FLDS Children

[KatyDid]

Shall we continue our discussions?

:seeya:

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Of course! :seeya:

I'm obsessed. Did anyone really think I'd make it 'til Monday or whenever without posting?

:punch:

Edited to add: I hope we keep it to one thread over here - much easier to follow for me, at least.

[/*]

:lol: you can count me in your group.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by litchfield29
DEFINITION OF DEVIANT:

Behavior and actions of an individual(s) that are different from traditional norm: diverging sharply from a customary, traditional, or generally accepted standards. [/*]

I tried to reply to your post on the other thread. Thank you for pointing out the thread is about the FLDS and not another religion, or in this case cult.

[evalles]

SAN ANGELO, Texas - A lawyer for a 14-year-old FLDS girl argues her client - listed by the state of Texas as an underage mother - is not pregnant and does not have children.
Attorney Andrea Sloan with the Texas Advocacy Project said the girl has taken a pregnancy test to confirm she is not pregnant.
Texas child welfare officials originally claimed 31 FLDS girls ages 14 to 17 were either pregnant, have children or both.
So far, however, they have since acknowledged at least nine girls are actually adults.
Sloan said her client is the youngest girl included in the list. While a judge told her the girl's status was not relevant to Wednesday's hearing, Sloan said making the clarification is important for two reasons: it could hamper the girl's mother's chances of regaining custody of her, and it misleads the public.
Hearings on other girls are continuing.
-Brooke Adams

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9334515

More evidence that the publice is being mislead.

[evalles]

Andrea Sloan, who represents Leona Allred, said the state was given official documents showing the woman to be 27 the day it raided the YFZ Ranch. On Tuesday, dismissed without the state receiving any additional information, Sloan told a Texas judge.
Sloan was informed of the impending decision Monday evening - but the state continued to tell Allred she could not participate in hearings on Tuesday for her two children because she was a minor. Allred turns 28 on June 2.
Allred had been warned, Sloan said, that as an adult she would not be allowed to remain at the Fort Worth shelter with her two children, including a 15-month-old - which a state attorney confirmed during the hearing.
But that apparently did not sit well with the judge hearing her case.
"For a month, six weeks, this mother has been with these children in this facility," he said, resetting the hearing for May 27 to give CPS time to work out an alternative.

Can you imagine what it would be like to be 28 years old, yet told over and over that you were a minor. This is like state supported brainwashing.
You have to say you're a minor or you can't stay with your children??

[evalles]

Asked by her husband, Dan, why the state had taken his children, Gossett said a "wide loop" had been thrown around the FLDS community that might not fit all parents. The state, he said, had concerns about the FLDS' beliefs, plural and underage marriages and "communal attitude."
If those allegations prove unfounded, "I'll be the first to apologize to you if it turns out you're not a person who has abused your child," the judge told Dan Jessop, who was in the courtroom. "There is no proof of abuse in your case. That gives you a leg up."


There is no proof of abuse but we're keeping your children.

You have committed no crime but we sentence you to death.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
What you and others dont understand is that what is "abusive" is subjective and the US Constitution gives each parent the right to teach any religion they wish. Courts have upheld that, and the only issue that is not protected is forcing or encouraging a child to get married, which we are now finding out is the exception in this sect, not the rule. [/*]Abusive is not subjective, nor do parents have the rights to teach their children anything (whether they name it religion or not) that they wish. A parent teaching their child to steal - abuse. A parent teaching their child to be a prostitute - abuse. A parent teaching their child to be pedophile fodder or a pedophile - abuse.

Doesn't matter if they wish to term that religion or not. However many are pregnant - and not that many have proven to not be - the marriage records and birth records still show a pattern of underage girls given to adult men for sex (I won't call it marriage - you don't get reassigned in marriage). Force or encouragement doesn't matter - any way of giving underage girls to adult men for their sexual use is wrong and abusive.

More then enough girls have come forward to say that's exactly what is happening, with force (religious, intimidation, as well as physical) if they don't bow to the lifetime of education that tells them to accept anything an adult asks of their body.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Abusive is not subjective, nor do parents have the rights to teach their children anything (whether they name it religion or not) that they wish. A parent teaching their child to steal - abuse. A parent teaching their child to be a prostitute - abuse. A parent teaching their child to be pedophile fodder or a pedophile - abuse.

Doesn't matter if they wish to term that religion or not. However many are pregnant - and not that many have proven to not be - the marriage records and birth records still show a pattern of underage girls given to adult men for sex (I won't call it marriage - you don't get reassigned in marriage). Force or encouragement doesn't matter - any way of giving underage girls to adult men for their sexual use is wrong and abusive.

More then enough girls have come forward to say that's exactly what is happening, with force (religious, intimidation, as well as physical) if they don't bow to the lifetime of education that tells them to accept anything an adult asks of their body. [/*]

Ex members that haven't been on this compound have come forward. Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Details
Abusive is not subjective, nor do parents have the rights to teach their children anything (whether they name it religion or not) that they wish. A parent teaching their child to steal - abuse. A parent teaching their child to be a prostitute - abuse. A parent teaching their child to be pedophile fodder or a pedophile - abuse.

Doesn't matter if they wish to term that religion or not. However many are pregnant - and not that many have proven to not be - the marriage records and birth records still show a pattern of underage girls given to adult men for sex (I won't call it marriage - you don't get reassigned in marriage). Force or encouragement doesn't matter - any way of giving underage girls to adult men for their sexual use is wrong and abusive.

More then enough girls have come forward to say that's exactly what is happening, with force (religious, intimidation, as well as physical) if they don't bow to the lifetime of education that tells them to accept anything an adult asks of their body. [/*]

Parents are charged/fined everyday for crimes their minor children commit. Yes, you are correct, parents hold the final responsibility for the teaching of their children.

As for the abuse, it has been documented since this cult was formed by JSmith.

Good to see you Details :seeya:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Bratlings



You need to understand that ANY spiritual belief that recognizes a supreme being according to the Supreme court can be upheld as religion. It doesnt matter if anyone considers it abuse, they can teach it, they cant force a child into illegal activities like marriage but they can still teach it. [/*]

Now I am confused...I thought Warren Jeffs was THE PROPHET who claims to be the Voice of the Supreme Being?..Seems to me they Praise Warren Jeffs, Adore and worship him and his very word..they jump, marry, have babies, give their kids to him to do as he wishes..as they have been told it is the direction desired by God..I don't recall any scriptures that direct submitting your newly pubescent girl be given to an old man..and to separate the children from their mothers and fathers..Please can someone please enlighten me just which books in the bible stipulate those directives.. Surely the saying " Suffer the little children to come unto Me"..Does not mean to Warren Jeffs or any other self proclaimed prophet for that matter!

LMS:eek:

[evalles]

Albrecht(CPS) said that one plan had been drafted for every family living on the YFZ Ranch and that neither Steed nor her children had been consulted prior to formulating the plan.

"Tell the court what evidence there is for this family that abuse or neglect occurred," Ticer asked Albrecht.

Albrecht said she had none and agreed that typical CPS protocol calls for gathering evidence first and then tailoring service plans to specific allegations of abuse and neglect.

"These children don't show any signs of neglect or abuse," Ticer said. "What it amounts to, judge, is they live at the wrong address."

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-05-22/news/family-planning/

Said the CPS worker. "These children don't show any signs of neglect or abuse" but we're not giving them back.

[Jan Powell]

Hawkins told senators that the costs - $5.3M - plus an additional $1.74 million a month to keep the sect's children in foster care — will not affect other agency programs.

(Albert Hawkins, head of the Health and Human Services Commission.)

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/21/0521eldoradocost.html

Since CPS can single handedly break HHS with this investigation, I hope they have strong evidence of criminal activity to support the costs.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y


Now I am confused...I thought Warren Jeffs was THE PROPHET who claims to be the Voice of the Supreme Being?..Seems to me they Praise Warren Jeffs, Adore and worship him and his very word..they jump, marry, have babies, give their kids to him to do as he wishes..as they have been told it is the direction desired by God..I don't recall any scriptures that direct submitting your newly pubescent girl be given to an old man..and to separate the children from their mothers and fathers..Please can someone please enlighten me just which books in the bible stipulate those directives.. Surely the saying " Suffer the little children to come unto Me"..Does not mean to Warren Jeffs or any other self proclaimed prophet for that matter!

LMS:eek: [/*]

And there are no newly pubescent girls involved in this proceeding. You can only justify your opinions on what you've read about ex-members and past events, nothing in regards to these particular kids.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by grammybear
I have just finsihed reading the regular threat. It did not surprise me at all that the Texas legislature is considering having the FLDS pay for the care and court costs that are now being incurred because of the raid. I suspect that a lot of the people that lived in this compound are on their way to someplace else.

It also does not surprise me that cps suspects there are more children at the compound. I guess this is going to be a long drawn out process and it may take years to make sense of all of it.

jmoo [/*]

I agree grammy. This is one case that won't be done and over with quickly.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Bratlings
I dont understand what you are confused about? What I said has NOTHING to do with what you said. [/*]

Then could you be more clear..What is your definition of a Supreme Being??..It certainly doesn't fit the bill for any mortal man/women to be such or speak for..

I took your claim that if any group claims to worship a Supreme Being. is automatically an accepted religion??...well it seems this particular FDLS Group Worship Warren Jeffs..not God..I see very little onbects of religion in their homes/ranch/compounds..but see a huge picture of Warren Jeffs adorning every wall that has been televised!

So please try to be a little more explicit..I abviously misunderstood your comment..Sorry bout that

LMS:seeya:

Added question..If by your rule of thumb ... those groups that believe in a God/Satan or who ever..and they sacrifice their children to that diety..is a bonafied religion that has all the rights and previleges the governement offers? I wonder, no matter what religion you have..one must follow the laws of the land..no?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Jan Powell
Hawkins told senators that the costs - $5.3M - plus an additional $1.74 million a month to keep the sect's children in foster care — will not affect other agency programs.

(Albert Hawkins, head of the Health and Human Services Commission.)

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/21/0521eldoradocost.html

Since CPS can single handedly break HHS with this investigation, I hope they have strong evidence of criminal activity to support the costs. [/*]

That is why they want to go after the assets of the FLDS Texas compound.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9332171

"...One lawmaker on the Senate Finance Committee questioned whether the state could make the adults left behind on the ranch - valued at $20.5 million - foot the bill.
"I would encourage you to aggressively pursue any of those assets to fund this," said Republican Sen. Bob Deuell of Greenville.'

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Warren Jeffs, FLDS Leader, Prophet, Convicted Felon

Let us all 'practice our religion' by obeying his every felonious, twisted 'revelation' and command.

Edited to add: IMO, MOO, Oh Oh Oh [/*]

It's just plain 'ol sick, IMO.

Jeffs HIMSELF admitted he was no prophet and admitted he did not hear God, etc. It was recorded during a conversation he had with one of his brothers while he was in jail.

These people are so brainwashed...they still keep this creep's photo hangin on the walls of their children's bedrooms.

barf

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Bratlings


Their religion is not what Warren Jeffs determines. They believe in God, they are in fact Christians. They believe Warren Jeffs is the one chosen by God to give them directives. But you have to separate the two if you want to examine the two issues. Warren Jeffs is promoting illegal activity, HE is not their religious basis for polygamy. [/*]

Thankyou...It seems to me that the Jeff's and Jessops of this sect has highjacked the Religion then I don't even have a problem with Polygamy when conscenting adults agree to that..but to have direction to marry this man or that man then get reassigned by his majesty to yet another man..I draw a line.

As to what Jeffs does with the children and the young girls..is indeed felonious..and to me against God's law..not just governmental laws..

LMS

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


And let's not forget that the FLDS parents are quite insistent that their children have images and voice recordings of Warren with them while they're in state custody. [/*]

Oh yes, I believe they are requesting that with their 'plans'.

How lovely to have a child pay reverence to a child molester and convicted felon.

I think there is a suit pending against Jeffs for molesting his nephew when he was either 5 or 9. I can't recall the age at the moment.

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by KatyDid


That is why they want to go after the assets of the FLDS Texas compound.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9332171

"...One lawmaker on the Senate Finance Committee questioned whether the state could make the adults left behind on the ranch - valued at $20.5 million - foot the bill.
"I would encourage you to aggressively pursue any of those assets to fund this," said Republican Sen. Bob Deuell of Greenville.' [/*]

The legislature will not be back in session until 1/2009. They are wondering and questioning prematurely, they haven't a case yet. In the meantime the tab to the counties, suppliers, lawyers, etc. have to be paid.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Jan Powell


The legislature will not be back in session until 1/2009. They are wondering and questioning prematurely, they haven't a case yet. In the meantime the tab to the counties, suppliers, lawyers, etc. have to be paid. [/*]

They might as well get a plan in place...just in case.

This case isn't going away for a long time, IMO.

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



You keep insisting its not a religion but a cult but they are Latter day Saints ie Mormons. Nothing more or less. So when you attack their religion that is who you are talking about. The only difference is that FLDS still PRACTICE polygamy. [/*].





Long day at work and I am trying to catch up.


For now, all I can say is wow.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



You keep insisting its not a religion but a cult but they are Latter day Saints ie Mormons. Nothing more or less. So when you attack their religion that is who you are talking about. The only difference is that FLDS still PRACTICE polygamy. [/*]



No they are NOT Latter Day Saints ie Mormons. They are FUNDAMENTALIST Latter Day Saints & are NOT recognized by the Latter Day Saints. They are a radical bunch that broke off from the Latter Day Saints, ie a CULT.

[warhorse46]

evalles
Member

Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 620

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ?


