her older first cousin (who she hates), her mother will be held accountable, possibly thrown out of her home and damned. (No link, see "Stolen Innocence, by Elissa Wall.)

My signature line is "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." But, can it be said you've made a choice if you never even knew you had an option? THAT is the problem with how the FLDS is raising their children.

evalles

05-21-2008, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

Do you really think all Catholic parents knew which priests were pedophiles, yet chose/agreed to have their children abused by them nevertheless? Ditto for perverted boy scout leaders or any other occupation/profession where parents trust their children will be safe.

How on earth can you compare deviants, who don't live with these children or father them, but prey on them instead, to a cult where mothers witness and allow their children to be abused daily in the name and guise of religion? [/*]

The thing is, that didn't happen in all these cases. If you believe what Elissa Wall said, she knew nothing about sex at 14, almost unheard of in our screwed up society. She also said she'd never known a 14 year that got married, both her sisters were 18.
What you're talking about didn't happen in even the majority of the families.
You don't know any of these families personally, why would you call them all deviants?

evalles

05-21-2008, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Rainkiss
It looks like they are finding young women over 18 who were taken by CPS. The total is up to ten. However:

So... while they may be 18 or older now, at least some of them were victims of child molestation.

Source Link-mysanantonio.com (http://www.mysanantonio.com/salife/family/stories/MYSA.052108.FLDShearings.EN.39759c4.html)

Simple fact is, there were children at that address who'd been sexually molested. They're still investigating the physical abuse suggested by the broken bones. Still sounds to me like there was cause to investigate. And, with the adults actively working to hide the children, hinder the investigation, and lie and confuse the issue from the beginning, I STILL can't see what alternative they had. I've heard broad "Identify the children who WERE being abused, and leave the rest" statements... but, I haven't heard how they should have done that. I haven't heard how to tell which childrens are siblings, so the ones who needed to be removed from abusive parents could be removed, leaving the "innocent" families intact. (And I use the word "innocent" reservedly, as, at the very least, they HAD to have known there were pregnant young women, and young girls being married off and molested, and did nothing.) [/*]
They could have done a more thorough investigation. If they could mann the shelters they could have done the same at the compound.

akaThreetoe

05-21-2008, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by akaThreetoe
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John7878

I can't believe that people are still accusing anyone not readily agreeing with them of being FOR this abuse.

So if they married them off to younger men you would be ok with this?

If she actually WANTED to marry a guy, you wouldn't approve if he were TOO old??

See? EACH case is going to be different. And everyone on here seems to want a 'blanket' solution to the problem.

There isn't one, welcome to the real world.

~I have to agree with Grammybear somewhat: I know when I was 20 or so in age and under that I didn't have a clue about real life, much less sex or "real" reason for having sex, and it seems that these "kids" sure weren't brought up street wise. I wasn't in the streets but I wasn't sheltered either. I don't think it has to do with being around same age, so that's out, it has to do with being married off to much older men. That's just gross. And for the mothers that might be brainwashed in to thinking they can't do anything about it is part of the problem, most likely.~

jmoo :confused: [/*]

I know youg people that got married and are still together, but both were young also...

? Do you know why they raided this compound? If I recall it was because of a 16 year old calling a hotline, I forgot which, and it turns out I think I heard after the fact that it was a prank from some woman. I don't think in the real world or elsewhere, - the no daddy in their life girls, that a girl would marry such an older man unless it was to get his money. not sure but I believe this is a cult not a true religion. Just like Scientology, which I have the guys book and think it is a crock!!!

again, jmoo :shrug:

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by evalles

The thing is, that didn't happen in all these cases. If you believe what Elissa Wall said, she knew nothing about sex at 14, almost unheard of in our screwed up society. She also said she'd never known a 14 year that got married, both her sisters were 18.
What you're talking about didn't happen in even the majority of the families.
You don't know any of these families personally, why would you call them all deviants? [/*]

Because this practice is so widespread in the FLDS, the States where this is practiced have a responsibility to the children who are helpless victims of it and in need of outside intervention to protect them.

The word "deviants" in my reply post to John referred to pedophile priests, scout leaders, etc, when he addressed it in this part of his post to you.

by John7878 <<< Snpped for Emphasis>>>

Parents knew there had been deviant priests in that "cult" and yet they didn't stop going to protect their kids?? Then they don't deserve to keep them.

How about the boy scouts? If we find another abuser leader in there will the whole troop being taken into foster care??

Parents should have been aware that some leaders were abusers and should have taken action. So if they can't take care of their kids, the government will do it for them.

akaThreetoe

05-21-2008, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Rainkiss

Honestly, I don't care who or what they worship or believe. I think polygamy among adults should be permitted, myself, along with homosexual marriages. To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less if a group of adults wants to get together, worship a turnip, dance naked in the moonlight, and swap spouses every other day of the week.