__________________
This is my opinion only, unless otherwise stated.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-21-2008 04:51 PM


No that is not in the CPS manual, it is in the Texas Family Code ie LAW.
Of course there are no formal accusations---yet. The investigation has barely begun & even @ this early stage the parents are throwing roadblocks which impedes the investigation progress. So it is going to take longer. You have to suspect before you can accuse.
You are conveniently leaving out words of the law. It does not say only immediate physical danger. It say physical or mental danger.



http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/fa/005.00.000261.00.html
Texas Family Code
CHAPTER 261. INVESTIGATION OF REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT


http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/2007_-_2008_Penal_Code.pdf
Sec 22.04 Injury to a child, elderly or disabled
Sec. 22.011 Number 2 A & *

[KatyDid]

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/senior-church-leader-appeals-to-media-to-make-distinction

Senior Church Leader Appeals to Media to Make Distinction

SALT LAKE CITY 17 April 2008 Elder Quentin L. Cook, an apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, appealed to the news media today to make a clear distinction in their reports between the Church and the polygamist sect in Texas that has made headlines throughout the world.

[walton]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Thought I'd bring a few things over from the daily thread ... for those who might've missed them or would like to refer to them.

;)

[/*]

I couldn't get the MSN link to work.

This is the first time that I've seen that Dateline video.


I want more.

[walton]

Thanks bunches!! I will be back later. :seeya:


I like that guy doing the interview.

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46
evalles
Member

Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 620

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ?


__________________
This is my opinion only, unless otherwise stated.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

05-21-2008 04:51 PM


No that is not in the CPS manual, it is in the Texas Family Code ie LAW.
Of course there are no formal accusations---yet. The investigation has barely begun & even @ this early stage the parents are throwing roadblocks which impedes the investigation progress. So it is going to take longer. You have to suspect before you can accuse.
You are conveniently leaving out words of the law. It does not say only immediate physical danger. It say physical or mental danger.



http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/fa/005.00.000261.00.html
Texas Family Code
CHAPTER 261. INVESTIGATION OF REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT


http://www.texaspolicecentral.com/2007_-_2008_Penal_Code.pdf
Sec 22.04 Injury to a child, elderly or disabled
Sec. 22.011 Number 2 A & * [/*]

This is on definitions, NOT requirements for removal. They're different and I've posted them several times. They don't get to take kids on suspicions alone. At least not by law. AGAIN, THESE ARE DEFINITIONS.

This is the statute regarding taking custody of a child


§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that
requests permission to take possession of a child without prior
notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a
person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to
satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical
health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of
neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical
health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under
Subchapter C; and (3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the
circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal[0] of the child.

[evalles]

Looky here,

§ 262.1015. REMOVAL[0] OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR; OFFENSE.
(a) If the department determines after an investigation that child
abuse has occurred and that the child would be protected in the
child's home by the removal[0] of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse,
the department shall file a petition for the removal[0] of the alleged
perpetrator from the residence of the child rather than attempt to
remove the child from the residence.

NOTICE HOW IT SAYS AFTER THE INVESTIGATION!!!

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=YIBTJMNJVGDS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124414&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=8&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Thats right they want people to know they are different, but their religious beliefs are the same. [/*]

JMO/IMO The religious beliefs are the same, the practices of the same religion are different. JMO/IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Youre exactly right, so when you attack their religion you are attacking millions of people. When we talk about polygamy that is their practice but what many people dont know is that LDS also practiced and fervently believed in it at one time and only denounced it because of the Federal government forcing them to. Not because they wanted to. [/*]

So are you saying all Mormons practice polygamy? Or are you saying Mormons teach polygamy but do not practice it? JMO/IMO

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by KatyDid


They might as well get a plan in place...just in case.

This case isn't going away for a long time, IMO. [/*]

If LE can bring a case and get a conviction, I don't care what they do financial to that person or anyone else involved in the crime.

Over the long haul, the state will pay for what CPS did whether they have any cases of abuse or not.

[walton]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Go to the daily thread, walton, from yesterday. Ladyhawk posted the links initially. [/*]

I couldn't find any more stuff on the Dateline video.

They were talking about the bed in the Temple.
The guy said that the hair on the bed was because someone needed to rest.

If the Prophet was/is in jail. What were they doing in the Temple?

Do the FLDS hold service in the Temple without a Prophet? Is that normal?

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I didnt say either thing you did. What I said is this...

FLDS practice polygamy now.

Latter Day Saints use to and did not give it up for a virtuous moral reason. They did it to become a State and receive federal funding that was conditional upon denouncing it. [/*]

JMO/IMO Latter Day Saints gave it up to bring their religious practice into line with the law. Is this correct? JMO/IMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Bratlings



That is all very premature, they will have to prove a legal basis for taking the kids first, and it will be determined case by case. [/*]

Let us hope so. I am so worried that all the fearful people who constantly throw our rights away instead of sucking it up ever will have their way and none of our children will ever be safe again. IMO

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I didnt say either thing you did. What I said is this...

FLDS practice polygamy now.

Latter Day Saints use to and did not give it up for a virtuous moral reason. They did it to become a State and receive federal funding that was conditional upon denouncing it. [/*]

:read: with much interest.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No, they did it exactly for the reason I said, So Utah could receive federal support and become a State. It had nothing to do with "wanting" to bring anything in line with laws. [/*]

JMO/IMO Did I say they "wanted" to change it? JMO/IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by walton


:read: with much interest. [/*]
:seeya:

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I was emphasizing that they did NOT want to. FLDS are the same mormons as the current ones, the only difference is that the FLDS practice original beliefs, and the LDS practice beliefs that were changed to coincide with federal law. [/*]

JMO/IMO That's what I thought. Does it matter if they "wanted" to or not? Or does it matter that they were willing to change? Just curious. JMO/IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Yes it matters. For two reasons... Those who claim they are not a religion but instead a cult, and for those who claim that they are not Mormons...


The Church of LDS is quick to denounce them but the truth is if not for the federal government forcing them to comply with federal law they would likely still be practicing it and there would be no need for a secular branch now would there be? [/*]

JMO/IMO The federal government forced them to comply (?) or they complied with federal law to receive the statehood they desired? Not real confident on my knowledge of Utah history. JMO/IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Helllooooo people! :seeya:

The topic is the FLDS followers of Warren Jeffs.

Those who are out of excuses for the behavior of the FLDS are now attempting to change the subject.

The topic of LDS vs. FLDS is utterly irrelevant.

This is a public service announcement. :D

IMO, JMO, MOO and stuff [/*]

Mbwahahahahaha! ROTFLMAO!:seeya: Good one!

[walton]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Helllooooo people! :seeya:

The topic is the FLDS followers of Warren Jeffs.

Those who are out of excuses for the behavior of the FLDS are now attempting to change the subject.

The topic of LDS vs. FLDS is utterly irrelevant.

This is a public service announcement. :D

IMO, JMO, MOO and stuff [/*]


Except they are on topic.

The FLDS would not be if the the LDS never was. jmo



History makes us who we are today. jmo

[KatyDid]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/21/cps-looks-at-whether-more-children-are-on-sects/

CPS seeks access to polygamist ranch to search for more children
By Paul A. Anthony (Contact)
Originally published 01:15 p.m., May 21, 2008
Updated 02:16 p.m., May 21, 2008

Rod Parker, spokesman for some parents of the roughly 450 children removed from the ranch, said a car with two CPS workers showed up today at the ranch, and the workers said they had heard children were at the ranch.

Officials at the ranch asked whether the CPS workers had a search warrant, Parker told reporters outside the gate.

The CPS officials left, he said, but ranch officials think there is a good chance they will return.

"As far as I know, there are no children," Parker said, "but I haven't searched" the ranch.


Just re-reading some of today's news. In the statement above, was Parker covering his back side by adding the words "but I haven't searched"?

[walton]

:seeya: Katydid

I saw the Dateline video. But only a portion. Do you have the rest of it? Good interview!

Concerning Parker backtracking? I do believe that is Parker getting paid. :D

2004 article

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

That appears to mean that Parker's firm was fired by its clients, but no one is sure and neither Parker nor anyone affiliated with his law firm is willing to comment. Parker, who has been very open with the media in the past, did not return phone calls this week.

[walton]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Sorry, my friend - not gonna take that walk again. IMO, it's a separate discussion and the only reason it was brought up tonite was as a diversionary tactic.

I'll see if I can find out what's up with that Dateline link tomorrow - both links worked just fine for us yesterday, and in fact, they were forwarded by someone (can't remember who at the moment) to CPS for further investigation.

:seeya: [/*]

No, the dateline link worked fine. That is why I wanted more. I want to see it all. :)

I couldn't get the other link to work.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Sorry, my friend - not gonna take that walk again. IMO, it's a separate discussion and the only reason it was brought up tonite was as a diversionary tactic.

I'll see if I can find out what's up with that Dateline link tomorrow - both links worked just fine for us yesterday, and in fact, they were forwarded by someone (can't remember who at the moment) to CPS for further investigation.

:seeya: [/*]

Charity, IIRC

Ladyhawk originally posted it with her observations.

[Poochie Pie]

Originally posted by grammybear
Yes I think the attorney is covering his back side. No doubt about it.

For all the rest of you who are trying to say FLDS and LDS is the same, There is no amount of conversation that is going to change a few who have ideas of both of these religions being the same. I think it is a waste of energy and time. The only thing I care about is that these children are protected from harm and are not abused in any way shape or form. This includes physical, mental, sexual or whatever. Our next generation in this group could bery well be harmed by the teachings of the FLDS. Anybody can say they are a religion and live according to their own beliefs but when you cross the line and teach these small children that it is ok to abuse in any way shape or form then there is something wrong with it.

We need to keep our focus on the children of all walks of life not on the lifestyle of the adults. If the adults want to marry a number of people at the same time that is their business and they can use whatever excuse they want for their behavior, but when children are born into this type of society or force these children to participate then there is a problem.

jmoo [/*] Post of the day..!!! Thank you, grammybear.. :seeya:

Poochie

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by walton
:seeya: Katydid

I saw the Dateline video. But only a portion. Do you have the rest of it? Good interview!

Concerning Parker backtracking? I do believe that is Parker getting paid. :D

2004 article

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

That appears to mean that Parker's firm was fired by its clients, but no one is sure and neither Parker nor anyone affiliated with his law firm is willing to comment. Parker, who has been very open with the media in the past, did not return phone calls this week. [/*]

Hiya walton :seeya:

Did you want to see the video?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24575095#24577612

I'm going to read your link about Parker.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by walton
:seeya: Katydid

I saw the Dateline video. But only a portion. Do you have the rest of it? Good interview!

Concerning Parker backtracking? I do believe that is Parker getting paid. :D

2004 article

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

That appears to mean that Parker's firm was fired by its clients, but no one is sure and neither Parker nor anyone affiliated with his law firm is willing to comment. Parker, who has been very open with the media in the past, did not return phone calls this week. [/*]

WOW...great article. Yeppers, I believe Parker is back on the payroll!

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Gotcha, I'll check out the other one then.

Gonna climb the wooden hill now (as my mom used to say) and start getting ready for bed.

:patriot: [/*]

G'nite GGW and everybody else.

I'm hittin' the hay too.
:seeya:

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



They are, just because the church denounces them doesnt mean there is any difference in their religion....

PROOF- This is what the LDS church says is the difference...

"Church officials have emphasized that Latter-day Saints "do not live in isolated compounds, arrange marriages, dress in old-fashioned clothing or wear unusual hairstyles," like FLDS members do."

""It's of great concern to the church because our members don't engage in polygamous conduct. ... "

"Its members marry at the average age of 23 and are well-educated, Elder Cook said"


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271948,00.html

NOTHING there about religion. [/*]


Sure is.

<<<During 1998 several Church leaders, including President Gordon *. Hinckley, spoke out on polygamy.

"I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of the Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law."

-President Gordon *. Hinckley
Although it's easy to become confused by media headlines which refer to polygamous groups as "Mormon fundamentalists," "Mormon families," or "Mormon Polygamous Clans", it's important to remember that today polygamy is in no way connected with the Church. These titles are misleading and are a contradiction in terms. The term Mormon is a nickname applied exclusively to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. Sine polygamy was denounced by the Church over a century ago and members who embrace this practice today are excommunicated, the term "Mormon polygamist" is a falsity.
http://lds.about.com/library/weekly/previousyears/aa042799a.htm>>>

This is the religious doctrine that the FLDS follow, the Mormans do not.
<<http://lds.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth. >>>

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Poochie Pie
Post of the day..!!! Thank you, grammybear.. :seeya:

Poochie [/*]

Hi Poochie! :seeya:

Polygamy is illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. The FLDS are committing crimes not practicing religion.

IMO

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Thats right they want people to know they are different, but their religious beliefs are the same. [/*]


No they are not. The FLDS believe for a man to gain a god status & a place in heaven he must take @ least 3 wives. Read the link to their doctrine I posted.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles


This is on definitions, NOT requirements for removal. They're different and I've posted them several times. They don't get to take kids on suspicions alone. At least not by law. AGAIN, THESE ARE DEFINITIONS.

This is the statute regarding taking custody of a child


§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that
requests permission to take possession of a child without prior
notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a
person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to
satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical
health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of
neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical
health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under
Subchapter C; and (3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the
circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal[0] of the child. [/*]


:lol: You obviously do not understand what you are posting.:lol:
All of that petition filing was done when the warrant was obtained. Also please read every word of number 1 of your own post.

[Poochie Pie]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Hi Poochie! :seeya:

Polygamy is illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. The FLDS are committing crimes not practicing religion.

IMO [/*] Hi Paula... ACTUALLY, IMO, they are committing crimes in the Name of Religion... :seeya:

Poochie

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



So did LDS at one time believe that too. [/*]


Read the links I have provided.

[Poochie Pie]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Read the links I have provided. [/*] Thanks for the links, warhorse... Very informative..!!

Poochie

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Poochie Pie
Thanks for the links, warhorse... Very informative..!!

Poochie [/*]


You`re welcome. Hopefully they will enlighten others with the truth.

[walton]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Sure is.

<<<During 1998 several Church leaders, including President Gordon *. Hinckley, spoke out on polygamy.

"I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of the Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law."

-President Gordon *. Hinckley
Although it's easy to become confused by media headlines which refer to polygamous groups as "Mormon fundamentalists," "Mormon families," or "Mormon Polygamous Clans", it's important to remember that today polygamy is in no way connected with the Church. These titles are misleading and are a contradiction in terms. The term Mormon is a nickname applied exclusively to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members. Sine polygamy was denounced by the Church over a century ago and members who embrace this practice today are excommunicated, the term "Mormon polygamist" is a falsity.
http://lds.about.com/library/weekly/previousyears/aa042799a.htm>>>

This is the religious doctrine that the FLDS follow, the Mormans do not.
<<http://lds.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives; 26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth. >>> [/*]

oh man. I've tried.
"I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of the Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law."

If there are no such thing as Mormon fundamentalists and if this group has nothing to do with the Church, how is it that the Church states that they are excommunicated? Just asking.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Bratlings



They are practicing religion and some have broken laws that they believe are their religion and further some have twisted their religion to believe what they want. [/*]

America would become a Nation of utter lawlessness if it allowed each and every sect to violate its laws in the name religion. We cannot, nor should we permit it, especially when children are being sexually and physically abused and being taught to live lifestyles which violate the laws of this Country.

LDS ceased the practice of polygamy because it violated Federal/civil law, as you have stated. Why did the FLDS defy the teachings and practices of the law-abiding LDS by adopting a cult and commune lifestyle which violates them?

IMO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Bratlings



You are saying they defied teachings, they are saying original teachings taught it. Who is right?

If the Pope says tomorrow its ok to use birth control, there are going to be Catholics who dont agree and continue to abide by the old beliefs. That doesnt mean one is right over the other.


But I agree, they should follow the laws where applicable. [/*]

As nations evolve, they become more civilized and morally conscious. The FLDS is instead regressing and devolving.

The analogy you drew about whether or not Catholics would practice birth control once the Pope approves it, cannot be compared to the what the FLDS is doing. Birth control would then be a personal choice, and unlike FLDS practices, whatever one decides wouldn't violate the laws of this Country.

IMO

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Not according to the courts. I posted a supreme court ruling above involving the right to teach polygamy to your children. [/*]Polygamy is not abuse. Underage sex is. Teaching children no age is too young for sex is - and they've stated this is their belief in plenty of interviews.


No matter how many times you pretend it is - polygamy is not the issue. Child abuse is.


Broken bones, underage 'marriage', underage pregnancy, missing boys, pedophile grooming. It's all about the child abuse. There's been not a word in court or otherwise where polygamy was given as any type of problem meaning the children needed to be kept.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
You need to read that ruling, it is not abuse to teach it. [/*]It is child abuse to groom a child to be a pedophile's toy, to accept underage sex in preparation for their underage marriage.

I'll read your link when you read links.

[Details]

FLDS isn't Mormon - the Mormons say they are not - I think that's the best authority. It's an insult to them to say that they are pedophile supporting, marriage forcing, wife reassigning cult members. Mormons don't believe in Jeffs. FLDS believe Jeffs is the sole authority (which, is a marker of a cult - following one charismatic leader). Mormons don't go for coffee and alcohol - FLDS do.

And the most key difference any two religions can have - Mormons and FLDS differ entirely on how you get to heaven - according to FLDS, no Mormon will go to heaven. That's about as big of a difference as you can get.



Not that it matters - if you had a bunch of mainstream Mormons abusing children, it still wouldn't be OK. Teaching children to be compliant pedophile toys is not OK. Discarding young teenage boys because they are inconvenient is not OK. Child labor is not OK. Never. Not even if you say it's your religious beliefs.

And I can't wait for that educational survey to come back - let's see just how well the 'home schooling' has been done - have they learned anything other than the speeches of Warren Jeffs and how to say Yes to your marriage no matter to who.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Come on, thats quite a stretch saying they teach children to become pedophile toys. But I know you will insist they teach that, so I wont bother. :rolleyes: [/*]They have said, and children interviewed by CPS have said there is no age too young for an arranged marriage. They're taught to Keep Sweet, and obey. That's grooming. And it's abuse. They're simple prey for any pedophile - whether in the FLDS or out.

Here's one case - went beyond grooming - but the grooming was part of the charges.
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/617102.html

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
That is tantamount to a Catholic believing an excommunicated one isnt going to heaven. It means and proves nothing. [/*]It's essential. The key of a religion is what the goal is - what you have to do to be right in life. The two religions - or rather, the one religion, and the one cult - have completely different beliefs on that issue.

Catholics don't believe that Protestants aren't going to heaven. Heck, even the excommunicated could go to heaven. Not so for FLDS. No 3 wives, no husband, no bunch of children to feed to other men or throw away if they're the wrong gender - no heaven. Disobey Jeffs - no heaven. Mormon beliefs are nothing like that.

[Details]

Actually I don't. I reference many people. Jessop, Wall, FLDS members in their own interviews, court testimony from Texas, and information about lost boys and escapees from all over. Wall is only one person. Nor is there anything inconsisitent - they are taught to obey, and to accept their marriage at any time. They aren't taught about sex - at least some aren't - that's not necessary for grooming. They're taught to obey, and to accept 'marriage' at any time. That's pedophile grooming, even though the kids don't know what type of commands they're being prepped to obey.

[walton]

I find it very interesting that so many are saying that Polygamy isn't the issue.

If Polygamy wasn't a issue do you think that there would be over 400 plus kids out at that Ranch?

I don't.

If Polygamy wasn't an issue do you think there would be so many young girls marrying older men?

I don't.

If Polygamy is just about consenting adults how do these 400 plus kids fit into that theory?



Polygamy is rarely just about consenting adults.

Action - Reaction. jmo

[LLaFren]

Morning all, went to bed, got up and found out we moved:D

Going to read upthread to see what I missed.

:seeya:

[Rainkiss]

I've posted this before. Several times.

(*) In determining whether there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of a child, the court may consider
whether the child's household includes a person who has:
(1) abused or neglected another child in a manner that caused serious injury to or the death of the other child; or
(2) sexually abused another child.

Texas Family Code 262 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000262.00.htm)

The lawyers (and others) keep harping on "shouldn't have taken the children in the first place." They're wrong. By Texas law, if a household includes ONE person who has abused, neglected, or sexually abused another child, they can, and should, remove all children from the situation until it can be properly investigated.

Leaving the children and removing the men is worse than impractical. They'd still have the mothers with them, who would continue to hinder the investigation. (The women who were permitted to stay with their children did just that, encouraging the children to lie, obsuring information, and so on.) And, the ranch is 17,000 acres. There is no way to prevent the men from returning. The FLDS members demonstrated how willing they were to cooperate with law enforcement... They lied from the beginning about how many people were there. They actively attempted to hide children from the investigators. They demonstrated VERY CLEARLY from the beginning and right up to today, that they were not willing to cooperate. How many men have come to be DNA tested?

And, again, for the record, I don't care if they call themselves the FLDS, Mormons, or aliens from outer space. I don't care if they believe in polygamy, polyandry, or polly-wanna-cracker. They are a culture which glorifies and worships a convicted pedophile, who has been accused by his own nephew of molesting him when he was only five years old. Every adult on that compound either actively molested a young girl, or stood by, knowing it was happening. (They may not have known before it happened, but the day a fifteen year old girl sits in church next to a man not her own father or brother, they knew.) The YFZ ranch was formed of the elite, the "true believers" of the FLDS. I'd have a very hard time believing that one of the true faithful didn't know what was happening.

[Rainkiss]

Thanks, Soldiermom...

I do have to argue with you about banning cults, though. It's tough to define the difference between a cult and a valid faith. What's next? If you outlaw every faith that breaks the law or has a ritual that looks like it breaks the law, we'd be in serious trouble. (Wanna watch a Catholic's head explode? Ask about the ritual symbolic cannibalism...)

The FLDS is free to believe whatever the heck they want. But, like the judge said, their right to religious freedom ends when they start breaking the law.

There's no need to outlaw the cults, just prosecute for the laws they break. They'll either stop breaking the laws, or practice behind bars.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Soldiermom08
http://www.religioustolerance.org/fldsjeffs.htm



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffs has allegedly:
-- Forbidden members to use television sets, VCRs, video games or to have connections to the Internet.
-- Banned boating, fishing and other water activities.
-- Instructed parents to throw away most children's books including the Bible and Book of Mormon storybooks.
-- Terminated community and holiday celebrations, such as observing the birthdays of previous leaders and Pioneer Day.
-- Stopped dances, socials and other get-togethers.
-- Warned members that laughter causes the spirit of God to leak from their bodies. He based this belief on an obscure statement by Joseph Smith.
-- Expelled many men and reassigned their wives and children to other men.
-- Expelled large numbers of teenage boys from his areas of control in order to artificially increase the ratio of females to males. Only by discharging young males does polygyny become possible.

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

Bringing this quote back to remind people that if you defend these people you are saying that the above is ok- and that just isn't right. No fishing? WHAT? Why? So ridicilous. I would be interested to know why Jeff's is banning something as benign as fishing, or any water sport/activity. does anybody know why hes banning fishing? Its not that I am a big fishing fanatic, its just the irrelevence of fishing to religion is so laughable all I can do is shake my head and say WTF? [/*]

Because he is a miserable child molesting, lying, hating, MORTAL man, who himself admitted he did NOT receive messages from God, and he is not THE PROPHET.

The only thing this man ever wanted to do was inflict emotional and physical pain any way he could think to do it. If he saw somebody enjoying an activity, no matter how benign, he banned it.

The worst thing...these people are still taking orders from this man even after he said he was not the prophet.

Who do these people think these orders are coming from now? Jeffs himself said they didn't come from God.

[KatyDid]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/22/ranch-nearly-deserted/

Ranch nearly deserted
CPS turned away checking rumors of children there
By Jayna Boyle (Contact)
Thursday, May 22, 2008

SCHLEICHER COUNTY - The self-sustaining Yearning For Zion Ranch near Eldorado now has almost no one to sustain.

Work on the ranch that more than 500 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have called home has come to a halt, with stone-cutting machines, concrete trucks and building supplies waiting silently to be put to use. One woman sat in the shade of housing and gardened Wednesday afternoon while a handful of young men worked in a dairy or corralled the media through a ranch tour.

Other than that, the ranch looked deserted.

Media members were invited onto the ranch after two Child Protective Service workers accompanied by one Schleicher County sheriff's deputy tried to get onto the ranch to look for children, said Willie Jessop, an FLDS member.

Guy Jessop, who was standing at the gate, said he asked the CPS workers to produce a search warrant, and they could not.

"Our policy is to cooperate with them at this point," Willie Jessop said. " I don't know how to help at this point."

CPS released a statement Wednesday night that says the agency received information that children may still be living at the ranch, so investigators tried to visit the ranch earlier in the day, but a sect member declined access to the case workers.

"Case workers later spoke with FLDS member Willie Jessop, who indicated that he would allow case workers access," the statement says. "A few hours later, case workers returned to the ranch and were met at the gate by Mr. (Willie) Jessop who refused to allow them to enter."


Willie Jessop lies again.

:rolleyes:

[KatyDid]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/22/court-updates-trudge-forward/

Court updates trudge forward
By Paul A. Anthony (Contact)
Thursday, May 22, 2008

Annette Jeffs may be married - spiritually or otherwise - to Warren Jeffs, but she clearly doesn't feel bound to the polygamist sect leader's more controversial teachings.

The mother and caretaker of nearly a dozen children will not return to the YFZ Ranch and signed a pledge that she would not allow any of her children to marry before turning 18, her attorney said in court.

"Those are commitments we will keep," said Tim Edwards, who represented Annette Jeffs during the third day of status hearings for more than 450 children removed from the Schleicher County ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Jeffs cares for 11 children, some of whom were born to her sister, Barbara Jeffs, who died in 2004, Edwards told 51st District Judge Barbara Walther.

Four of the children were the subject of cases in Walther's court Wednesday, a fifth was declared an adult by the state's Child Protective Services agency, and the other six are expected to come up for hearings later this month.



Wonder what the COD for her sister was?

[KatyDid]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/22/service-plan-battles-persist/

Service plan queries persist
Staff reports

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Excerpts from live reports from the Tom Green County Courthouse on the third day of 60-day status hearings in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints child custody case:

Courtroom A - Jennifer Rios

Child Protective Services case worker Ashlee Kennedy testified Wednesday for more than an hour about the cases of the three children of Adeline Barlow Jeffs and Leroy Steed.

Jeffs signed the service plan, adding her written objections to it.

San Antonio State District Judge John Specia, who was filling in for 119th District Judge Ben Woodward, reminded attorneys for the children to move their questions along because he had other cases to hear. He ultimately approved the service plan.

Specia signed service plans in five cases during morning hearings.

In contrast to most cases, the four children of Sarah Draper and Daniel Barlow are staying in the same place, Hendrick Home for Children in Abilene. Draper, who lives and works in Abilene, visits them once a week for one to two hours. Barlow said he would have his first visit with the children later in the day.

Barlow said he is from Utah and has never been to the sect's YFZ Ranch, nor has he been affiliated with the sect for 4.5 years. He and Draper also have an 11-year-old son in Utah.



More at the link.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by walton


oh man. I've tried.