But we're not talking about adults, here. We're talking about raising children to believe that what they do is the one, true, and ONLY way for salvation. We're talking about children being married off. We're talking about a culture where a fourteen year old girl knows that if she doesn't agree to marrying her older first cousin (who she hates), her mother will be held accountable, possibly thrown out of her home and damned. (No link, see "Stolen Innocence, by Elissa Wall.)

My signature line is "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." But, can it be said you've made a choice if you never even knew you had an option? THAT is the problem with how the FLDS is raising their children. [/*]

I second that! Couldn't have said it better myself...

btw to anyone, no we all won't agree on everything but a child is a child. Would you let it happen to your? Unless you were in this or another cult? And yes this is a cult, not a religion....!!!

But, can it be said you've made a choice if you never even knew you had an option? :confused:

evalles

05-21-2008, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Hey Paula

Because this practice is so widespread in the FLDS, the States where this is practiced have a responsibility to the children who are helpless victims of it and in need of outside intervention to protect them.

The word "deviants" in my reply post to John referred to pedophile priests, scout leaders, etc, when he addressed it in this part of his post to you.

[/*]

It's your opinion that sex with minors is widespread.

Hey Paula

05-21-2008, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by evalles

It's your opinion that sex with minors is widespread. [/*]

I believe it is in the FLDS. There are likely many cases where women and children fear what will happen to them if they relate their experience to those outside of their cult.

ETA: The comedian Larry Storch once made a bad joke about it (years ago) when he said:

"I don't care how you bring 'em, but "Bringham [sic] Young".

IMO

evalles

05-21-2008, 03:32 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9330822

Only 17 women, out of original 26, are left in the state's disputed-age group

Roux

05-21-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by evalles
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9330822

Only 17 women, out of original 26, are left in the state's disputed-age group [/*]

I haven't studied it enough to make a chart, but how many of the 9 now excluded were underage when they were married or were pregnant, if they have children? Just because they have proved to LE's satisfaction that they are now of age does not preclude the possibility that they were underage when married and/or pregnant.

Rainkiss

05-21-2008, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Roux

I haven't studied it enough to make a chart, but how many of the 9 now excluded were underage when they were married or were pregnant, if they have children? Just because they have proved to LE's satisfaction that they are now of age does not preclude the possibility that they were underage when married and/or pregnant. [/*]

At least two of the young ladies have stated such.

warhorse46

05-21-2008, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by evalles

They could have done a more thorough investigation. If they could mann the shelters they could have done the same at the compound. [/*]

You are ignoring the Texas law I have posted for you numerous times. Have you even taken the time to read it? Texas law says children are to be removed from a suspected abusive environment while an investigation is being done. The CPS followed the law in Texas. You don`t like the law? Well take that to the state Legislature & get it changed but for now & this case that is the law.

warhorse46

05-21-2008, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by evalles

It's your opinion that sex with minors is widespread. [/*]

No, it is documented over & over. Just because you like to ignore it doesn`t mean it is not there.

warhorse46

05-21-2008, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by evalles
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9330822

Only 17 women, out of original 26, are left in the state's disputed-age group [/*]

Thus proving what I said to you earlier. Once the state sorts it all out, children who were not abused or in danger of being abused will be returned to their parents. The second step is to determine exactly who those parents really are.

warhorse46

05-21-2008, 06:33 PM

warhorse46

05-21-2008, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

Sure is. I alone have cited instance after instance after instance on the daily thread, including links to a very comprehensive piece researched and written by the LA Times two years ago. [/*]

Exactly! During the Warren Jeffs trial a ton of documentation came out.

evalles

05-21-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by warhorse46

You are ignoring the Texas law I have posted for you numerous times. Have you even taken the time to read it? Texas law says children are to be removed from a suspected abusive environment while an investigation is being done. The CPS followed the law in Texas. You don`t like the law? Well take that to the state Legislature & get it changed but for now & this case that is the law. [/*]

That might be in the CPS manual, but I've posted the statutes several times. There must be an immediate risk of serious physical harm to warrant removal. Since most of these parents are accused of nothing and a judge in a case today told the parents that they weren't accused of abusing their son, I think Texas is ignoring their own laws.
How can they suspect them of abuse and not accuse them of anything ?

KatyDid

05-21-2008, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by litchfield29

And your point is what? [/*]

:beer:

Some people keep trying to compare apples and oranges.

Go figure.

Grayson

05-27-2008, 12:28 PM

Is the term Yaweh used as a reference to early books in the bible or about Christianity, or possible it was early historical spriptures I am thinking about. Where it was either God, or Jesus was refereed to as Yaweh. I mean it is actually a well documented word. I feel like this cult uses the word Yaweh to mystify or be deciving about their practices.