If there are no such thing as Mormon fundamentalists and if this group has nothing to do with the Church, how is it that the Church states that they are excommunicated? Just asking. [/*]

If they are a member of the LDS church & are discovered practicing the FLDS beliefs they are booted out of the LDS.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Youre right about that unless they knew that the calls were not from a compound and in fact from someone 1000 miles away. Evidence is suggesting they did in fact know that, and knew it before they went. [/*]


The location of the call is irrelevant, the content of the call is the relevant fact.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I dont understand why you or many others keep claiming significant differences with none to point out except polygamy. :shrug: [/*]


Well the glaring issue you seem to be missing is that polygamy is illegal. The LDS are not committing crimes & have not been for more than a century. The FLDS are committing crimes.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Because he is a miserable child molesting, lying, hating, MORTAL man, who himself admitted he did NOT receive messages from God, and he is not THE PROPHET.

The only thing this man ever wanted to do was inflict emotional and physical pain any way he could think to do it. If he saw somebody enjoying an activity, no matter how benign, he banned it.

The worst thing...these people are still taking orders from this man even after he said he was not the prophet.

Who do these people think these orders are coming from now? Jeffs himself said they didn't come from God. [/*]

It's a tough thing to swallow, that something you truly believed isn't the truth. Remember how you felt when they told you about Santa? Imagine if NOBODY had ever breathed that there wasn't a Santa, if you'd never wondered, until the day someone sat you down and explained that Mom and Dad have been putting those presents under the tree all along.

As far as they're concerned, I'd imagine, Jeffs never said he wasn't the prophet, it's a trick by the "outsiders" to make them lose their faith.

Imagine how you'd feel if you were told that EVERYTHING you'd ever believed was a lie. That's what they're dealing with.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-28-polygamy_x.htm

Pa. high court says father has right to teach daughter about belief in polygamy

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A father may teach his young daughter about his religious belief in polygamy despite his ex-wife's objections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Thursday.

The 5-1 decision by the state's highest court said Stanley M. Shepp, whose Mormon fundamentalist beliefs endorse polygamy, has a constitutional right to express his beliefs about plural marriages and multiple wives even though bigamy is illegal.

"Where, as in the instant matter, there is no finding that discussing such matters constitutes a grave threat of harm to the child, there is insufficient basis for the court to infringe on a parent's constitutionally protected right to speak to a child about religion as he or she sees fit," Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote. [/*]


This article is 2 years old & in a different state, doesn`t apply here. It was the Pa state Supreme Court that made that ruling not the Federal Supreme Court so it applies ONLY in Pa not in any other state.

[Roux]

If there were no children at the ranch when CPS went there yesterday, why didn't Willie let them in? Even if they had no warrant, why not open the gates if there's nothing to hide?

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


Disregarding the law is not unique to FLDS many groups do it. That does not make it OK, but they shouldnt be forced to a higher standard than everyone else. As far as their religion, I agree in some ways they have regressed especially in education for their children but that can be within the law also depending on the state. Nothing says any group is required to evolve. They can at their choosing stay the same. BUT they must not be breaking child abuse laws. Bigamy... Who cares really? I wont be promoting or voting for it but I have no personal stake in preventing it either. [/*]


And polygamy or bigamy are not the central issue in this case. Nearly all of us have stated multiple times we do not care what the FLDS adults do. I don`t care if a man has 37 wives if they are all above the age of majority & are all consenting to the marriage arrangement. The issue is child abuse--sexually, mentally & physically.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


It's a tough thing to swallow, that something you truly believed isn't the truth. Remember how you felt when they told you about Santa? Imagine if NOBODY had ever breathed that there wasn't a Santa, if you'd never wondered, until the day someone sat you down and explained that Mom and Dad have been putting those presents under the tree all along.

As far as they're concerned, I'd imagine, Jeffs never said he wasn't the prophet, it's a trick by the "outsiders" to make them lose their faith.

Imagine how you'd feel if you were told that EVERYTHING you'd ever believed was a lie. That's what they're dealing with. [/*]

I understand what you are saying. I have experienced learning what I belived to be the truth for 21 years was false. It is devastating, but it did not keep me believing in the falsehoods. It made me more determined to learn the truth, to personally investigate, to ask questions of anybody that would listen, and to get in touch with my innser self.

On the other hand, I was not brainwashed and didn't have to be deprogramed after learning the truth.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



You more than anyone else quote Elissa Wall as our most truthful source of their practices. She herself says they are taught NOTHING about sex, in fact they are taught the opposite of what you are saying now about boys/men they are in fact taught that they are bad/snakes etc.

Your theories need to coincide if you want to have any kind of meaningful discussion. [/*]


You are giving only half of what Elissa Wall said, leaving out some very important facts. Yes the girls are taught to "keep sweet" BEFORE marriage. They are also taught they are to completely submit to the desires of their chosen husband no matter if those were their desires or not (sexual assault). They are taught there is no age too young for a girl to be married (sexual assault of a child---child abuse). Why do you think these girls are taught to "keep sweet" before marriage? So that the elder men can enjoy taking a "sweet" girl child to their beds, IMO. Why do you think so many of the young teen males are kicked out of the compounds? So the elder men will not have competition for the "sweet" little girls, IMO.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No not at "any time" they are taught at "sexual maturity" to marry.

I dont really like the word, "obey" But what kind of parent doesnt teach their kids something along those lines? Doesnt everyone teach their kids to mind them? [/*]


Could you provide some links to support your claim the girls are taught they are to be married @ sexual maturity? That is not what I have read.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Roux
If there were no children at the ranch when CPS went there yesterday, why didn't Willie let them in? Even if they had no warrant, why not open the gates if there's nothing to hide? [/*]

EXACTLY!!! And why, when contacted again, did Willie give authorization for CPS to return and have access to the ranch, but when they arrived, he denied access?

Also, when the attorney Parker stated yesterday he was unaware of any children on the property, but added he had not searched, I think he was covering. Why add 'but I haven't searched'?

IMO, Willie played a power game with CPS by telling them they could have access and then denying access when they returned. I think in his pea-brain, he thought he was doing an 'I'll show them who's in charge' play. He just doesn't get how stupid those tactics make him look, or how they make him look like a liar and cheat.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings
I teach my kids to, "keep sweet" too, only I say it like this....

Behave yourself when we go... Or be polite and on your best behavior.... Do not be rude... Act like a young lady...

That term simply means virtuous and ladylike, well behaved. It has nothing to do with sex, they say it to the boys too...lol [/*]




Got some proof that the boys are told to "keep sweet"? None I have heard speak have said that. And yes the phrase has everything to do with sex IMO.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by grammybear
I think this thread has gone far a field of the real issue. For years I had heard about the FLDS. Just as I have heard about other religions. But I always felt that every person has the right to their own beliefs. I do not infrnge mine on others and expect the same courtesy.
But when I started hearing horrible stories about what was being done to the children that is when I sat up and took notice. This is not about the FLDS believing in plural marriages. That is great if it works for them. But when you start bringing children in to this mix and involve them in the polygamy practices there is something wrong if they bring the children into the practices. That is all I am saying. We as parents do have a right to teach our children about what we believe in and that is all well and good. But if by your very actions you teach your children to lie, steal, breal all or any of the laws of the land then there is something wrong. The situation crosses over the line of being religious beliefs and then becomes a criminal matter.

I hope people calm down and listen to reason. If you teach your child to do drugs then parents are responsible for what they teach their children. I know this is a very hot topic. From my understanding the initial call came from a gal who said she lived in the compound. My understanding was that she called an abuse hotline not the police. Now I do not know if that was true but I am willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt.
But when the police got to the compound they saw things that did not look right. What were they supposed to do? None of the parents were giving their right names or ages. I also read where there were trying to hide some of the children. Any half way smart person knows you don't try and hide things when the police come knocking on your door.
I do not like it any more then anybody else that all of these children were taken away, but what is supposed to happen now. They do not even have genetic match up of over 100 children. Do you think we should just give the children back and say oh well I tried. No they have to find out who the real parents are.

Utah has been condemmed for not doing a sweep in Hilldale but what good would it do if no one came forward to claim their own biological children. Just demanding the children as a group back is not the answer.

If the parents had been truthful in the begining then this probably wouldn't have gone too far.

But until there is birth certificates and what else the court has to protect the children. You know darn good and well that if teenage girls are getting pregnent or have children then there has been some law breaking going on. Now I know that some of the girls have been found out to be over 18, but some of them have had children before they were 18 and you cannot tell me that that does not bother you. We all know how hard it is to raise children but you factor in the fact that some of these girls were under 18 they were not ready for that responsibility.

We need to be looking at the whole picture not just the teens being pregnent. Lost boys, broken bones, birth defects, you cannot tell me that those things do not bother you.

It sure as heck bothers me. I have known a few FLDS people in my time and with some of them they are like walking zombies.

We are supposed to be a progressive society not going backwords.

I am sorry but I think it is wrong to teach our children to lie, cheat, steal and break all other kinds of laws.
If these children are being taught wrong then somebody needs to stand up for them.
It is not about what is the true religion what came first lds or flds this is about what is happening to these children. I think some have gotten so gun ho with the religion issue that some are losing sight of the real issue. Texas has taken the children and now society has got to come up with solutions to help those parents that want their children back to get them back without fear of being abused.

jmoo [/*]


And just yesterday CPS got reports of children still being in the compound.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9343002?source=rss

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by walton
I find it very interesting that so many are saying that Polygamy isn't the issue.

If Polygamy wasn't a issue do you think that there would be over 400 plus kids out at that Ranch?

I don't.

If Polygamy wasn't an issue do you think there would be so many young girls marrying older men?

I don't.

If Polygamy is just about consenting adults how do these 400 plus kids fit into that theory?



Polygamy is rarely just about consenting adults.

Action - Reaction. jmo [/*]


No polygamy is not the issue, child abuse is.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Roux
If there were no children at the ranch when CPS went there yesterday, why didn't Willie let them in? Even if they had no warrant, why not open the gates if there's nothing to hide? [/*]

Because he has that right. Why should he make it easy for them ?they definitely don't owe CPS anything.
They've been destroyed by CPS's corrupt power, they simply don't want them there.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by grammybear
If Willie Jessup thinks this is going away he has got another thought coming. What a waste of time and energy.
If some of the women have signed the agreement and do not go back to the compound then I think there may be hope for these women and their children. When I hear about the ones refusing to sign that tells me that they feel like they can say as they darn well please and nobody is going to catch on.

With all that is known now there have been a lot of abusive things going on for a long time. Jeffs lost his right to call this a religion when he started and encouraged breaking the laws.

I imagine he is just livid with all that is going on.

There is no turning back now in Texas and I believe the resolutions will be a long time in coming.

jmoo [/*]

Good Morning grammybear :seeya:

I am wondering the age difference between the mothers who are willing to leave the compound and fully accept the 'plan' and those that are not.

ITA with your post!

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by litchfield29


GollyGee, Bratlings is right. She's telling you the truth. The original Church of Latter Day Saints, aka: Mormons, originally believed in, and practiced polygamy. You can research the history of the Church starting with Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith. [/*]

And they still BELIEVE IN polygamy. They have simply adjusted their stance to tell the members it won't be practiced in this earthly life, but will be practiced in their version of heaven, where the righteous will become Gods & spent eternity getting spirit wives pregnant with spirit children.

Mainstream LDS does not practice polygamy, but they do believe in it.

Look it up, it's not hard to find.

(they also believe in lying for the Lord, something they euphemistically call 'giving milk before meat')

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Linda777NJ


I disagree. I am not letting CPS into my house without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I should be expected to give up my constitutional rights. [/*]

Not letting them into your house is one thing. Telling them, "come back, you can come in," and THEN, after they've hauled all the way back out, telling them they can't come in, is playing games, IMHO.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Linda777NJ


I disagree. I am not letting CPS into my house without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I should be expected to give up my constitutional rights. [/*]

AMEN...

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Rainkiss

Imagine how you'd feel if you were told that EVERYTHING you'd ever believed was a lie. That's what they're dealing with. [/*]

And before they can get to that, they have to get past what has been pounded into them since birth - that they will be vilified, their prophet made a martyr, they will be scorned for their beliefs, etc., etc.

If that isn't strong enough to keep them faithful (just ignore the lies the outsiders tell about the prophet) - they have the bigger issue to content with - being condemned to an eternity in h#ll if they step out of line just the teeniest little bit.

For the few that manage to overcome all of that, there is still the great risk that they will continue to be exploited. If you aren't allowed to think for yourself & make your own decisions in life from the time you are born, it is very hard to learn how to do stuff like that when you are much older. And while you are trying to learn, there are all sorts of folks with bad intentions, ready to take advantage of your naivete' in soooooo many areas.

JMO

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


Not letting them into your house is one thing. Telling them, "come back, you can come in," and THEN, after they've hauled all the way back out, telling them they can't come in, is playing games, IMHO. [/*]

If they were turned away once, why did they ask again unless they had a warrant ?
I don't think he told them this, I think they wanted to justify harrassing them by going out again.
Did Jessop also say he told them to come back ?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


Not letting them into your house is one thing. Telling them, "come back, you can come in," and THEN, after they've hauled all the way back out, telling them they can't come in, is playing games, IMHO. [/*]

Yes it is!!! Playing a power game.
It is what Wille Jessop does best. He is the FLDS appointed bully for the lord, IMO.

[Roux]

Originally posted by evalles


If they were turned away once, why did they ask again unless they had a warrant ?
I don't think he told them this, I think they wanted to justify harrassing them by going out again.
Did Jessop also say he told them to come back ? [/*]

I believe the reporter -- don't remember her name -- who appeared on both NG and LK last night said that they returned the second time. She also said Jessop allowed some of the media a tour of the ranch.