Roux

05-27-2008, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Grayson
Is the term Yaweh used as a reference to early books in the bible or about Christianity, or possible it was early historical spriptures I am thinking about. Where it was either God, or Jesus was refereed to as Yaweh. I mean it is actually a well documented word. I feel like this cult uses the word Yaweh to mystify or be deciving about their practices. [/*]

Just off the top of my head, I remember Yaweh as a name for God used in the OT.

John7878

05-27-2008, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by litchfield29

They HAD to remove them all in order to investigate and determine what exactly has happened to each and every one of them. Please! Why is that so hard for you to grasp? [/*]

Looks like it was hard for the courts to grasp too.

Grayson

05-27-2008, 01:37 PM

Exactly Roux that's it, that's where I rememeber it from. Or really know it from. Thatnks Roux.

evalles

05-27-2008, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by John7878

Looks like it was hard for the courts to grasp too. [/*]

Hopefully the Supreme Court is just as rational.
If not, we'll know it's political.

Did you see the statute I posted that they were supposed to investigate before removal ?

Details

05-27-2008, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by John7878
Looks like it was hard for the courts to grasp too. [/*]Only for one court - another had no such problem.

evalles

05-27-2008, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Details
Only for one court - another had no such problem. [/*]

Right, the one that didn't afford all parties involved their rights to due process.

evalles

05-27-2008, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by litchfield29

Let me see if I understand your post correctly; if the Supreme Court disagrees with your thinking and that last ruling, it's politically motivated? Why is it so many people always start yelling, "IT'S POLITICAL, IT'S POLITICAL"?

my opinions [/*]

Because 5 of the supreme court justices were appointed by the governor and the appeals court's decision made perfect sense and was based on the law not emotions.

evalles

05-27-2008, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by litchfield29

Okie Dokie! You stay with that thought. :lol: [/*]

Ok, I will. I know I'm right. so does the court of appeals.
:patriot:

John7878

05-28-2008, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

Let me see if I understand your post correctly; if the Supreme Court disagrees with your thinking and that last ruling, it's politically motivated? Why is it so many people always start yelling, "IT'S POLITICAL, IT'S POLITICAL"?

my opinions [/*]

So if the Supreme Court disagrees with YOUR thinking, then you'll agree that you were wrong???

Or will you end up bashing them, for not sharing YOUR view??

:rolleyes:

evalles

05-28-2008, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by John7878

So if the Supreme Court disagrees with YOUR thinking, then you'll agree that you were wrong???

Or will you end up bashing them, for not sharing YOUR view??

:rolleyes: [/*]

Good point.

RiverWalk

05-28-2008, 05:18 PM

There seems to be that "some" have a misconception about the Texas Supreme Court.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/court/justices.asp

The only reason for any "appointment" is to fulfill a vacancy. After that the judge must stand for election by the citizens of Texas.

Chief Justice Jefferson - Elected to Supreme Court; appointed Chief Justice; and then was elected in 2006 and is up for election 2008.

Hecht - elected
O'Neill - elected
Wainwright - elected
Brister - appointed and then elected in 2004
Medina - appointed - term to expire 2012
Green - elected
Johnson - appointed 2005 and is up for election 2008
Willett - appointed 2005 - term to expire 2012

evalles

05-28-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by RiverWalk
There seems to be that "some" have a misconception about the Texas Supreme Court.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/court/justices.asp

The only reason for any "appointment" is to fulfill a vacancy. After that the judge must stand for election by the citizens of Texas.

Chief Justice Jefferson - Elected to Supreme Court; appointed Chief Justice; and then was elected in 2006 and is up for election 2008.

Hecht - elected
O'Neill - elected
Wainwright - elected
Brister - appointed and then elected in 2004
Medina - appointed - term to expire 2012
Green - elected
Johnson - appointed 2005 and is up for election 2008
Willett - appointed 2005 - term to expire 2012 [/*]

I didn't know, but it makes sense and is reassuring. I read that 2 of the appeal's court judges were appointed by the governor also.

Vinnie

05-28-2008, 06:10 PM

My hope is that the FLDS children are not returned to any mothers who insist on remaining with their husbands. However, I think it is almost inevitable that at least some of the children will be returned. Perhaps the state of Texas could work out a deal. You get your children back if:

1) Law enforcement can patrol inside the compound at any time, just like it can in other American neighborhoods. Have a gate with a clicker, and let sheriffs and deputies enter at any time.

2) You allow a required annual interview with each woman and ALL her children who are under 18. That way if a woman is wanting to get out, with her children, it will be possible to make the escape with the assistance of officials.

3) ALL births and deaths are recorded. An outside official must make the determination of cause of death.

4) The in-compound doctor must report EACH and EVERY serious injury to outside officials. Require the doctor to always have an "outsider" nurse in his office as he examines each woman and child. Require the on-duty nurse to record and report all injuries and all suspected abuse.

5) The doctor and nurse must report ALL pregnancies of girls under the age of 18.

Any of you have other suggestions?

evalles

05-28-2008, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08

But HOW could they have investigated to see which kids were and were not abused, and which teenage girls were and were not being forced into sex, and which person was responsible for putting which boy out in the street at a tender age to fend for himself? How could they investigate this, except by infiltrating the "ranch", living in and among them, and collecting information that way. because these people will tell you more lies than a Hells Angels motorcycle group, count on it. You can't exact justice on a group of people who don't think they have done anything wrong, and don't really give a crap about man's laws because the only law they follow is the law of their prophet, who gets his info directly from God. :rolleyes: Our law means nothing to them, bleed the beast, remember? They are mocking the U.S.A., by their silence and lying and mantra chanting "we need our children". You think they love this country? I doubt it, IMO. This just happens to be the place they reside, and they know the system and work it to their advantage, ripping off not only our government with fradulent welfare, food stamps, WIC benefits (if they have that in Texas), and God only knows how many millions a year they cost with the healthcare thats provided to their kids born with health problems related to pure and simple inbreeding.
That can't be disputed, there are kids being born with this disease that is only seen in kids born from incestual sex. They go to hospital, get admitted and treated, and never have to pay for it because they are 1- on welfare and the state is already paying or 2- getting disability for this kid, so healthcare is being paid for my Medicare, or 3-they will never pay the bill. Catch me if you can?
Try to find me, I can hide behind my people and silence? I would like to know how many actually have real insurance. And how many settle the bill by actually paying for it? JMO.

eta: regarding the xrays of all the broken bones, I would be curious to know what facility did the xraying and why the treating physician didn't report any child with a suspicious fracture, or history of more than one fracture? [/*]

According to the law, if there was no risk of immediate physical harm they had no right to take the children. If there wasn't a report on a specific child and there were no noticeable injuries, I don't see how they could leagally justify taking them. This is why the appeals court ruled the way they did.
Even if the FLDS is totally rotten, LE and CPS has to follow the law.

evalles

05-28-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Vinnie
My hope is that the FLDS children are not returned to any mothers who insist on remaining with their husbands. However, I think it is almost inevitable that at least some of the children will be returned. Perhaps the state of Texas could work out a deal. You get your children back if:

1) Law enforcement can patrol inside the compound at any time, just like it can in other American neighborhoods. Have a gate with a clicker, and let sheriffs and deputies enter at any time.

2) You allow a required annual interview with each woman and ALL her children who are under 18. That way if a woman is wanting to get out, with her children, it will be possible to make the escape with the assistance of officials.

3) ALL births and deaths are recorded. An outside official must make the determination of cause of death.

4) The in-compound doctor must report EACH and EVERY serious injury to outside officials. Require the doctor to always have an "outsider" nurse in his office as he examines each woman and child. Require the on-duty nurse to record and report all injuries and all suspected abuse.

5) The doctor and nurse must report ALL pregnancies of girls under the age of 18.

Any of you have other suggestions? [/*]

Yes,
1. that LE be permitted to enter the yard of any citizen at any time for whatever reason, regardless of whether or not that person owns the property or not.
2. Also that all accidents or injuries to any child of any citizen be reported to CPS.
3. That all children of all citizens are examined by a doctor chosen by the state annually.
4. That all children of all citizens be questioned by a state psychologist and a report be given to CPS on an annual basis.
5. That no parent argues with any decision made by any state representative or medical professional.

SavannahStar

05-28-2008, 07:27 PM

xray ra

05-28-2008, 07:33 PM

The Government or any Le agency can come into my house at any time to check on my children or grandchilren or my mother. They are free to check my or my husbands DNA and any other blood tests.
If there is any questions whatsoever as to the safety of any one in my household, I welcome my Local Law Enforcement!!!
:patriot:

I DO NOT HAVE ANY THING TO BE ASHAMED OF!!!! IMO

xray ra

05-28-2008, 07:48 PM

evalles

05-28-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

:patriot:
I don’t want, nor do I expect, the freedom to abuse my children or to limit their ability to make their own choices and live their own lives. [/*]

Good, you let yours play in the street and swim in the deep end. Let em eat junk food and watch TV instead of doing homework.
I'll continue to limit my children's ability to make their own choices until they're mature enough to make good ones.

Freedom doesn't include breaking the law. It also doesn't permit anyone to trespass on your property without a warrant or allow discrimination by the government towards a race or religion.

You're willing to give up a lot of freedoms that other people have died to protect. :patriot:

Vinnie

05-29-2008, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Yes,
1. that LE be permitted to enter the yard of any citizen at any time for whatever reason, regardless of whether or not that person owns the property or not.
2. Also that all accidents or injuries to any child of any citizen be reported to CPS.
3. That all children of all citizens are examined by a doctor chosen by the state annually.
4. That all children of all citizens be questioned by a state psychologist and a report be given to CPS on an annual basis.
5. That no parent argues with any decision made by any state representative or medical professional. [/*]

My suggestions are for a DEAL -- so that the FLDS could get their children back. We give a little, you give a little. Sort of like what happens to ex-cons who get out on probation. They don't get to live freely like the rest of us...