[KatyDid]

Here is the story. I posted it upthread too.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9343002

How did the situation develop?
FLDS shun Texas officials twice at ranch
The polygamous sect was told of an allegation that five children are there, including a boy with Down syndrome
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 04:25:24 AM MDT


ELDORADO, Texas - Texas child welfare officials returned to a polygamous sect's ranch twice Wednesday because they had "new information" that children were there but were not allowed on the property.
Two Child Protective Service (CPS) workers, accompanied by a Schleicher County Sheriff's deputy, first asked to be let on the YFZ Ranch shortly before noon Wednesday.
The workers told Guy Jessop, who met them at the gate, they were "looking for more children" but he refused to let them enter without a search warrant.
News of the visit reached the Tom Green County Courthouse, where the third day of status hearings for about 450 FLDS children was under way. Several FLDS spokesmen - and media - made a mad dash to the ranch, whose residents are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
CPS officials spoke with FLDS member Willie Jessop after being rebuffed and were told he would allow them on the ranch, according to spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner.
Investigators returned to the ranch at about 6 p.m. but Willie Jessop met them at the gate and turned them away, she said.


Much more at the link.

[spirit07]

Originally posted by warhorse46



And polygamy or bigamy are not the central issue in this case. Nearly all of us have stated multiple times we do not care what the FLDS adults do. I don`t care if a man has 37 wives if they are all above the age of majority & are all consenting to the marriage arrangement. The issue is child abuse--sexually, mentally & physically. [/*]

This may be strange coming from a liberal, but I do care about Bigamy and Polygamy. I don't care if people engage in Polyamory, but that is a different thing.

In the case of the FLDS, the Polygamy serves as a (the?) mechanism, so it is inherently and intricately connected with the abuse - it cannot be taken out of the equation in this case. Not only does Polygamy provide the motive to marry young, but obviously it means there are leftover males. This Polygamy promotes a 'culture' that is not only not sustainable, but has to cause harm.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by spirit07


This may be strange coming from a liberal, but I do care about Bigamy and Polygamy. I don't care if people engage in Polyamory, but that is a different thing.

In the case of the FLDS, the Polygamy serves as a (the?) mechanism, so it is inherently and intricately connected with the abuse - it cannot be taken out of the equation in this case. Not only does Polygamy provide the motive to marry young, but obviously it means there are leftover males. This Polygamy promotes a 'culture' that is not only not sustainable, but has to cause harm. [/*]

Thank you for stating that so well. ITA. I have never heard nor read of any widespread practice of polygamy in which there was not huge disparity in the power structure. And invariably, the powerful ones were the adult males, the powerless ones were the females & children.

JMO

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by spirit07


This may be strange coming from a liberal, but I do care about Bigamy and Polygamy. I don't care if people engage in Polyamory, but that is a different thing.

In the case of the FLDS, the Polygamy serves as a (the?) mechanism, so it is inherently and intricately connected with the abuse - it cannot be taken out of the equation in this case. Not only does Polygamy provide the motive to marry young, but obviously it means there are leftover males. This Polygamy promotes a 'culture' that is not only not sustainable, but has to cause harm. [/*]


I understand what you are saying & do agree to an extent. Polygmy does promote a harmful culture but it is not illegal in the context it is being practiced in the FLDS. Child abuse is illegal however no matter what culture.

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by RachelRose
on CNN.com

Appeals court ruling. [/*]OMG i just saw that. do they have to send the kids back?

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
OMG i just saw that. do they have to send the kids back? [/*]

My guess is, yes they do.

Here's the Austin American Statesman website with this story. . .

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/05/22/judge_cps_improperly_removed_f.html

Excerpt. . .

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services failed to prove that children at the YFZ Ranch were in danger and needed to be removed from their homes, the 3rd Texas Court of Appeals ruled.

In addition, the appellate court ruled that District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion by failing to return the children after three days of hearings last month.

“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent,’ as contemplated” by state law, the court opinion states.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Here's the link:

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745

Extremely discouraging news.

Now can someone translate or prognosticate ... what happens next? [/*]

The only way I can begin to see that the children are not promptly returned is if the state has a right to appeal this ruling.

Just a guess on my part, but I think the children will be returned very quickly.

JMO

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Here's the link:

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745

Extremely discouraging news.

Now can someone translate or prognosticate ... what happens next? [/*]

From the link:

According to the Court, "The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger."

Did anybody provide this court with the testimonies of the 'lost boys', the women who escaped the abuse, etc.?

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by Mimi428


My guess is, yes they do.

Here's the Austin American Statesman website with this story. . .

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/05/22/judge_cps_improperly_removed_f.html

Excerpt. . .

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services failed to prove that children at the YFZ Ranch were in danger and needed to be removed from their homes, the 3rd Texas Court of Appeals ruled.

In addition, the appellate court ruled that District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion by failing to return the children after three days of hearings last month.

“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent,’ as contemplated” by state law, the court opinion states. [/*]Sounds to me like the kids will be returned very soon. I have very mixed feelings on this :(

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Katydid - your mailbox is full. [/*]

oops...thanks...will do some sweeping right now.

[Justiceguy_1977]

This is Bullsh#t and the state has the right to appeal.. Don't worry, they will appeal... THERE IS EVIDENCCE OF ABUSE.
How about 14 yrs old girl being pregnant................ hmmm

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


My feelings are not mixed ... except between anger and nausea. [/*]NO NO wait ......what i meant was i want the law followed to a T but i don't want the kids to go back . Does that make sense?

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
Sounds to me like the kids will be returned very soon. I have very mixed feelings on this :( [/*]

I do too. If the state did NOT have all their I's dotted & their T's crossed - then shame on them. Their powers are too broad to burst in & remove children willy-nilly. They should have had NO DOUBTS whatsoever that they can at least show cause to the court.

The very LEAST the state owes these children is to NOT reinforce the paranoia pounded into their heads from birth - that outsiders are evil, out to harm them, out to destroy their prophet, etc. I believe the FLDS adults are going to do everything in their power right now to further close their doors, hide these children & get them to a location where the authorities are more than willing to turn a blind eye to rampant abuse.

JMO

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by Justiceguy_1977
This is Bullsh#t and the state has the right to appeal.. Don't worry, they will appeal... THERE IS EVIDENCCE OF ABUSE.
How about 14 yrs old girl being pregnant................ hmmm [/*]CNN just said most of the girls they thought were under age were really adults. I find this very very odd to say the least.

[Justiceguy_1977]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
CNN just said most of the girls they thought were under age were really adults. I find this very very odd to say the least. [/*]


i think they are wrong jmo........................

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by Mimi428


I do too. If the state did NOT have all their I's dotted & their T's crossed - then shame on them. Their powers are too broad to burst in & remove children willy-nilly. They should have had NO DOUBTS whatsoever that they can at least show cause to the court.

The very LEAST the state owes these children is to NOT reinforce the paranoia pounded into their heads from birth - that outsiders are evil, out to harm them, out to destroy their prophet, etc. I believe the FLDS adults are going to do everything in their power right now to further close their doors, hide these children & get them to a location where the authorities are more than willing to turn a blind eye to rampant abuse.

JMO [/*]thats exactly how i feel:confused:

[Fallen Angel]

Originally posted by Justiceguy_1977



i think they are wrong jmo........................ [/*]same here.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Mimi428


My guess is, yes they do.

Here's the Austin American Statesman website with this story. . .

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/05/22/judge_cps_improperly_removed_f.html

Excerpt. . .

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services failed to prove that children at the YFZ Ranch were in danger and needed to be removed from their homes, the 3rd Texas Court of Appeals ruled.

In addition, the appellate court ruled that District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion by failing to return the children after three days of hearings last month.

“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent,’ as contemplated” by state law, the court opinion states. [/*]

My prayers were answered. As I said there had to be an immediate or urgent danger.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by evalles


My prayers were answered. As I said there had to be an immediate or urgent danger. [/*]

What were you praying for?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Justiceguy_1977



i think they are wrong jmo........................ [/*]

Apparently the Texas governor and Texas AG do too. The AG had already started preparing for the case.

BTW, I agree with you. I think they are wrong too.

FGS, can they not use the history of FLDS child abuse as a basis to suspect the same abuse will continue?

E.D. Hill on Fox News talking about it now. She is IRRATE about the ruling.

[Mimi428]

Looks like there will be a press conference in San Angelo at 1:30 CDT. (20+ minutes from right now)

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745

TRLA will be holding a press conference in front of the courthouse in San Angelo Thursday at 1:30 p.m. regarding this issue.

[Jan Powell]

There is a PC at 1:30CT to explain what happens next.

Sounds like the courts ruled the state (at the least) cannot be the sole conversator of the kids.

[Fallen Angel]

judge andrew napolitano of FOX just said all the kids will be back on the compound in a week:flamemad:


HEART BREAKING

[Justiceguy_1977]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
judge andrew napolitano of FOX just said all the kids will be back on the compound in a week:flamemad:


HEART BREAKING [/*]


i think he's totally wrong.. THERRE IS EVIDENCE OF ABUSE..... GEEEEZ Are they that stupid with appeal court

[spirit07]

Originally posted by Mimi428


Thank you for stating that so well. ITA. I have never heard nor read of any widespread practice of polygamy in which there was not huge disparity in the power structure. And invariably, the powerful ones were the adult males, the powerless ones were the females & children.

JMO [/*]

Thanks. I agree, Polygamy creates a disparate power structure and I can't remember many women marrying several men (we wouldn't have all those children in the equation then would we?). We can see the rapid increase in this cult in economic power, political power, and numbers.

I lived and worked for a significant amount of time in an Islamic country, nearly third world also, but liberal by Middle Eastern standards. Polygamy was not practiced by the Muslims as it is not practiced by many/most Muslims outside the ME (although I do not think it was illegal there either). Polygamy is most often justified on religious bases although I was told by Muslims who were born in the ME and still maintained citizenship there, that this is not really a part of Islam. Polygamy only came about because of war, women were left without husbands and to marry them was the only way to protect them. This is why many Muslims do not carry on this practice as it is not a part of their religion, although those practicing will claim or imply it is part of Islam.

At any rate, the power structure inherent in Polygamy is not healthy. I was also told that Muslims moving to the US are stricly warned (by other Muslims) that Polygamy is illegal. Some wives here and in some countries like the one I lived in, always live in fear that the husband will take on another wife. Some permanent residents of the US and those with green cards might already have legal wives in other countries where they maintain citizenship, they are kept secret. Again, this does not apply to all Muslims nor is it any indictment of Islam. I am just giving it as an another example of how religious belief could be used to promote Polygamy. There are many sticky issues that would arise in legalizing Polygamy. And, I don't think many in the US realize how different it is to live in a country that is mostly a Theocracy instead of a Democracy. I am very much for freedom of religion, but there are boundaries and there is a reason for separation of church and state.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Mimi428


What were you praying for? [/*]

Those kids to go back to an environment that has historically abused children, physically, mentally and emotionally.

:shrug:

It truly is a puzzlement to me.

[Mimi428]

The ruling is online now (in pdf format)



http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/22/mandamus.decision.pdf

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Justiceguy_1977



i think he's totally wrong.. THERRE IS EVIDENCE OF ABUSE..... GEEEEZ Are they that stupid with appeal court [/*]

That 'judge' usually is wrong in his 'predictions'. Not saying he is this time, but he gets 'overruled' on his interpretation of the law, often.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Mimi428
The ruling is online now (in pdf format)



http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/22/mandamus.decision.pdf [/*]

Thanks Mimi :seeya:

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


On CNN, we're presuming? [/*]

That's my guess, but it would not surprise me if the other news channels covered it, too.

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by evalles


My prayers were answered. As I said there had to be an immediate or urgent danger. [/*]

:beer:

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
I scanned the PDF of the ruling.

It seems it affects 38 of the mothers, none of whom have minor female daughters who are pregnant. (And by the way, do I take the document to mean that there are, indeed, 5 minor females who are pregnant and/or who have children?)

Could this mean that all the children who do not belong to those 38 mothers (and I have no idea how many children that might be) will remain in state custody?

Anybody? [/*]

I am reading it now too. I am understanding it as you are, so far.

Also wondering about the 'over 100 children' who were not claimed by a parent.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
I scanned the PDF of the ruling.

It seems it affects 38 of the mothers, none of whom have minor female daughters who are pregnant. (And by the way, do I take the document to mean that there are, indeed, 5 minor females who are pregnant and/or who have children?)

Could this mean that all the children who do not belong to those 38 mothers (and I have no idea how many children that might be) will remain in state custody?

Anybody? [/*]

I wondered about that, too.

Now I want to see those 38 mothers point out which children are their biological children.

Then I want to see the children they identify as their own children make the same statement.

And if there is any discrepancy - let DNA tests determine when each child is returned - & to whom.

JMO

[spirit07]

Originally posted by warhorse46



I understand what you are saying & do agree to an extent. Polygmy does promote a harmful culture but it is not illegal in the context it is being practiced in the FLDS. Child abuse is illegal however no matter what culture. [/*]

All I am saying is that it is important in this case and it is promoting things that are illegal and immoral - and, that it should be kept in the context. This isn't an argument about which is the main issue, the Polygamy or the abuse. One is the mechanism, the other is the outcome.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Mimi428


What were you praying for? [/*]

That the court would rule as they did and make sure the gov't doesn't violate our constitutional rights.
Now I'm praying that they'll go home quickly.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
I'm going back and forth between CNN and Fox News and all I'm seeing are tornadoes in Colorado (not that that's not news) ... but where's the press conference? Anyone? [/*]

CNN now...answering questions

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Rats. Missed the announcement. Now we're at the Q&A with the press.

Several of the Stepfords are milling about looking very pleased, as is their attorney.

Okay ... so there can be a stay of this ruling by the state?

The entire ranch was *not* a household. The court of appeals says that there are individual households on the ranch.

Same address - separate households. WTF?

And we're back to the weather in Colorado.

:shrug: [/*]

I think that could be a legal argument for the state to appeal. If it is a ranch with seperate housing quarters, does it not still have one address? Are these houses numbered so that they maintain a seperate identity from others on the ranch?