You know what drives me crazy about you, Evalles? You won't admit there is ANYTHING wrong with what goes on in the FLDS! The rest of us can say that we understand that the mothers are probably missing their children, and that some of the fathers might be missing their children, and that probably all of the children are afraid, etc. We can see at least a little bit of both sides. But you are so STIFF NECKED that you can't see the EVIL in the FLDS even though it is as plain as the nose on your face!

The whole reason Texas is up to their neck in this c*** is because Arizona and Utah refused to do even the least bit of law enforcement. If it does nothing less, at least Texas' actions might drive the FLDS out, which would be good for Texas.

:flamemad:

evalles

05-29-2008, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Vinnie

My suggestions are for a DEAL -- so that the FLDS could get their children back. We give a little, you give a little. Sort of like what happens to ex-cons who get out on probation. They don't get to live freely like the rest of us...

You know what drives me crazy about you, Evalles? You won't admit there is ANYTHING wrong with what goes on in the FLDS! The rest of us can say that we understand that the mothers are probably missing their children, and that some of the fathers might be missing their children, and that probably all of the children are afraid, etc. We can see at least a little bit of both sides. But you are so STIFF NECKED that you can't see the EVIL in the FLDS even though it is as plain as the nose on your face!

The whole reason Texas is up to their neck in this c*** is because Arizona and Utah refused to do even the least bit of law enforcement. If it does nothing less, at least Texas' actions might drive the FLDS out, which would be good for Texas.

:flamemad: [/*]

Oh, I think there's plenty that goes on in the FLDS that's wrong, I don't think they should be treated like criminals when they haven't been charged with a crime. This isn't about defending the FLDS for me, it's about not persecuting the innocent ones because of they guilty ones. I cannot understand that in case after case, all parties, including CPS state that the individual parents aren't guilty of abuse and yet they don't give them their children back, and you think they should be treated differently than the rest of society. When there is a case presented where they show a specific child has been abused, you won't hear any objections from me. When/ if they present a case in which an underage girl was forced to illegally marry some old man, I'll be the first to recomment hanging the guy up by his *!#ls. I have to see that first. Not that some ex-members were abused or some boys were kicked out, but that some of the 464 children that are suffering now were abused. I'm sure they'll find some, and by all means the abusers should suffer the consequences, but not everybody, and they have to be afforded the same rights as any other citizen.
A Deal should be for those that have done something.

evalles

05-29-2008, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz

Your mother of the year halo is tipping. You might want to set it right.

Actually, I live with someone who fought in Vietnam, so I'm clear on what sacrifice and fighting for freedom is all about, evalles.

And I'm quite clear that the veteran I live with -- the man who fought on the front lines in 'Nam -- did not risk life and limb and forever alter how he looks at the world in order to protect the freedoms of the likes of Warren Jeffs' followers or any citizen who hopes to use the freedom we enjoy in this country to use, abuse, subjugate and control others, least of all children. [/*]

My Halo is tipping ? At least I can call the man I live with and the father of my children, MY HUSBAND.
I'm not talking about the ones that have committed abuse. I'm talking about the ones that even CPS say's haven't abused their children.
If their children aren't abused it comes down to beliefs and we're free to believe whatever we want.

LLaFren

05-29-2008, 07:40 AM

Kudos to you Grammybear!:beer:

SavannahStar

05-29-2008, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Oh, I think there's plenty that goes on in the FLDS that's wrong, I don't think they should be treated like criminals when they haven't been charged with a crime. This isn't about defending the FLDS for me, it's about not persecuting the innocent ones because of they guilty ones. I cannot understand that in case after case, all parties, including CPS state that the individual parents aren't guilty of abuse and yet they don't give them their children back, and you think they should be treated differently than the rest of society. When there is a case presented where they show a specific child has been abused, you won't hear any objections from me. When/ if they present a case in which an underage girl was forced to illegally marry some old man, I'll be the first to recomment hanging the guy up by his *!#ls. I have to see that first. Not that some ex-members were abused or some boys were kicked out, but that some of the 464 children that are suffering now were abused. I'm sure they'll find some, and by all means the abusers should suffer the consequences, but not everybody, and they have to be afforded the same rights as any other citizen.
A Deal should be for those that have done something. [/*]

Very well said, evalles! :beer:

evalles

05-29-2008, 10:42 AM

Grammybear is right.