The state needs to get all their ducks in a row on the appeal, and they only have 10 days to do it. They need to call in the big guns.

[VC2]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
CNN just said most of the girls they thought were under age were really adults. I find this very very odd to say the least. [/*]

actually i can see how that happened in some cases, the way they are brought up, they look and sound younger than they are imo

physically a 14 and an 18 year old can look the same depending on what sort of puberty development they had. If the 18 year old sounds like a 12 year old and has the naivety of one, im thinking that cps might make that mistake. Its not as if each one was examined by a forensic anthropologist. We have 14 year olds that LOOK 21. it is not suprising that fdls has the reverse.

that said, i cant believe it was most of them

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles


That the court would rule as they did and make sure the gov't doesn't violate our constitutional rights.
Now I'm praying that they'll go home quickly. [/*]



This ruling can be appealed to a higher court.

[Ladyhawk]

For all the absent fathers and trying to get their DNA, I'm wondering if they can't get DNA from the temple robes they took as evidence.....the robes had their names in them and they're sacred so I doubt that they exchanged them.

[mrsmcgoo]

Does anyone know if this means the children will be returned immediately?

:(

[Carol25]

Shouldn't this go through all of the appeals before these children are disturbed again?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by mrsmcgoo
Does anyone know if this means the children will be returned immediately?

:( [/*]

If they do return them immediately, I would be surprised if the children and their mothers remain at YFZ.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


If they do return them immediately, I would be surprised if the children and their mothers remain at YFZ. [/*]

You KNOW FLDS has buses waiting to take those families out of Texas IMMEDIATELY. No way they will let them stay at that compound now.

[Carol25]

Can the court legally give children back who haven't been claimed by any mothers?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Carol25
Can the court legally give children back who haven't been claimed by any mothers? [/*]

IMO, somebody would have to show some type of document that proves they have legal custody of the child.

I don't think Warren Jeffs' 'orders' are enough legal document enough.

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


If they do return them immediately, I would be surprised if the children and their mothers remain at YFZ. [/*]

I hadn't thought of that, but I agree! :eek:

[Carol25]

I still think all appeals should be exhausted before any movement be made. Remember the court of appeals made no court order fpr movement of the children back to the FLDS people. The reason could have been for further appeals.

[Carol25]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


ITA. Add the identical dress, hairstyle and lack of makeup and it's a cinch there will be difficulty determining ages. [/*]
It's also a fact the girls were lying about their ages when they first came. They created the problem themselves.

[VC2]

Originally posted by Carol25
Shouldn't this go through all of the appeals before these children are disturbed again? [/*]

i guess there is an argument they should not be away from their mothers a day longer than necessary :shrug:

[Carol25]

Originally posted by VC2


i guess there is an argument they should not be away from their mothers a day longer than necessary :shrug: [/*]
Some could say that, however, in my opinion these ladies were mere caretakers, not mothers.

[mrsmcgoo]

Originally posted by Carol25

Some could say that, however, in my opinion these ladies were mere caretakers, not mothers. [/*]

I agree. It is sad to think of children acting as the woman we have seen, in almost mechanical movements and monotone voices void of any feeling.

:(

[VC2]

Originally posted by Carol25

It's also a fact the girls were lying about their ages when they first came. They created the problem themselves. [/*]

heck i have a feeling many children didnt KNOW their ages. No birth certificates, nothing.

and it seems the fdls does everything it can to make it a "group" thing, taking babies from moms at a year old to give to other women as the caretakers etc.

[spirit07]

Originally posted by KatyDid


I think that could be a legal argument for the state to appeal. If it is a ranch with seperate housing quarters, does it not still have one address? Are these houses numbered so that they maintain a seperate identity from others on the ranch?

The state needs to get all their ducks in a row on the appeal, and they only have 10 days to do it. They need to call in the big guns. [/*]

So, is a 'household' one complete family, e.g., one husband, all his wives, and all his children? And what about when other members of the ranch are dictating what goes on in someone else's household? I don't know how to phrase it, but how can a household be liquidated, so to speak, by the leader, i.e., wife reassignment, but he is not considered a part of their household. Or how can it be considered an independant family if the children of a family are consistently forced or coerced to do something, or told, what to do, e.g., marry some old fart at a young age.

The concept of a 'household' or family unit here is not the same as just a communal living situation, a commune say or a group of apartments in a gated community even if they do not have separate addresses.

Sorry, I'm rambling a bit.

[VC2]

Originally posted by Carol25

Some could say that, however, in my opinion these ladies were mere caretakers, not mothers. [/*]

well yes most were. they were taken from their mothers at a year and given to other women to "mother". A collective word. Doesn't mean though that the children don't think they are, especially the younger ones. Or that some of the women want their bio children back, the ones that had been given to the others.

[VC2]

Originally posted by spirit07


So, is a 'household' one complete family, e.g., one husband, all his wives, and all his children? And what about when other members of the ranch are dictating what goes on in someone else's household? I don't know how to phrase it, but how can a household be liquidated, so to speak, by the leader, i.e., wife reassignment, but he is not considered a part of their household. Or how can it be considered an independant family if the the children of a family are consistently forced or coerced to do something, or told, what to do, e.g., marry some old fart at a young age.

The concept of a 'household' or family unit here is not the same as just a communal living situation, a commune say or a group of apartments in a gated community even if they do not have separate addresses.

Sorry, I'm rambling a bit. [/*]

The problem is that the same things occur in our world. Churches that are cult like, insisting that exorcisms be performed on children, etc. Does not mean the "family unit" is not a household even if their church leaders or schools tell them what to do with their kids.

And yes, living on a ranch, all with the same mailing address doesn't make them not a household either. I think legally if you have one married couple with children its a household. Doesn't matter if there are another 10 living in it. Its bizarre and the state may have a problem.

As disgusted as i am with the fdls, and the abuse of children, taking all the children without being able to say that xxx is being abused gets pretty murky. They need instances and proof that the parents are the ones keeping them in a dangerous spot and the child him/herself is being abused.

Probably can do it with the pregnant 14 year olds (ipso facto she was abused) but they need more than 'in the future"

imo

[Carol25]

I can't help but think the children are experiencing a happier and healthier atmosphere where they are right now. For the first time they are allowed to smile, maybe even laugh, experience new things, beginning to bond with other children and authority figures that smile and don't hit. Can you imagine what it must be for the chilldren to breathe easily without contemplating rage for an infraction not far off? How I wish they could experience this just a few more months, if not longer.

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46




This ruling can be appealed to a higher court. [/*]

Yep, and the tax payers can foot the bill for them to lose there too.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Carol25
I can't help but think the children are experiencing a happier and healthier atmosphere where they are right now. For the first time they are allowed to smile, maybe even laugh, experience new things, beginning to bond with other children and authority figures that smile and don't hit. Can you imagine what it must be for the chilldren to breathe easily without contemplating rage for an infraction not far off? How I wish they could experience this just a few more months, if not longer. [/*]

They are in group homes, this is delusional thinking.

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by Carol25
I can't help but think the children are experiencing a happier and healthier atmosphere where they are right now. For the first time they are allowed to smile, maybe even laugh, experience new things, beginning to bond with other children and authority figures that smile and don't hit. Can you imagine what it must be for the chilldren to breathe easily without contemplating rage for an infraction not far off? How I wish they could experience this just a few more months, if not longer. [/*]

OMG you are kidding, right? They are happier where they are? Oh my. :eek:

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


They should be very, VERY familiar with 'group homes.' GMAB. [/*]

You got that right GGW :beer:

Maybe that poster didn't see all the beds stacked on top of each other in the 'tours' of the ranch.

One woman in one house didn't even know how many children were in the home. She could only answer 'many'.

These kids don't know anything but GROUP HOMES!


Good catch GGW!

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


I doubt she's kidding.

Have you read anything at all about the circumstances in which those children live under the rule of Warren Jeffs? [/*]

I am extremely familiar with this case and the FLDS, from all sources, not just biased ones.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Carol25
I can't help but think the children are experiencing a happier and healthier atmosphere where they are right now. For the first time they are allowed to smile, maybe even laugh, experience new things, beginning to bond with other children and authority figures that smile and don't hit. Can you imagine what it must be for the chilldren to breathe easily without contemplating rage for an infraction not far off? How I wish they could experience this just a few more months, if not longer. [/*]

I understand exactly what you are saying Carol.

These poor kids have a chance to be released from a slavery type existance.

Again, the are over 100 children in custody who have not been claimed by a parent.

If these parents were so loving and cared so much for their children, there wouldn't be 100+ kids left behind.

[evalles]

Originally posted by KatyDid


You got that right GGW :beer:

Maybe that poster didn't see all the beds stacked on top of each other in the 'tours' of the ranch.

One woman in one house didn't even know how many children were in the home. She could only answer 'many'.

These kids don't know anything but GROUP HOMES!


Good catch GGW! [/*]

Too bad the appeals court doesn't agree with you. One big difference it that in a group home, they're with strangers that don't love them.
I changed my mind about Texas, the higher court isn't allowing the lower to violate the rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Right now, I'm saying God Bless Texas.

[evalles]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


I am extremely familiar with this case and the FLDS, from all sources, not just biased ones. [/*]


:beer:

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


So then you agree that children shouldn't be allowed to laugh or swim?

And you agree that children should be exposed daily to the face and rantings of a convicted felon?

And you believe that Warren Jeffs funnels the word of God to his followers?

And you agree that the only purpose for the female gender is to 'keep sweet' for the male gender and bear as many children as their bodies will allow? [/*]

I saw video's of these children laughing and playing, you should check some more sources.
Don't believe everything you read.

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by evalles


I saw video's of these children laughing and playing, you should check some more sources.
Don't believe everything you read. [/*]

Yes. And I have read reports that say they appeared to be very happy children, well-adjusted, social, eager to please, polite.....and on and on.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


There are very few people at the bar with you, but go ahead and drink the koolaid anyway. [/*]

Only on this board, you do not represent everyone.
Besides, I could care less what you think, I'd rather drink my kool-aid with the appeals court judge.

:tongue:

[spirit07]

Originally posted by VC2


The problem is that the same things occur in our world. Churches that are cult like, insisting that exorcisms be performed on children, etc. Does not mean the "family unit" is not a household even if their church leaders or schools tell them what to do with their kids.

imo [/*]

I understand the connection you are making and it is similar, however, this sect lives behind a locked gate on a compound. It's difficult to tell what a family unit or a household entails given the polygamy and the seeming 'fluidity' if that is the argument to release the children. The authority to dictate and enforce what happens in these families lies outside the household in a way that is very different from those cult-like influences you are referring to. Most of those who would believe in something like exorcisms probably would stand up and say 'yes, one was performed on our daughter'. If an abuse case was filed in one of those cases, they would know where that child lives and most likely know exactly who did what.


Besides all this, I'm just not buying that the 'household' argument should be a basis for returning any of the children. In this case, it is the environment promoted that actually seems to override the independant households argument although I'm can't argue actual 'legalities' here because it is beyond my scope. These folks chose to live in a situation where it couldn't all be sorted out and in an 'environment' that supports abuse of children. I might ad, that they chose to live in a 'closed environment' that support abuse meaning it's pretty darn hard to protect your children. They also chose to confuse the investigation instead of cooperating.

[evalles]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


Yes. And I have read reports that say they appeared to be very happy children, well-adjusted, social, eager to please, polite.....and on and on. [/*]

I read those reports too. I hope they're not too traumatized.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


And I saw the blank faces, monotone voices and robotic movements of their Warren Jeffs-worshipping parents.

I saw their future.

And you can wait for them to be returned to that 'destiny.' [/*]

I saw heartbroken mothers that wereand unaccustomed to being on national television.

[Carol25]

Have you ever seen children's books in their homes? Have you ever seen a picture of an FLDs man or woman hugging or kissing their children? have you ever seen a "parent"of these children engaging their children in a game?

I've seen the small wheel barrows for work. I've seen pictures of lads working in the fields. Never have seen a mother with children holding hands in a circle playing a game. Have they smiled at them? Have a picture of that? Where are the little toys and cars the children ride. Are the bikes in the back with the kiddie pools?

When the tours were taking place, it appeared the surroundings were sparse. The toy boxes must have been out of sight and the books shelves with books and stuffed animals hidden. We know all children have their favorite book, the girls have their dolls and the boys have their cars and all little ones have their favorite stuffed toy.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Carol25
Have you ever seen children's books in their homes? Have you ever seen a picture of an FLDs man or woman hugging or kissing their children? have you ever seen a "parent"of these children engaging their children in a game?

I've seen the small wheel barrows for work. I've seen pictures of lads working in the fields. Never have seen a mother with children holding hands in a circle playing a game. Have they smiled at them? Have a picture of that? Where are the little toys and cars the children ride. Are the bikes in the back with the kiddie pools?

When the tours were taking place, it appeared the surroundings were sparse. The toy boxes must have been out of sight and the books shelves with books and stuffed animals hidden. We know all children have their favorite book, the girls have their dolls and the boys have their cars and all little ones have their favorite stuffed toy. [/*]

So now you're equating happiness with material possessions ?
IMO that's what's wrong with today's society. It's hardly prettier outside the compound.
Because you haven't seen the mother's hugging their children doesn't mean they don't. Besides, I didn't know you hung out with them that much anyway.
Instead of giving them things, these mothers devote every waking moment to them. Can you say the same ?

[Carol25]

This will be a landmark case. It will not stop here. There are ten days to repond. I hope there will be enough on the State's side to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court. This has enough media attention to obtain the best constitutional attorneys available.

In the meantime, more lawsuits can be filed.