The personal attacks are detracting from the cause. I've learned a lot from the opposing viewpoints. When I read something that's contrary to my viewpoint, I look for something to support my opinion and even if I don't find it, I learn something new. I think others are doing the same, because I've visited other forums on this topic and most of the posters seem clueless compared to those on these boards. The posters on this board, regardless of if I agree with them are not, are far more knowledgeable than the others I've seen. I think this is due to the opposing viewpoints and the strong personalities of these posters that don't like to be wrong, myself included.
I, for one am going to attempt to refrain from responding or commenting in a rude manner. It takes up time that could be spent on something positive.

Rainkiss

05-29-2008, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by evalles
*respectfully bandwidth snipped*
I, for one am going to attempt to refrain from responding or commenting in a rude manner. It takes up time that could be spent on something positive.

Well said. This is a couple of hot topics running head-first into each other, which is a great way to start fights. On one hand, we've got the civil rights angle, and the question of how much the government can entangle themselves in the lives of its citizens. On the other, we've got the abuse of children angle.

Call me silly, but I think we can all (assuming we're all rational, here) agree that a) sexually abusing a child is unacceptable, and *) nobody wants the government sitting in our bedrooms watching everything we do.

There's no black and white, here. There likely IS no correct way of handling this mess. It's going to be tied up in court for a long time. We're going to have people, including judges, make decisions that some of us think are right, and some of us think are wrong. My bet is it's going to end up in DC in front of the Supreme Court.

My own opinion is that it's tragic that there are so many children caught in the middle of this mess. And it's tragic that their parents chose a life that put them there.

evalles

05-29-2008, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Rainkiss

Well said. This is a couple of hot topics running head-first into each other, which is a great way to start fights. On one hand, we've got the civil rights angle, and the question of how much the government can entangle themselves in the lives of its citizens. On the other, we've got the abuse of children angle.

Call me silly, but I think we can all (assuming we're all rational, here) agree that a) sexually abusing a child is unacceptable, and *) nobody wants the government sitting in our bedrooms watching everything we do.

There's no black and white, here. There likely IS no correct way of handling this mess. It's going to be tied up in court for a long time. We're going to have people, including judges, make decisions that some of us think are right, and some of us think are wrong. My bet is it's going to end up in DC in front of the Supreme Court.

My own opinion is that it's tragic that there are so many children caught in the middle of this mess. And it's tragic that their parents chose a life that put them there. [/*]

There are so many different aspects to this case, that it would surpise me if everyone was in agreement on all of them.
I agree with you, the one thing I think everyone can agree on, is that this is a total tragedy for the children involved.

Vinnie

05-29-2008, 12:34 PM

We've been over this time and again, but the FLDS compound has/had watchtowers with sentries, 10-foot-tall walls topped by spikes, and infrared night-vision camera to monitor the entrances. Texas had an inside informer. A significant number of ex-FLDS MAY have been giving imput, as well.

Woman and children who want to leave cannot. Little girls cannot refuse to "marry" (have intercourse with) old men. This is a huge case, and while courts may find some fault in the process, the CPS might not have taken this direction if the FLDS wives and children hadn't practiced deception. After a while, I'm sure they distrusted everybody.

I'm interested in getting imput from all on this board how Texas and other states COULD arrive at the truth and prosecute guilty parties, considering the obstacles erected by the FLDS men: lying, false documents, NO documents, the walls & gates, the mind-control, etc.

lotty

05-29-2008, 01:27 PM

Since this is the FLDS thread...Does anyone know or has anyone heard where Wendell Nielson and Merrill Jessop went? Strikes me these two have the most to lose (ie power, material gain, money, etc., etc., etc.) with a close third being Willie Jessop.

KatyDid

05-29-2008, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by lotty
Since this is the FLDS thread...Does anyone know or has anyone heard where Wendell Nielson and Merrill Jessop went? Strikes me these two have the most to lose (ie power, material gain, money, etc., etc., etc.) with a close third being Willie Jessop. [/*]

As far as I know, they have vanished. Probably in one of those safe houses hiding out. I think Willie is their front man doing their bidding, IMO.

RayStar

05-29-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
I don't see this issue as having equally logical or moral opposing views.

As I'm sure I've made clear in my posts, I have little regard and less tolerance for the viewpoint that the FLDS parents' rights are being violated and the children should be returned to them.

I have little regard and less tolerance for those who ignore the group-think mentality of the FLDS sect members. Those who deny that Warren Jeffs is an influence. Those who feel that all the escapees of the sect are not to be believed. Those who are eager to get 460+ children back into an environment that is creating yet another generation of oppressed, stunted, un- and under-educated emotionally and sexually abused human beings.

Those who are screaming for the 'religious' and constitutional freedoms of this cult ... those who have turned their back on decades of atrocities in order to defend some perverted idea of freedom ... are willing to sacrifice every last one of those children to a system that doesn't even allow them the freedom to ask or cry for help or a way out.

Given my feelings, I'm fairly sure I can't appear respectful to those who will celebrate if and when the kids are taken back to that compound, behind those walls, never to be heard from again.

I certainly don't want these threads closed down, because there are many good people here who are fighting the good fight. I'm happy to bow out and let cooler heads prevail.

Carry on.

GGW
:seeya: [/*]ITA and I think you hit the nail on with your post earlier. I hope you will return and provide us with the information I need to help understand this MESS. I really look forward to reading your posts everywhere! Can you believe the SC? I think they may be legally correct however I feel more time is needed to put an end to what has been labelled as abuse!!!!JMHO

walton

05-29-2008, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by SillyMe

Here is some pictures of the compound please point out those so called 10 foot walls! And one single watch tower... :rolleyes: The only walls are around ONLY the church.

http://web.sccn2.net/flds/images/After%20Raid%20028.jpg
http://web.sccn2.net/flds/images/After%20Raid%20101.jpg
http://web.sccn2.net/flds/images/After%20Raid%20144.jpg
http://web.sccn2.net/flds/images/After%20Raid%20242.jpg
http://web.sccn2.net/flds/04-29-08.htm [/*]

Look again. There is a fence surrounding the whole property. A vehicle neither enters or leaves without going thru a locked fenced gate.

No one may enter and noone may leave without permission.

John7878

05-30-2008, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Vinnie

I'm interested in getting imput from all on this board how Texas and other states COULD arrive at the truth and prosecute guilty parties, considering the obstacles erected by the FLDS men: lying, false documents, NO documents, the walls & gates, the mind-control, etc. [/*]

First thing to do is make plural marriages LEGAL!

Do we have religious freedom or don't we? Not just for these people, but all the other ones living as we do. Plus the other religions that recognize multiple wives.

This is one big reason no one will talk about who's family is who's.

If something is illegal, there is NO way to regulate/control it.

Just look at cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. The first two are legal and we have made strides to 'control' the problems associated with them.

ALL drugs on the other hand are illegal, so there is no way to deal with them, and ALL the associated problems, like we have the other two.

Once these marriages are made legal, then you can mandate them to sign marriage certificates as part of the process.

Filing marriage/birth certificates would be mandatory.

Once legally married, taking a wife from one man and 'assigning' her to another, on a whim from their leader, would be much harder to do. And might well be impossible to do, if set up right. Also there would involve paper work and leave a paper trail to follow.

They would HAVE to have all these documents, or THAT would be grounds for charges.

Plus you get the 'other wives' off of the single mother welfare rolls. This alone would save over $2million a year.

This would be one giant step forward in trying to fix this. But as for the 'brain washing', I don't know as that could ever be eliminated.
After all I consider just about all religions to be some kind of 'brain washing'. So how would you get someone to change their beliefs?

Anyway, thats my 2 cents.....

:D

Vinnie

05-30-2008, 06:47 PM

As I figured, the children will be returned with conditions:

1) The children of unknown parentage will not be just dumped off at the ranch. They will stay in CPS custody. And apparently there are 70-100 of them.

2) Parents will be required to take parenting classes.

3) The CPS will be allowed unannounced visits to homes at the ranch.

AND...there are ongoing criminal investigations.

Hallelujah!

spirit07

05-30-2008, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by John7878

First thing to do is make plural marriages LEGAL!

Do we have religious freedom or don't we? Not just for these people, but all the other ones living as we do. Plus the other religions that recognize multiple wives.

:D [/*]

We already had a long discussion about making polygamy legal or not. I do not agree that making it legal will solve any problems and as I said before, one of my main arguments is the messiness of that. Keep it simple, either legalize unions between any two people or keep it at a marriage is between any two people. These same folks don't even think a gay couple should be able to get married, why do they think they should be able to marry multiple partners. And, most of the cases of polygamy now and in the future will be one man and many women. However, if you want to legalize polygamy, then you are also going to have some get married who have 3 men and 4 women. Those who currently practice polyamory - they do not neccessarily live in the same house, but often have complex relationships with some shared children, some are ex's of the others but switched partners and many other variations. Are you going to allow one of these women to marry two of the other men while that man might also marry another man and yet another woman. Or you could have hundreds decide to mass marry. But, then what will you say, that it is ok for the govt to limit the number of wives or husbands you have? Or it is ok to for the govt to put limits on it otherwise?

Any two people should either be able to get married or sign a legal contract with another who has the same rights as if they are married. Call me a pragmatist, but beyond that, I think we would just be asking for trouble.

evalles

05-30-2008, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by spirit07

We already had a long discussion about making polygamy legal or not. I do not agree that making it legal will solve any problems and as I said before, one of my main arguments is the messiness of that. Keep it simple, either legalize unions between any two people or keep it at a marriage is between any two people. These same folks don't even think a gay couple should be able to get married, why do they think they should be able to marry multiple partners. And, most of the cases of polygamy now and in the future will be one man and many women. However, if you want to legalize polygamy, then you are also going to have some get married who have 3 men and 4 women. Those who currently practice polyamory - they do not neccessarily live in the same house, but often have complex relationships with some shared children, some are ex's of the others but switched partners and many other variations. Are you going to allow one of these women to marry two of the other men while that man might also marry another man and yet another woman. Or you could have hundreds decide to mass marry. But, then what will you say, that it is ok for the govt to limit the number of wives or husbands you have? Or it is ok to for the govt to put limits on it otherwise?

Any two people should either be able to get married or sign a legal contract with another who has the same rights as if they are married. Call me a pragmatist, but beyond that, I think we would just be asking for trouble. [/*]

The definition of marriage included a man and a woman until the Supreme court changed it. I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry either. Since it doesn't say man and women either, I don't think they should be "married" either. However, we're all free to sleep with whoever we want and have as many relationships as we choose.

spirit07

05-30-2008, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by evalles

The definition of marriage included a man and a woman until the Supreme court changed it. I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry either. Since it doesn't say man and women either, I don't think they should be "married" either. However, we're all free to sleep with whoever we want and have as many relationships as we choose. [/*]

Well, I think any two people should have the right to marry. The only claim that I can see against that is a religious claim and that violates the separation of church and state. Other peoples' religious beliefs against gay/lesbian marriage should not affect laws. You can dislike it or not believe in it, but I cannot think of a secular argument for making it illegal, in fact, I think that is just Draconian.

evalles

05-31-2008, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by spirit07

Well, I think any two people should have the right to marry. The only claim that I can see against that is a religious claim and that violates the separation of church and state. Other peoples' religious beliefs against gay/lesbian marriage should not affect laws. You can dislike it or not believe in it, but I cannot think of a secular argument for making it illegal, in fact, I think that is just Draconian. [/*]

It changes the definition of marriage.
My issue is that, while one of my favorite people in the world is gay, I don't want my children to be gay. I'll accept it if they are, but once something becomes legal, it becomes more prevalent.
That said, if we should accept others decisions to live lifestyles that aren't the "norm", we should also accept polygamy. A man chooses to be with a man, why shouldn't a man be able to choose to be with 5 women ? If the constitution affords us all these choices, it shouldn't be so selective.

Hey Paula

05-31-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by evalles

The definition of marriage included a man and a woman until the Supreme court changed it. I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry either. Since it doesn't say man and women either, I don't think they should be "married" either. However, we're all free to sleep with whoever we want and have as many relationships as we choose. [/*]

I agree with you on this issue. I don't think the word "marriage" should apply to gays who want to live together. I believe the word "union" is more appropriate. I've never understood why they insist on having the word marriage apply to them since it changes the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". It seems as though the goal is to win the point. Whatever happened to majority rules. Sadly, and to the detriment of this great Nation, PC has changed all that.

It seems as though some want to make this a unisex world. It's been done in text books too. I love being a woman, and being referred to as one. There are differences between a man and a woman and I happen to appreciate, celebrate and enjoy them.

IMO

SavannahStar

05-31-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by evalles

It changes the definition of marriage.
My issue is that, while one of my favorite people in the world is gay, I don't want my children to be gay. I'll accept it if they are, but once something becomes legal, it becomes more prevalent.
That said, if we should accept others decisions to live lifestyles that aren't the "norm", we should also accept polygamy. A man chooses to be with a man, why shouldn't a man be able to choose to be with 5 women ? If the constitution affords us all these choices, it shouldn't be so selective. [/*]

WONDERFUL post....and Lordy you just made me remember an opinion blog I read a couple of weeks ago re the issue of gay marriage and relating to polygamy. I've read SO much lately, wish I could remember where I saw that and post a link.

SavannahStar

05-31-2008, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Soldiermom08
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by evalles

It changes the definition of marriage.
My issue is that, while one of my favorite people in the world is gay, I don't want my children to be gay. I'll accept it if they are, but once something becomes legal, it becomes more prevalent.
That said, if we should accept others decisions to live lifestyles that aren't the "norm", we should also accept polygamy. A man chooses to be with a man, why shouldn't a man be able to choose to be with 5 women ? If the constitution affords us all these choices, it shouldn't be so selective. [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A man can "be with" 5 women in this country if he wants to. The part I take issue with is the 'teenage' marriages, arranged 'marriage', and the idea of one man being revered as Leader and a bunch of people who follow him without question. Those arrangements can and do turn into Wacos, Guyanas, Hale-Bopp Comet cult (named ?? escapes me at the moment), David Koresh and Jim Jones were also revered by their 'followers' and had a pretty outlandish (to us) belief system, and ended in mass suicide. How come we haven't learned that situations like this NEED intervention to avoid another mass suicide? jmo [/*]

Hale-Bopp Comet cult = Heaven's Gate.