[johnielee333]

this is terrible IMO. i hope they appeal this. i hope & pray these children dont have to be put back in there. the abuse of these children IMO doesnt start with abuse of sex & doesnt stop with the abuse of sex. they are abused in many ways & mental abuse is just as bad as Physical abuse. these children & most of the women & some of men are mentally & or Physically abused. the FLDS is not a place for children. if everyone in the FLDS were adults then it would be different.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


You better drink fast.

I doubt the state of Texas is planning to roll over and play dead. They didn't come by that 'don't mess with Texas' thing by accident. [/*]

Umm .. that was a Texas Appeals Court.

[Carol25]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


... because you've been relating to and sympathizing with the mothers all along.

The future of the children is not your concern, and you've made that abundantly clear. [/*]
For some people, their agenda is not of the plight of the children, it is some of some perceived injustice they once experienced long ago. Regardless of any factual information that is given it cannot overcome their personal issues. It is something they will have to deal with on their own or with professional help.

[mariah79]

Originally posted by evalles


Umm .. that was a Texas Appeals Court. [/*]

Ummmmm...do you know there are higher courts?

[Carol25]

Originally posted by johnielee333
this is terrible IMO. i hope they appeal this. i hope & pray these children dont have to be put back in there. the abuse of these children IMO doesnt start with abuse of sex & doesnt stop with the abuse of sex. they are abused in many ways & mental abuse is just as bad as Physical abuse. these children & most of the women & some of men are mentally & or Physically abused. the FLDS is not a place for children. if everyone in the FLDS were adults then it would be different. [/*]
I wonder iftheir psychiatric evaluations have begun. It would give great insight into this group of people. It is so hard for us to understand because we tend to evaluate according to our levels of understanding of social mores which are so different from theirs. I read a few articles of brain washing and it was truly frightening. They don't have thought processes we do.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Carmona



I doubt any learned court will allow the state to snatch a child from her natural parent based on hysterical media reports and a public so easily manipulated by emotion and very few real facts. [/*]

That is one of the problems...proving who is the natural parent.

Why are over 100 children unclaimed by a parent?

[delsina363]

I pray for these familes, and hope justice (whatever that may be) is served in the end. I hope the children are not caught in a stressful tug of war. :rose:

[johnielee333]

we need the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved & who ever else that is in the higher ups. we need to stop the cycle of abuse within the FLDS cults. we need to really start caring about our children within the USA & around the world for that matter.
I believe LE, CPS & the lower court did the right thing & i dont give a crap what the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals said. THEY ARE WRONG ! :cuss: :flamemad:

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


OMG! This from the poster who recently offered up a laundry list of material possessions which included a new Murano and a laptop, IIRC, as a way of describing how wonderful her life is. [/*]

Nope, I was referring to karma, do the right thing and I think God rewards you. Possessions don't make life wonderful, as long as I can pay my bills and my kids are happy, I'm happy. I love my new Murano and laptop, but I could live without them. The only things I couldn't live without are my children.
But thanks for bringing that up, I have been thinking that I'm too indulgent with my kids and if I continue it they're going to be very unappreciative and ungrateful. I wish my kids thought it was fun to rake leaves and mop floors.

[delsina363]

Whats a murano :shrug:

[johnielee333]

A :rose: AND PRAYER'S FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE FLDS
MAY THE LORD BE WITH THEM NOW AND FOREVER

[KatyDid]

A look at the Third Court of Appeals justices
Staff report

Originally published 02:00 p.m., May 22, 2008
Updated 02:00 p.m., May 22, 2008

Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law, Place 1
Justice Bob Pemberton, Place 6
Justice Alan Waldrop, Place 2


http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/22/a-look-at-the-third-court-of-appeals-justices/

[evalles]

Originally posted by mariah79


Ummmmm...do you know there are higher courts? [/*]



Ummm... Yeah, but I found it ironic that the poster said Don't mess with Texas when this decision was also made be a Texas court. LOL I think the Supreme Court will rule the same way.

[KatyDid]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9347022

Texas defends removal of children from polygamous ranch; mulls next move
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 02:59:12 PM MDT

SAN ANGELO, Texas - Child welfare authorities are defending their seizure of more than 400 children from a polygamous sect's ranch near here and deciding their next move, following an appeal courts' sharp rejection Thursday of the removal.

In a statement on its Web site, the Department of Family and Protective Services recounts the evidence it felt showed the children were in danger. But it concludes: "While our only duty is to the children, we respect that the court's responsibility and view is much broader. We will work with the Office of Attorney General to determine the state's next steps in this case."


More at the link.

[evalles]

Originally posted by SillyMe
:rose:


Prayers for everyone who is going to lose their jobs over all this...

:rose:


That the kids are not already harmed irreparably by the state. [/*]

Today was a good day.

:patriot:

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


And as the poster you're responding to pointed out ... more than one court that will rule on this.

As an aside ... I wonder if this latest will free up the CPS and foster care workers to reveal what they've learned about the FLDS children? [/*]

Let's hope they don't tell any more lies, they're in enough trouble as it is.

[Carol25]

Originally posted by SillyMe



I have, look here at their own videos and pictures... http://captivefldschildren.org/index.php [/*]
I saw some mothers holding the children and fathers engaged with the children in a relaxed manner. Thank you for the pictures.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


'My crowd,' among others, is the survivors of the FLDS cult. It is the historian in his 70's who is considered an expert on the FLDS of Colorado City and still lives there. It is the people who are working with survivors to bring to light the realities of life in the FLDS sect. [/*]

:beer: :rose:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


Let's hope they don't tell any more lies, they're in enough trouble as it is. [/*]

:cuss: :flamemad:

[Roux]

Something that has been preying on my mind regarding the children is the genetic defects and diseases caused by this cult's in-breeding. I did not know until I read it in the Deseret News that one of Warren's "wives" (whose hearing was earlier this week) is 35 and has only one child. That child is a boy who wears a prosthetic devise because he was born with one leg.

I guess you can't stop people from procreating but it is sickening to think about the innocent children being born into FLDS.

[zone]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


It's Short Creek, 1953 all over again. :flamemad:

Unbelievable. [/*]

Just like then,government obviously made a mistake.Are you suggesting we do nothing when such mistakes are made?

[KatyDid]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/22/national/main4118720.shtml

"The appeals court ruled that the state didn't prove that the children were in immediate danger when they were taken from the compound. But that's a different standard from the one the trial courts in San Angelo now are using to come up with individual custody plans for many of the children. So this is still a very fluid situation," Cohen said.

"The appellate court now has ordered the trial court to 'vacate' its order granting 'sole' conservatorship of children to the Child Welfare Department. So the ball is now in the hands of the judge or judges in San Angelo, who either can comply with the order or try to weasel around it," Cohen said. "There is a middle path here - the idea that the trial court could vacate the 'sole' part of the conservatorship but still allow the department to maintain some level of oversight over the welfare of the kids."

I hope at the least they will take the middle ground option.

[Roux]

Originally posted by RachelRose


By and large, do these children look unhealthy to you? A chlid, one of 460, born with one leg and apparently one other child with Down's syndrome are darn good odds, in my opinion. They don't look sick to me. [/*]

I didn't say they were not healthy -- after all the mothers told us they are not fed junk food. But I believe there were many links posted with reference to certain syndromes much more prevalent in FLDS communities that in the general population. And I daresay there are more than 2 children affected but I have no facts to back that up.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by RachelRose


By and large, do these children look unhealthy to you? A chlid, one of 460, born with one leg and apparently one other child with Down's syndrome are darn good odds, in my opinion. They don't look sick to me. [/*]

excuse me but there are alot more than 2 children born within the FLDS that have these diseases. i cant put a link in here but i am telling you that i read about these diseases that the children in the FLDS have & are getting. its from inbreeding (incest).

[Roux]

Originally posted by johnielee333


excuse me but there are alot more than 2 children born within the FLDS that have these diseases. i cant put a link in here but i am telling you that i read about these diseases that the children in the FLDS have & are getting. its from inbreeding (incest). [/*]

Hey johnielee some posters have never gotten around to reading the Bishop's List; otherwise they could see in black and white in the FLDS own records the incest and inbreeding.

[walton]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


It's Short Creek, 1953 all over again. :flamemad:

Unbelievable. [/*]

You are right.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0410/S00296.htm

2004 article

Former Utah-based child advocate Jay Beswick sees these tithes as "blood money" because the lawyers, bankers and businessmen help to support a 10,000 member polygamist/pedophile colony - the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) - on the Utah-Arizona border, which has branches in Texas, Idaho, Colorado, British Columbia and parts in between. Beswick says that if the main Mormon Church really opposed polygamy, it would reject the tithes and excommunicate the lot.



But that was back in 2004 you say? I'll bring us into 2008 and maybe further?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3358643

Church spokesmen say Bush will meet with the three-member First Presidency, which includes President Thomas S. Monson, the church's new leader.

President Monson became president of the Church earlier this year after the death of President Gordon *. Hinckley.

Bush is visiting Utah to raise money for Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune say the meeting with Church leaders is tentatively set for May 29.





Just like Shortcreek. jmo

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


I'd suggest we change some laws so that people who try to hide behind a 'religion' as an excuse to control, brainwash, abuse and mess with the genetics of their children not be allowed to do so with impunity.

I can't believe I'm even having to make that point in the United States of America. [/*]

:beer: :patriot:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



States have laws on the books making it legal except in certain circumstances... like brother/sister, first cousins etc etc. [/*]

just because it might be legal doesnt mean you shouldnt use your good judgement. these FLDS's arent using their brains when it comes to having sex with their relatives & having babies.

[Carol25]

Just wondering if this could be a blessing in disguise. I'm wondering if the attorneys for the state could agree the children to be reunited with their parents understanding that they should have not been taken from the parents without evidence of a crime. So upon DNA evidence of the mother and father and the children they claim, the will be reunited.

Note, upon the results of the DNA of the mother AND FATHER, the family will be reunited. We don't want any mistakes, now do we? We have to keep CPS from any further mistakes like giving the wrong children to the wrong people. They haven't been so efficient so far! :D

Let's see how the "We'll do ANYTHING TO GET OUR CHILDREN BACK!" goes...

[Carol25]

It would only make sense that the court would agree with this when they learn that 100 children were never claimed. Only 48 mothers participated in this lawsuit. I would say that the state could come up with may lawsuit that many of these children had no parents or legal guardians on that compound. Due to that fact, the adults can't just come in and pick and choose which one were theirs. They would have to prove it by DNA.

I think a lot more can happen. I also think that some unwed or "celestially married" teen girls may not want to go back.

[Carol25]

Originally posted by RachelRose


Carol, we don't impose this on anyone else. Approaching 1/2 the children born in the US are born to unwed mothers - and I'm sure a significant number don't know who the dad even is. When their children get removed for obvious abuse, no one insists they name and DNA test a dad.

We need to be fair here. The way we treat those not involved with FLDS is so far out of bounds with the way we are trying to treat the FLDS families.

We really need to be careful - to treat EVERYONE equally - and give them the same respect everyone else gets. [/*]
Thank you for pointing that out.

[walton]

The kids must be returned in 2 weeks.

http://myeldorado.net/

Be sure to read the following.

http://myeldorado.net/graphics/Appeals%20Court%20Ruling.pdf

Interesting. Very interesting.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by walton
The kids must be returned in 2 weeks.

http://myeldorado.net/

Be sure to read the following.

http://myeldorado.net/graphics/Appeals%20Court%20Ruling.pdf

Interesting. Very interesting. [/*]

Thanks for the links walton :seeya:

I've been trying to read the courts decision since it was released earlier today.

There seem to be some issues that the state can still prove if they have additional information.

[walton]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Thanks for the links walton :seeya:

I've been trying to read the courts decision since it was released earlier today.

There seem to be some issues that the state can still prove if they have additional information. [/*]

:seeya: Katydid

As you know I know zip about the legal system and even less about our wonderful tax system.

I don't know if you can answer this or not. But with this last tax-refund (gift)?? Does it increase with each child?

[walton]

Originally posted by RachelRose


Treated with respect by the courts and the public at large? No, I don't. We don't force other parents to go through DNA testing, we don't do whole body bone scans on children who belong to one religion or other, or even one extended family - without clear indication of physical abuse.

And what was found? The boys had healed bone fractures, about 1/3 of the boys. How does that add up to the general population of boys in the US? I'd say it's about average - I have 3 boys, 2 have healed fractures.

There have been many instances of false reporting and jumping to erroneous conclusions - including that bed found in the sanctuary - and then wild rumors spread about public sex.

I don't think they're being treated with respect, at all. And I don't think they're being treated with fairness.

They aren't being held to the same standard as everyone else who can drop kids and then walk away without any support at all, which is what DOESN"T happen there, and happens in the general non cult population an alarming number of times. [/*]

I do believe that they are/were treated as anyother. There are many cases that involve DNA testing. But they are usually done on a family unit basis.

The family units on the outside of those walls don't have 500 people living as one unit. This story did.



jmo

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by walton


:seeya: Katydid

As you know I know zip about the legal system and even less about our wonderful tax system.

I don't know if you can answer this or not. But with this last tax-refund (gift)?? Does it increase with each child? [/*]

I think it is $300 per child. We don't qualify, so I'm not 100% sure. I think I read/heard the $300 per child in the news.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Carol25
I can't help but think the children are experiencing a happier and healthier atmosphere where they are right now. For the first time they are allowed to smile, maybe even laugh, experience new things, beginning to bond with other children and authority figures that smile and don't hit. Can you imagine what it must be for the chilldren to breathe easily without contemplating rage for an infraction not far off? How I wish they could experience this just a few more months, if not longer. [/*]

The problem is that, no matter how bad a situation is, to remove children from their family always adds to their trauma. This children are being traumatized, that cannot be fun. IMO

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



This case isnt about warren Jeffs he is in prison remember? This is about other abuse that is or is not taking place that those involved would be individually responsible for. [/*]

warren Jeffs is their leader & he's still running the show behind bars.

[walton]

http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/walker.html

Parents who share a common ancestor are consanguineous. Consanguinity causes aggregate clusters of deleterious genes to collect in families, which then express themselves as rare recessive disorders like nephritis, cystic fibrosis, biliary artesia, albinism, short stature and many others. Consanguinity also causes rare recessive disorders to mask as dominant. Consanguinity is a reason why families bear children of only one sex - all sons, or all daughters.

[KatyDid]

Can the state present witnesses to support it's case?

In the court's decision, they acknowledge 20 females had become pregnant between the ages of 13 & 17.

In another para, it states 'with the exception of five female children identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen, there was no evidence of any physical abuse or harm to any other child;'.

with the exception of five....does that mean 5 have been identified as being abused?

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


... because you've been relating to and sympathizing with the mothers all along.

The future of the children is not your concern, and you've made that abundantly clear. [/*]

The very best thing for these children would be to return them to their mothers with a custody plan. That will be hard now that the CPS seized them illegally. I only care about the children, but, I know way too much about child psychology to believe these children have a better destiny in state custody. I understand that you have the children's best interests at heart, but, that is not remaining in the states custody. IMO

[walton]

Originally posted by RachelRose


I'm telling you, they aren't being treated like other people.

I've taught parenting classes for parents who are accused of abuse and neglect, to help them try to get their kids back. These are kids who suffered REAL abuse - not future abuse that maybe they might be married too early in the next decade or so. Ongoing physical abuse and neglect.

No one ever insisted they DNA test, and few could really name the dads. Or knew where they were, or cared.

I'm not saying this is a GREAT environment, just asking that they be given the same rights and expectations as other parents, and not be treated unfairly. [/*]



You better take a refresher course. jmo

Mental abuse is REAL. VERY REAL.

[walton]

Originally posted by johnielee333


warren Jeffs is their leader & he's still running the show behind bars. [/*]

:seeya: hey there johnielee

Is he still behind bars?

Way back when they showed video clips of Warren telling his brother he wasn't the Prophet, never was the Prophet....

..... do you think his statement was made so he would not be charged with any more "spiritual marriages" ?

[KatyDid]

In the court's decision:

None of the minors who are pregnant have been identified as children of the women who filed the appeal.

Are they some of the 100 who have not been claimed by a parent?

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by KatyDid
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/22/national/main4118720.shtml

"The appeals court ruled that the state didn't prove that the children were in immediate danger when they were taken from the compound. But that's a different standard from the one the trial courts in San Angelo now are using to come up with individual custody plans for many of the children. So this is still a very fluid situation," Cohen said.

"The appellate court now has ordered the trial court to 'vacate' its order granting 'sole' conservatorship of children to the Child Welfare Department. So the ball is now in the hands of the judge or judges in San Angelo, who either can comply with the order or try to weasel around it," Cohen said. "There is a middle path here - the idea that the trial court could vacate the 'sole' part of the conservatorship but still allow the department to maintain some level of oversight over the welfare of the kids."

I hope at the least they will take the middle ground option. [/*]

That is what they should have done in the first place. I agree that there should be oversight by the CPS over the welfare of these children. I do not understand why they did what they did. IMO

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


I'd suggest we change some laws so that people who try to hide behind a 'religion' as an excuse to control, brainwash, abuse and mess with the genetics of their children not be allowed to do so with impunity.

I can't believe I'm even having to make that point in the United States of America. [/*]

I suggest we enforce the laws that prevent the government from atrocities such as unlawfully seizing children without cause.

[KatyDid]

The more I read this decision based on the filing of the 38 women, the more I realize these women were hand picked to participate in this filing. These 38 are probably the only mothers at the compound that 'could' participate and qualify with the way the majority of the decision is written.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Who is 'we?' Does that not apply to the members of the FLDS sect?

Do you believe that the women and children in that cult are being treated with respect? [/*]

So, how many wrong, exactly, does it take to make a right in your mind?

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by RachelRose


I'm telling you, they aren't being treated like other people.

I've taught parenting classes for parents who are accused of abuse and neglect, to help them try to get their kids back. These are kids who suffered REAL abuse - not future abuse that maybe they might be married too early in the next decade or so. Ongoing physical abuse and neglect.

No one ever insisted they DNA test, and few could really name the dads. Or knew where they were, or cared.

I'm not saying this is a GREAT environment, just asking that they be given the same rights and expectations as other parents, and not be treated unfairly. [/*]

this abuse these FLDS children has went thru within the FLDS is REAL abuse. for someone who has taught parenting classes for parents who are accused of abuse and neglect should know there is different forms & levels of abuse. the FLDS kids are abused from day one.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Soldiermom08


Were the parents in your parenting class denying children were theirs? We they vague on birthdates? Will they name the father AT ALL? Do they allow their teenage girls to marry much older men, that they do not love, for the purpose of consecrating the illegal "union" and producing children at the rate of approx one every 12 months?
These people are being treated differently because they ARE different. They are also liars and are hiding the truth from law enforcement and child protective workers.

JMO [/*]

It's been shown time and time again that the liars worked for CPS. Yet, you're taking their word that the parents were lying about identities and birthdates. A 28 year old showed them a birth certificate and driver's license and they still classified her as a minor. There's no evidence that they were trying to confuse workers. The workers were confused because of the sheer number of children involved.
It is not a fact that they lied about their id's or ages to CPS, evidence shows that the opposite is true.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by walton


:seeya: hey there johnielee

Is he still behind bars?

Way back when they showed video clips of Warren telling his brother he wasn't the Prophet, never was the Prophet....

..... do you think his statement was made so he would not be charged with any more "spiritual marriages" ? [/*]


Yes he is still behind bars, he was sentenced to 10 years to life just last year in Utah. He is awaiting trial in Az for similar charges now.

[evalles]

Originally posted by walton




You better take a refresher course. jmo

Mental abuse is REAL. VERY REAL. [/*]

Also very subjective.

[LLaFren]

I would respectively request that all posters on this thread who feel that the children of the FLDS are better off with the parents that continue to abuse them, to start their own thread.

As a veteran of the Warren Jeffs trial, each poster will continue to bash their head against the wall trying to make the other side see their point of view.

I feel this thread is about protecting the kids. I have been warned about going off thread.

I still think the state of TX did the right thing.

Lets agree to protect the children from current and future abuses.

And if you don't know how to start a new thread, I'll be happy to start it for you so I don't get banned.

:rolleyes:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


The very best thing for these children would be to return them to their mothers with a custody plan. That will be hard now that the CPS seized them illegally. I only care about the children, but, I know way too much about child psychology to believe these children have a better destiny in state custody. I understand that you have the children's best interests at heart, but, that is not remaining in the states custody. IMO [/*]

it would be wrong to return them if the abuse will continue on. there is more than sexual abuse going on. those kids should be completly out of abusive surroundings. dont forget, there are many forms of abuse & neglect.

[KatyDid]

Elissa Wall was just on now with Shep at Fox News talking about the mental abuse she suffered in the FLDS.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by walton


:seeya: hey there johnielee

Is he still behind bars?

Way back when they showed video clips of Warren telling his brother he wasn't the Prophet, never was the Prophet....

..... do you think his statement was made so he would not be charged with any more "spiritual marriages" ? [/*]

:seeya: hi walton

warren jeffs is a liar & of course alot of other bad words.

[evalles]

Originally posted by KatyDid
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/22/national/main4118720.shtml

"The appeals court ruled that the state didn't prove that the children were in immediate danger when they were taken from the compound. But that's a different standard from the one the trial courts in San Angelo now are using to come up with individual custody plans for many of the children. So this is still a very fluid situation," Cohen said.

"The appellate court now has ordered the trial court to 'vacate' its order granting 'sole' conservatorship of children to the Child Welfare Department. So the ball is now in the hands of the judge or judges in San Angelo, who either can comply with the order or try to weasel around it," Cohen said. "There is a middle path here - the idea that the trial court could vacate the 'sole' part of the conservatorship but still allow the department to maintain some level of oversight over the welfare of the kids."

I hope at the least they will take the middle ground option. [/*]

They've ruled that it's not even legal that the State has them, why should there be a middle ground ? They need to give them back.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


I suggest we enforce the laws that prevent the government from atrocities such as unlawfully seizing children without cause. [/*]

i suggest we enforce the laws to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by johnielee333


it would be wrong to return them if the abuse will continue on. there is more than sexual abuse going on. those kids should be completly out of abusive surroundings. dont forget, there are many forms of abuse & neglect. [/*]

That is why I said that there should be oversight for the welfare of the children. They are in an traumatizing situation that is abusive right now. IMO

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by litchfield29


You CANNOT categorically make those statements unless you were there and witnessed it, and you weren't.

We all know you hate all CPS workers, and think the FLDS is a fine cult. Perhaps you should start your own thread for the one or two poster's who agree with you.

my opinions [/*]

:D a knock out hammer

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by johnielee333


i believe we should enforce the laws to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women. [/*]

I agree that the FLDS cult is abusive to children and women. Do you really believe that the mothers can never be taught to properly care for these children? How much more shall we abuse them and the children to make everyone but the women and children happy? I have a hard time believing that you cannot see that a plan to return these children to their mothers with CPS oversight is the only way to stop the abuse. IMO

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


Also very subjective. [/*]

:cuss:

[evalles]

Remember when I posted this last night and someone else posted some meaningless definitions ?



§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that
requests permission to take possession of a child without prior
notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a
person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to
satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical
health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of
neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical
health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under
Subchapter C; and (3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the
circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal[0] of the child.

__________________________________________________ __
In the decision, the Court ruled that CPS failed to provide any evidence that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily in removing them from their families. According to the Court, “The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department’s witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.”

And..
Furthermore, the court said, CPS did not make any reasonable effort to determine if measures other than removal would have reduced the perceived risk to the children.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


They've ruled that it's not even legal that the State has them, why should there be a middle ground ? They need to give them back. [/*]

hammer

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by litchfield29


You CANNOT categorically make those statements unless you were there and witnessed it, and you weren't.

We all know you hate all CPS workers, and think the FLDS is a fine cult. Perhaps you should start your own thread for the one or two poster's who agree with you.

my opinions [/*]

:beer:

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333


i suggest we enforce the laws to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women. [/*]

What laws to bring people down ?

[wandering]

A TH on Nancy G. said the children will not immediately be returned to the compound. The state can appeal the ruling.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I agree that the FLDS cult is abusive to children and women. Do you really believe that the mothers can never be taught to properly care for these children? How much more shall we abuse them and the children to make everyone but the women and children happy? I have a hard time believing that you cannot see that a plan to return these children to their mothers with CPS oversight is the only way to stop the abuse. IMO [/*]

only if the mothers completly get away from the FLDS.

[johnielee333]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by johnielee333


i suggest we enforce the laws to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women. [/*]

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


Originally posted by evalles


What laws to bring people down ? [/*]


i suggest we make a law to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women. [/*]

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by Texanne
So sad...I guess all the dirty old molesters are out stocking up on viagra as we post.....their victims are on their way back. Some here have no problem with that....but I do. [/*]

and so do i.

[evalles]

Originally posted by litchfield29


You CANNOT categorically make those statements unless you were there and witnessed it, and you weren't.

We all know you hate all CPS workers, and think the FLDS is a fine cult. Perhaps you should start your own thread for the one or two poster's who agree with you.

my opinions [/*]

Unless you were there and witnessed abuse yourself, you are a hypocrite.
This is a public forum and these posts are on topic. This isn't about the FLDS, this is about families and I don't care if they're FLDS or Catholic or Athiests.
You have no right to tell me I can't post here. You're upset because it's harder to wage you're bullying agenda, if there's more than one person to challenge you.

[evalles]

Originally posted by LLaFren
I would respectively request that all posters on this thread who feel that the children of the FLDS are better off with the parents that continue to abuse them, to start their own thread.

As a veteran of the Warren Jeffs trial, each poster will continue to bash their head against the wall trying to make the other side see their point of view.

I feel this thread is about protecting the kids. I have been warned about going off thread.

I still think the state of TX did the right thing.

Lets agree to protect the children from current and future abuses.

And if you don't know how to start a new thread, I'll be happy to start it for you so I don't get banned.

:rolleyes: [/*]

You don't have to respond to any post that you don't agree with. If you can't refrain that's your problem.
:no:

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by johnielee333


i suggest we enforce the laws to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women. [/*]

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





i suggest we make a law to bring the people down, who refuse to see the truth about the FLDS cults, who hide behind Religion to abuse children & women. [/*] [/*]

Yeah, make a law to 'bring people down" that don't agree with you. Are you American ?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Not quite what they said at all. They basically said absent any evidence which the state did not submit they can not determine that. Thus neither could the lower court have determined that to justify taking the kids. [/*]

That is what it said in the court's decision. I typed it as I was reading it. It is a pdf document so I couldn't copy & paste, or I would.

:shrug:

[evalles]

Originally posted by Carmona


I can't believe Americans want to deny people from practicing their religion. They have no understanding as to why this country was founded. :eek: [/*]

There are some pretty scary people on here.
:patriot:

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by SillyMe



You didnt type it word for word you took several paragraphs and made it one thought and then asked a question. So I answered it the same way. [/*]

No I didn't.

The first was a question and then my opinion about the 20.

The second was a quote.

hammer

excuse me, nora is calling

[evalles]

Originally posted by Carmona


Sign me up as a supporter against these bullies..reminds me of a lynch mob mentality based on emotional BS....not the facts or any hint of rational thought.. :beer: [/*]

They don't need facts, they have each other.
I think their belief system is dangerous and should be investigated.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


Yeah, make a law to 'bring people down" that don't agree with you. Are you American ? [/*]

nope i'm alien, i'm from mars ! :biggrin: