Judge signs order returning all 440 children [Archive]

Katprint

06-02-2008, 12:19 PM

I was very glad to see the additional provisions about not releasing the children to anybody except their parent/legal guardian, that the parents/legal guardians taking custody are ordered not to interfere in the investigations (for example by instructing the children not to give any information to investigators like they were previously instructing the children), disclosing the addresses where the children will be living, and not removing the children from the state. I agree that the children should not be needlessly traumatized by separation from their parents while the whole child-bride issue is investigated, but it still needs to be fully investigated. Warren Jeffs is in prison, but what happened to his 11, 12 and 13 year old brides that he was kissing in those photos? Where have they been reassigned?

As to the parenting classes: I think some of the parents - particularly the ones who can look at a photo of Jeffs french-kissing a 12 year old girl and say they still think Jeffs is "perfect" - could use some parenting education about inappropriate underage sexualization. I know that the FLDS is not the only place where underage girls get pregnant but it is harmful WHEREVER it is going on, and any parents who approve/fail to protect their children need help improving their parenting skills.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

lady

06-02-2008, 12:37 PM

As long as there are only the Women/Mothers and Children...I don't have a problem with it, as long as they don't let any of the Men return.

evalles

06-02-2008, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by lady
As long as there are only the Women/Mothers and Children...I don't have a problem with it, as long as they don't let any of the Men return. [/*]

I didn't see any restrictions on the fathers.
The only ones that wouldn't be able to be there are those that have molested their children and I haven't heard of any cases where that would apply.

Katprint

06-02-2008, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by lady
As long as there are only the Women/Mothers and Children...I don't have a problem with it, as long as they don't let any of the Men return. [/*]
While I agree that they should not give the underage "wives" (aka victims of statutory rape) back to the perpetrators, I do not understand why a man who fails to protect his children is any worse than a woman who fails to protect her children. Hopefully this is an area where parenting classes will help.

This situation isn't very different from the faith-healing religions where parents fail to obtain necessary medical treatment for children. The children are removed from the parents until the parents agree to follow the law about obtaining necessary medical treatment for their children even if the adults chose not to obtain medical treatment for themselves. But BOTH parents are responsible, not just the father or just the mother.

Katprint

spirit07

06-02-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Katprint
I was very glad to see the additional provisions about not releasing the children to anybody except their parent/legal guardian, that the parents/legal guardians taking custody are ordered not to interfere in the investigations (for example by instructing the children not to give any information to investigators like they were previously instructing the children), disclosing the addresses where the children will be living, and not removing the children from the state. I agree that the children should not be needlessly traumatized by separation from their parents while the whole child-bride issue is investigated, but it still needs to be fully investigated. Warren Jeffs is in prison, but what happened to his 11, 12 and 13 year old brides that he was kissing in those photos? Where have they been reassigned?

As to the parenting classes: I think some of the parents - particularly the ones who can look at a photo of Jeffs french-kissing a 12 year old girl and say they still think Jeffs is "perfect" - could use some parenting education about inappropriate underage sexualization. I know that the FLDS is not the only place where underage girls get pregnant but it is harmful WHEREVER it is going on, and any parents who approve/fail to protect their children need help improving their parenting skills.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

Kat...thanks for the additional information. While I haven't read much on it this morning, this sounds fairly similar to what the judge was requesting on Friday. I agree with the rest of your comments also.

evalles

06-02-2008, 02:53 PM

Was this really in their best interests ?

Ruth Edna Fischer was first allowed to see her 2-year-old daughter, from whom she had been separated after the raid on their polygamist ranch in Texas, at the child’s hospital room. The child had been taken there because of severe dehydration and malnutrition, Ms. Fischer said.

“Hannah looked like a little orphan sitting on the couch,” Ms. Fischer said. “Her hair was stringy and she was in a diaper, a pair of dirty socks and a hospital gown.”

The second visit two weeks later at a state office in Angleton, Tex., was worse. The girl would not even meet her mother’s gaze. “It was like she hardly remembered me,” said Ms. Fischer, who has four children in state custody.

http://fldsview.blogspot.com/

evalles

06-02-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by RachelRose
I think a large portion of these children will develop real anxiety disorders. What a mess for them. [/*]

Or worse. It's gonna be very hard to get back to "normal" after this. As you could see, time pretty much just stood still at the compound while the kids were gone.

zone

06-02-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Was this really in their best interests ?

Ruth Edna Fischer was first allowed to see her 2-year-old daughter, from whom she had been separated after the raid on their polygamist ranch in Texas, at the child’s hospital room. The child had been taken there because of severe dehydration and malnutrition, Ms. Fischer said.

“Hannah looked like a little orphan sitting on the couch,” Ms. Fischer said. “Her hair was stringy and she was in a diaper, a pair of dirty socks and a hospital gown.”

The second visit two weeks later at a state office in Angleton, Tex., was worse. The girl would not even meet her mother’s gaze. “It was like she hardly remembered me,” said Ms. Fischer, who has four children in state custody.

http://fldsview.blogspot.com/ [/*]

So where's all the pro-CPS people?

Roux

06-02-2008, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by zone

So where's all the pro-CPS people? [/*]

I'm not pro anyone or anything, except truth. I'm also not gloating over anything that has happened. But IMO it is not over until the criminal investigation is completed.

evalles

06-02-2008, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by zone

So where's all the pro-CPS people? [/*]

Stealing someones child and telling them it's in the child's best interests.

Roux

06-02-2008, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Stealing someones child and telling them it's in the child's best interests. [/*]

Please, that's not necessary.

Mimi428

06-02-2008, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by zone

So where's all the pro-CPS people? [/*]

In regards to responding to that BS post on a blog? Or in general? Or what?

It is possible, of course, that a child of that young age could become dehydrated if s/he has contracted an ailment resulting in a high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. Malnutrition, on the other hand, would not have shown up in that short of time.

I've noticed a continuing tendency from the FLDS to speak/write in very melodramatic fashion when describing the wrongs they have suffered. Frankly, FLDS or not, I personally believe that more folks would be willing to listen with less suspicion if they dropped the superflous drama, 'cuz as soon as they bring in the preposterous crap, I then view everything they say with MORE suspicion, not less.

Hospital is full of evil personnel who leave sick & dirty 2-year-old to languish on a couch? (can't figure out what hospital it might be with a couch in a patient's room, but . . . whatever) Nurses, personal care attendants, doctors making combined efforts to deny sick child a clean diaper & clean socks? And make no mistake about it - that is the exact scenario the person who wrote that nonsense was trying to invoke.

Puh-lease.

Mimi428

06-02-2008, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Stealing someones child and telling them it's in the child's best interests. [/*]

S E E K

H E L P

walton

06-02-2008, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by zone

So where's all the pro-CPS people? [/*]

Well I am not afraid to admit it. I am pro-CPS.

Did you want to ask me something? But before you ask, you should also know that I am totally against child molesters of any sort, against child abuse and against Domestic Violence.

SavannahStar

06-02-2008, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Perhaps they're avoiding the pro-pedophile thread?

Just sayin'.

:seeya: [/*]

:eek:

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Perhaps they're avoiding the pro-pedophile thread?

Just sayin'.

:seeya: [/*]

And your basis for inferring that I condone pedophilia ?

Maybe they're avoiding the anti- civil rights thread. :o

Please don't ask anyone else to refrain from making personal or rude comments on these threads, as you've just joined the club.

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

In regards to responding to that BS post on a blog? Or in general? Or what?

It is possible, of course, that a child of that young age could become dehydrated if s/he has contracted an ailment resulting in a high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. Malnutrition, on the other hand, would not have shown up in that short of time.

I've noticed a continuing tendency from the FLDS to speak/write in very melodramatic fashion when describing the wrongs they have suffered. Frankly, FLDS or not, I personally believe that more folks would be willing to listen with less suspicion if they dropped the superflous drama, 'cuz as soon as they bring in the preposterous crap, I then view everything they say with MORE suspicion, not less.

Hospital is full of evil personnel who leave sick & dirty 2-year-old to languish on a couch? (can't figure out what hospital it might be with a couch in a patient's room, but . . . whatever) Nurses, personal care attendants, doctors making combined efforts to deny sick child a clean diaper & clean socks? And make no mistake about it - that is the exact scenario the person who wrote that nonsense was trying to invoke.

Puh-lease. [/*]

Melodramatic ? LOL Like your use of "superflous drama" or "preposterous crap".
I don't think they were talking about hospital personnel, they wouldn't have been in charge of dressing or grooming the baby.
It would have been the foster parent who was chosen by CPS.

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Where is the proof they are letting a 12 year old have sex with their "prophet?" Where is the proof a group lives by this belief? Where? TIA

The court let the children go home with their parents! It is a great day in America! :patriot:

mho [/*]

That's what I've been sayin' .
How can posters continue to spew such lies ?

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

S E E K

H E L P [/*]

SEEK

THE

TRUTH

walton

06-02-2008, 05:35 PM

When I was a little kid it was thundering out and I asked my parents what makes that noise?

My dad told me it was God shaking the dice cup. My mother told me that it was Gods way of making music.

I asked my parents, where did I get my freckles from? My mother told me that for every freckle I had it was because the angels kissed me. My dad told me it was from running behind a cow on a windy day.

Now... is the glass half empty or is it half full?

The courts sent the kids back with the people that claim the kids as their own. Bad thing good thing?

It just is.

Time will tell and thank goodness that there are some rules that even a culture left behind are now familar.

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Texanne
Anyone who has had dealings with CPS in Texas can guarantee you one thing.....once a child is in the system...it is IN THE SYSTEM. The parents will be subjected to visits and investigation for some time. It will be harder for the child molesters to get by with it from now on.....unless they move the kids out of state (as they have been known to do). The pedophiles will have to come up with some stunts to continue their molesting the little girls now. And I suspect with all the money these dirty old men have, they will do exactly that. I am fully in support of people'e rights not being violated....but in this case I am more concerned with the right of innocent little girls not being turned into brood mares by a bunch of dirty old men. It is just that simple with me. I knew all along they would eventually be returned. But those of you who think the molesters will get off scot free...think again. They are in the system now. [/*]

The only flaw in this thinking, is that there was no indication that any of the children that were returned were molested.

Roux

06-02-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Where is the proof they are letting a 12 year old have sex with their "prophet?" Where is the proof a group lives by this belief? Where? TIA

The court let the children go home with their parents! It is a great day in America! :patriot:

mho [/*]

the criminal investigation is continuing and if the proof is there, we'll eventually have the truth of the matter

walton

06-02-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by evalles

That's what I've been sayin' .
How can posters continue to spew such lies ? [/*]

I truly hope you can back that up with a link.

TIA

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Roux

the criminal investigation is continuing and if the proof is there, we'll eventually have the truth of the matter [/*]

Then maybe everyone should wait to find out what the truth is before accusing all these parents of being child molestors or pedophiles.

evalles

06-02-2008, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by walton

I truly hope you can back that up with a link.

TIA [/*]

Back what up with a link ?

That there have been no charges filed?
That CPS workers testified in multiple individual hearing that the kids weren't abused ?

Why don't those that call these parents abusers and pedophiles follow that up with a link ?

walton

06-02-2008, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Back what up with a link ?

That there have been no charges filed?
That CPS workers testified in multiple individual hearing that the kids weren't abused ?

Why don't those that call these parents abusers and pedophiles follow that up with a link ? [/*]

evalles

I was responding to your post to which you were respoding to mcannies post.

walton

06-02-2008, 05:55 PM

http://myeldorado.net/

Judge Walther issues emergency order keeping one child, an alleged sexual abuse victim, from returning to the YFZ Ranch.

http://myeldorado.net/graphics/Motion%20and%20Order%20to%20stay%20enforcement-1.pdf

Carol25

06-02-2008, 05:59 PM

I'm Pro CPS and I'm stil here. I'm just waiting to see if they can find them all to see if they can continue their investigation. I hope the 10-16 year olds don't disappear..

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Now Evalles ... that was a little joke. I realize no one here condones pedophilia, for heaven's sake.

It was so absurd it was funny ... get it?

:D

Edited to add: And I'm afraid I can't refrain from making note when someone is being disrespectful. Sorry. [/*]

Then expect the same.
One of my mom's favorite quotes was -- practice what you preach.

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:06 PM

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:07 PM

Ok, I'm a little confused after reading the order about one Therese Jeffs. Everyone seems to assume that Warren Jeffs is her husband. So tell me this, how does her going back to the ranch put her at immediate risk of her alleged perpetrator having access to her? Anyone?

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:09 PM

walton

06-02-2008, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Walton,

Thanks so much for that link.

Thank goodness she doesn't have to go back to the ranch and right back into the hands of her abuser. [/*]

No problem. I truly wish that there wouldn't have been one.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by evalles

If true, it proves that Jeff's committed a crime, not that every parent abused their children. [/*]

right....they follow every other "doctrine" that Jeff's puts down as gospel except the one about having sex with underage girls.

I'm sorry...I don't buy it IMO

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by datagal
Ok, I'm a little confused after reading the order about one Therese Jeffs. Everyone seems to assume that Warren Jeffs is her husband. So tell me this, how does her going back to the ranch put her at immediate risk of her alleged perpetrator having access to her? Anyone? [/*]

I believe most everyone there has a last name of Jeffs or Smith IMO

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

right....they follow every other "doctrine" that Jeff's puts down as gospel except the one about having sex with underage girls.

I'm sorry...I don't buy it IMO [/*]

If it's so rampant, why are they only holding one girl as a victim of sexual abuse, and it appears she might have been a victim of Jeff's.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

No, I don''t agree. those photographs are not proof. We don't know how old those females are.

If those are 14 year old girls and from Utah, 14 is the age of consent in Utah. That is what I heard on CTV. Where are the birth certificates? And whole families should not lose their children if there are young girls having sex with adult men: IF this is the case.

I am 4 foot 11 inches and weigh 90 pounds, look way younger than my years, but I have two children. I am in my my thirties.

I do not believe for even a split second that the Texas courts would rule the children should go back to their parents if there was widespread child molestation due to their religious belief. I don't believe that--especially in Texas. If there was widespread child abuse the court would be aware of it...and not have ruled in the parents favor.

"Someone" with an agenda is behind all this, IMO.

mho [/*]

it is for this very reason that they don't apply for birth certificates for the kids born at FDLS

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:17 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by datagal
Ok, I'm a little confused after reading the order about one Therese Jeffs. Everyone seems to assume that Warren Jeffs is her husband. So tell me this, how does her going back to the ranch put her at immediate risk of her alleged perpetrator having access to her? Anyone? [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe most everyone there has a last name of Jeffs or Smith IMO

__________________
"If your actions inspire others, to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."

- John Quincy Adams

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ok, that didn't even began to answer my question. I have read posts that assume she is Warrens spiritual wife. If is is in prison, how does he have access to her.

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

If that is the case, then prosecute the adult who molested her. A whole group should not have their children taken away because there is sexual abuse of a child. It would be like finding child abuse in my apartment building, and taking all the children from their parents! It is wrong!

mho [/*]

ITA.... ;)

walton

06-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

No, I don''t agree. those photographs are not proof. We don't know how old those females are. I am 4 foot 11 inches and weigh 90 pounds, look way younger than my years, but I have two children. I am in my my thirties.

If those are 14 year old girls and from Utah, 14 is the age of consent in Utah. That is what I heard on CTV. Where are the birth certificates? And whole families should not lose their children if there are young girls having sex with adult men: IF this is the case.

I do not believe for even a split second that the Texas courts would rule the children should go back to their parents if there was widespread child molestation due to their religious belief. I don't believe that--especially in Texas. If there was widespread child abuse the court would be aware of it...and not have ruled in the parents favor.

"Someone" with an agenda is behind all this, IMO.

mho [/*]

Maybe her brother was wrong about her age. Maybe her brother was wrong in identifying her.

Nahhh, I don't think so.

The person with the agenda was the one who lined her up to be a victim. Her parents. Her Prophet. Her spiritual husband. And anyone else who watched it take place and did nothing. jmo

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

it is for this very reason that they don't apply for birth certificates for the kids born at FDLS [/*]

Where are you getting your information? Do you have a link confirming that? It was reported widely in the media that CPS would not honor their birth certificates or any I.D. for that matter.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by evalles

If it's so rampant, why are they only holding one girl as a victim of sexual abuse, and it appears she might have been a victim of Jeff's. [/*]

because they haven't had a chance to investigate all of them and to sort out the DNA.

It is my understanding that the authorities will be doing as the courts said and start taking them one by one....case by case. It is my opinion that you will see things change greatly then.

walton

06-02-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by evalles

If it's so rampant, why are they only holding one girl as a victim of sexual abuse, and it appears she might have been a victim of Jeff's. [/*]

How many victims would it take to make it right in your book?

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by datagal
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by datagal
Ok, I'm a little confused after reading the order about one Therese Jeffs. Everyone seems to assume that Warren Jeffs is her husband. So tell me this, how does her going back to the ranch put her at immediate risk of her alleged perpetrator having access to her? Anyone? [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe most everyone there has a last name of Jeffs or Smith IMO

__________________
"If your actions inspire others, to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."

- John Quincy Adams

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ok, that didn't even began to answer my question. I have read posts that assume she is Warrens spiritual wife. If is is in prison, how does he have access to her. [/*]

I am not assuming anything...she can be the wife of anyone of 100's of Jeff's and Smith's living there.

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by datagal
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by datagal
Ok, I'm a little confused after reading the order about one Therese Jeffs. Everyone seems to assume that Warren Jeffs is her husband. So tell me this, how does her going back to the ranch put her at immediate risk of her alleged perpetrator having access to her? Anyone? [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe most everyone there has a last name of Jeffs or Smith IMO

__________________
"If your actions inspire others, to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."

- John Quincy Adams

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Ok, that didn't even began to answer my question. I have read posts that assume she is Warrens spiritual wife. If is is in prison, how does he have access to her. [/*]

Maybe she's not Jeff's wife. I misread and thought it said that there wasn't an immediate risk of the perpetrator having access to her, which is why I thought it was Jeff's.

What about Merrianne ? She was supposed to be in CPS custody, was she not sexually abused ?

Someone should be in jail now.

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by walton

How many victims would it take to make it right in your book? [/*]

Really? How many children have to be ripped apart from their families and everything they know, due to one alleged incident of abuse to make it Right in your Book?

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:24 PM

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by walton

How many victims would it take to make it right in your book? [/*]

The guilty should pay. I don't want anybody to pay for the crimes of another.

One child that was a victim of sexual abuse is a tragedy.
Making hundreds of others pay is a travesty.

walton

06-02-2008, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by datagal

Really? How many children have to be ripped apart from their families and everything they know, due to one alleged incident of abuse to make it Right in your Book? [/*]

If I was a fireman and there was a burning building filled with kids but only two were screaming for help. Would I just grab the two? or would I grab them all?

I'd grab them all. And then I'd put out the fire. But that is just me. I have a tough time just standing around complaining about the guy that invented the matches. jmo

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

To save one child....I would rather they all were away until it is sorted out.

that is my opinion [/*]

Well, it's a good thing the Texas Supreme court had a different opinion.

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

To save one child....I would rather they all were away until it is sorted out.

that is my opinion [/*]

So, creating more victims is the answer. If one of these children were killed while in foster care, is it still worth it to you ?

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by datagal

Well, it's a good thing the Texas Supreme court had a different opinion. [/*]

and that, my dear, is only your opinion

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by walton

If I was a fireman and there was a burning building filled with kids but only two were screaming for help. Would I just grab the two? or would I grab them all?

I'd grab them all. And then I'd put out the fire. But that is just me. I have a tough time just standing around complaining about the guy that invented the matches. jmo [/*]

If you were a fireman, would you worry about the ones that were already safe, or concentrate on the ones remaining in the burning building ?

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

and that, my dear, is only your opinion [/*]

And mine, and many more that are not on this board.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by evalles

So, creating more victims is the answer. If one of these children were killed while in foster care, is it still worth it to you ? [/*]

I stated my opinion.Sorry you don't care for it but stop going to the ridiculous

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

and that, my dear, is only your opinion [/*]

I think its a good think the TSC disagrees with you.

However it is a FACT that they disagree with your opinion and agree with mine.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by datagal

I think its a good think the TSC disagrees with you.

However it is a FACT that they disagree with your opinion and agree with mine. [/*]

For now...I have faith. It will change....

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

I stated my opinion.Sorry you don't care for it but stop going to the ridiculous [/*]

Evalles point was hardly ridiculous. It is the exact reason why the children are going home. The poster above talking about burning buildings and matches is the one with the ridiculous analogy.

walton

06-02-2008, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by evalles

If you were a fireman, would you worry about the ones that were already safe, or concentrate on the ones remaining in the burning building ? [/*]

Your grasping. Take a minute and catch up. They were all in one building per se. One address listed. All behind a locked fence.

I'd save them all.

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Walton,

Great post.

I'd be right there beside you, getting the children out first -- putting the fire out second -- finding the cause of the fire, third. When the building was secured and repaired, and the arsonist caught, then and only then would I return the children. [/*]

You two should go work for Texas CPS is you think this little building fire scenario compares in any way to what is happening in Eldorado.

walton

06-02-2008, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by datagal

Evalles point was hardly ridiculous. It is the exact reason why the children are going home. The poster above talking about burning buildings and matches is the one with the ridiculous analogy. [/*]

:D

The poster you are talking about has a name. Walton.

And like many of those children that were "ripped" from their loving families will now have their own identity. Don't you agree?

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by datagal

Evalles point was hardly ridiculous. It is the exact reason why the children are going home. The poster above talking about burning buildings and matches is the one with the ridiculous analogy. [/*]

Really? So I'll play then....how many children are you willing to risk sexual abuse so one can go home to her parents?

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by walton

:D

The poster you are talking about has a name. Walton.

And like many of those children that were "ripped" from their loving families will now have their own identity. Don't you agree? [/*]

They already had names! Silly. And they are going home where they belong.

walton

06-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Walton,

Great post.

I'd be right there beside you, getting the children out first -- putting the fire out second -- finding the cause of the fire, third. When the building was secured and repaired, and the arsonist caught, then and only then would I return the children. [/*]

As would most people. I think even evalles would be there.

Maybe sounding the firealarm or something but I think she'd be there.

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

Really? So I'll play then....how many children are you willing to risk sexual abuse so one can go home to her parents? [/*]

However many children are in a Household could be taken. The other kids in the neighborhood should be left alone.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by datagal

However many children are in a Household could be taken. The other kids in the neighborhood should be left alone. [/*]

even if there is a suspicion of the other households they sould be sent home?

datagal

06-02-2008, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

even if there is a suspicion of the other households they sould be sent home? [/*]

A suspicion? Based on what? A phone call from a mentally challenged woman in Colorado?

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Katie - that's exactly right. There wasn't enough time.

I wonder about those who keep asking 'where's the proof?' when there wouldn't have been time under normal circumstances to build a thorough case. Never mind circumstances such as these, with so many people involved, and so little knowledge of who's who, who's related to whom, ages, etc. [/*]

these kinds of cases take lots of time to sort out...especially what CPS is under with having to do dna to even determine who is related or not.

I would rather they err on the side of caution IMO

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by datagal

A suspicion? Based on what? A phone call from a mentally challenged woman in Colorado? [/*]

*sigh* from the things CPS saw, confiscated, and from information given in interviews with the parents and children

walton

06-02-2008, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by datagal

They already had names! Silly. And they are going home where they belong. [/*]

Actually some of them didn't. Example: baby boy jessop etc.

Some of them didn't know their birthdates. Some of them didn't know their ages. Some of them didn't know their own mothers as they had multiple mothers.

Some don't know their fathers. Some of these families have been reassigned and their fathers are elsewhere.

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

I stated my opinion.Sorry you don't care for it but stop going to the ridiculous [/*]

You didn't answer my question.

KKKKKKatie

06-02-2008, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by walton

Actually some of them didn't. Example: baby boy jessop etc.

Some of them didn't know their birthdates. Some of them didn't know their ages. Some of them didn't know their own mothers as they had multiple mothers.

Some don't know their fathers. Some of these families have been reassigned and their fathers are elsewhere. [/*]

guess she skipped over that part when reading about the case

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by datagal

I think its a good think the TSC disagrees with you.

However it is a FACT that they disagree with your opinion and agree with mine. [/*]

AMEN :rose:

walton

06-02-2008, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by datagal

A suspicion? Based on what? A phone call from a mentally challenged woman in Colorado? [/*]

I am sure that is how it came across the caller ID.

Incoming call from a mentally challenged woman in Colorado. Man the alarms and send out the troops.

The call was made. They responded. As they should.

:patriot:

Now... what are the excuses Shurtleff has made about not responding to the victims calls in Utah?

Oh yeah. No witnesses. No money. No time. Poppycock.

People have stood before him and told them of the abuses. He has the addresses. He had the witnesses. He has the money. And by golly he better make the time. jmo

evalles

06-02-2008, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

I so agree.

IMO, the trauma of being away from the ranch is far less, and far less ultimately debilitating than the trauma of what will be done to you by your very own family, by order of their prophet. [/*]

Easy to say, when you're not the one that was ripped away from your mom.

walton

06-02-2008, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

And don't forget the imported child(ren) on the ranch who were from Canada (whose parents remained in Canada, for some reason).
:confused: [/*]

I am anxious to see more about how the Canadians are going to deal with some of the same issues there.

Did they have passes to be in the United States? Do they need passes? Hmmm

walton

06-02-2008, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Nope, not from my mom. From my dad. [/*]

:(

They can not be ripped from our hearts. :rose:

walton

06-02-2008, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

Where is the proof they don''t appy for "birth certificates?" So far, I have only heard rheotric they don't. This is media hype, started, IMO, by "someone" with an agenda.

mho [/*]

Again look at the link thread. Why do you suppose good old Warren the Prophet and certain members hooked up with Little Shell Pembina band?

Do you suppose they were going to become one with the Tribal nation? lol

Do you suppose that those that bought license plates from the Tribe bought them because they looked better than Utah's Life Elevated Plates?

Nahh, I don't think so.

Roux

06-02-2008, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by walton

I am sure that is how it came across the caller ID.

Incoming call from a mentally challenged woman in Colorado. Man the alarms and send out the troops.

The call was made. They responded. As they should.

:patriot:

Now... what are the excuses Shurtleff has made about not responding to the victims calls in Utah?

Oh yeah. No witnesses. No money. No time. Poppycock.

People have stood before him and told them of the abuses. He has the addresses. He had the witnesses. He has the money. And by golly he better make the time. jmo [/*]

I was so disgusted seeing Shurtleff on the 48 Hrs episode last Tuesday. He was acting all righteous and like he's done so much in Utah.

FoxySly

06-02-2008, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Easy to say, when you're not the one that was ripped away from your mom. [/*]

I sure wish someone would have been there to rip me away from my bio mom before she signed me over to marry that old man! But instead I was ripped from my Granny's arms who was in the process of getting me away into hiding.

Sly

walton

06-02-2008, 07:16 PM

Roux said:

QUOTE]I was so disgusted seeing Shurtleff on the 48 Hrs episode last Tuesday. He was acting all righteous and like he's done so much in Utah.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know what you mean. Diversion game. But diversion from what?

walton

06-02-2008, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by FoxySly

I sure wish someone would have been there to rip me away from my bio mom before she signed me over to marry that old man! But instead I was ripped from my Granny's arms who was in the process of getting me away into hiding.

Sly [/*]

If I could have I would have.

Roux

06-02-2008, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by walton
http://myeldorado.net/

Judge Walther issues emergency order keeping one child, an alleged sexual abuse victim, from returning to the YFZ Ranch.

http://myeldorado.net/graphics/Motion%20and%20Order%20to%20stay%20enforcement-1.pdf [/*]

The atty Natalie Malonis was on NG last week and she seemed like something was up with respect to her child. I doubt she can say much, but perhaps she will be on again tonight. (I am not a NG fan but have been watching her show during this situation.)

evalles

06-02-2008, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Nope, not from my mom. From my dad. [/*]

And how did it feel ?

evalles

06-02-2008, 07:30 PM

walton

06-02-2008, 07:33 PM

I have not seen all her shows covering this case but I have watched as many as I can.

She has had a variety of guests on there and many of the people she has had are the many I've read about.

I still would like to see her go toe to toe with Shurtleff and a few others.

A special with no interruptions. :)

She could do the El Kabong thing.

Back of the line Shurtleff. El Kabonggggggg

:D

walton

06-02-2008, 08:02 PM

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

SavannahStar

06-02-2008, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by mcannie1965

If Warren Jeffs committed a crime 440 children should not be taken from their parents.

I will judge the evidence when it is presented in a court of law--until then it is nothing but rheotric, IMO.

mho [/*]

I nominate that for POST OF THE DAY on here!

:beer:

walton

06-02-2008, 08:15 PM

evalles

06-02-2008, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by walton

I respect that. Some people need to get wet before they figure out it is raining. Not me. I take the umbrella. [/*]

Yes, some people need to see all the evidence before passing judgement.

Katprint

06-02-2008, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

mcannie1965,

One of his 'wives' is 12. Her name is Merrianne or something similar. I believe she was taken into custody at the ranch with the other children. That, or she was located and was going to testify had the hearings continued.

There's another of his wives who's 13.

Remember the tiny girls from the http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/31/sexual-assault-by-jeffs-alleged/pictures? The ones Warren was kissing so intimately? Those were his wives, ages 12 and 13 at the time the photos were taken.

There's the proof, don't you agree? [/*]
And here are some links:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081flds1.html
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/23/hearing-includes-photos-of-sect-leader-kissing/

Merrianne Jessop (age 12 plus 3 weeks at the time of the wedding photos with Warren Jeffs)

Loretta (age 13 in the "First Anniversay" wedding photos, 12 at the time of the bridal photos with Warren Jeffs)

A 13 year old girl called as a witness in the Dan and Louisa Jessop evidentiary hearings - until the Jessops gave up on custody of their baby rather than have this girl testify - was "spiritually married" to Warren Jeffs at age 11. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5804728.html

It looks like Warren Jeffs will shortly be charged with a whole bunch of sexual assaults (statutory rapes) against several girls ranging in age from 12 to 15 years old, probably as soon as the DNA tests are all in. http://deseretnews.com/article/0,1249,700230555,00.html

"In an emergency motion, attorney ad litem Natalie E. Malonis is asking the judge to stay the new order in connection with her client, an underage girl, saying it places her at risk from a possible "perpetrator." In court on Friday, Malonis said she was investigating whether her client may have given birth to a child who is being claimed by another woman."
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9454066?source=rss

Katprint

spirit07

06-02-2008, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Katprint

"In an emergency motion, attorney ad litem Natalie E. Malonis is asking the judge to stay the new order in connection with her client, an underage girl, saying it places her at risk from a possible "perpetrator." In court on Friday, Malonis said she was investigating whether her client may have given birth to a child who is being claimed by another woman."
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9454066?source=rss

Katprint [/*]

Thanks for the links and especially this last one. I had posted a link somewhere in here that in questioning the FLDS members, they found they did not think there was any age too young for a spiritual marriage. I can't fathom having had sex with a boy near my age at 11, let alone an adult - or worse, an old man. It will be good to hear more about this case as well as the others which come out over time.

evalles

06-02-2008, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by walton

Your grasping. Take a minute and catch up. They were all in one building per se. One address listed. All behind a locked fence.

I'd save them all. [/*]

Take a minute to remember that the appeals court said they were separate dwellings.

You're grasping with this whole analogy.

spirit07

06-02-2008, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Take a minute to remember that the appeals court said they were separate dwellings.

You're grasping with this whole analogy. [/*]

They actually can't be completely separate dwellings no matter what was ruled (except perhaps separate bedrooms) as most or many or all of the families shared the rest of the dwelling (like the living room, kitchen, laundry). It's not apparent to me that they didn't share bathrooms or that they had separate entries either.

evalles

06-02-2008, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

No child in a burning building is safe. :shrug: [/*]

They are if the fire is a figment of the fireman's imagination

LisaM22

06-02-2008, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

No child in a burning building is safe. :shrug: [/*]

no one is safe during a witch hunt....

if they have evidence of a crime, arrest someone - simple, that is how are legal system is supposed to work - it's obvious this was only a witch hunt - jmho

witchy1

06-02-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by LisaM22

no one is safe during a witch hunt....

if they have evidence of a crime, arrest someone - simple, that is how are legal system is supposed to work [/*]

Details

06-03-2008, 12:22 AM

No one has been arrested. But there are special laws to protect children - because they are not old enough to be able to protect themselves. If we felt an adult was being raped, we'd check it out, give her the chance to leave with the police, and figure that was enough until there was evidence for an arrest. You cannot do that with children - not when the suspected abusers are their parents or people their parents allow access to their children. That's why CPS, that's why laws that provide for investigations, court orders, restrictions, parenting classes, and removal from the home if necessary WHILE the investigation goes on to see if anyone needs to be arrested. Because children are different from adults. They cannot protect themselves, and when the parents are involved, they are pretty near helpless.

evalles

06-03-2008, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Details
No one has been arrested. But there are special laws to protect children - because they are not old enough to be able to protect themselves. If we felt an adult was being raped, we'd check it out, give her the chance to leave with the police, and figure that was enough until there was evidence for an arrest. You cannot do that with children - not when the suspected abusers are their parents or people their parents allow access to their children. That's why CPS, that's why laws that provide for investigations, court orders, restrictions, parenting classes, and removal from the home if necessary WHILE the investigation goes on to see if anyone needs to be arrested. Because children are different from adults. They cannot protect themselves, and when the parents are involved, they are pretty near helpless. [/*]

In this case, the physical exams have been done, they should know who was molested.

evalles

06-03-2008, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Evalles - you mentioned these exams in another thread, too.

I haven't read anything about physical exams conducted on the children.

Do you have a link you can post here?

Thanks. [/*]

It's been posted before, I'm not looking for it again. It was during the first week, sorry if you didn't catch it.
This just makes me laugh hysterically.
Do you think they're going to allege that these kids have been physically and sexually abused and not do an exam to prove it ?
As a matter of fact, a physician paid by the state testified that the children were healthy and appeared well cared for.
You might want to catch up on the case, that was old news.

Details

06-03-2008, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by evalles
In this case, the physical exams have been done, they should know who was molested. [/*]You think it always leaves a mark?

You think that knowing "if" tells them who?

You think they weren't told not to tell?

I'm not CPS, nor particularly involved with abuse cases - and I know better than that. A physical exam says little to nothing. And even in the case of molestation that leaves a mark - it can easily be explained away - for that matter, assuming you're thinking of a hymen - some don't have them to start - for the others - horesback riding and a variety of other causes explain away any physical mark!

But there's far more types of molestation and abuse than physical penetration, and bruises heal, emotional abuse leaves no visible marks, nor does things like waterboarding or a whole range of tortures that child abusers have thought up to have their power trip without penalty.

Details

06-03-2008, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Imperfect
I'll recheck the gosanangelo.com links tomorrow and see if I can find the information you're talking about, as I don't recall any such information. And contrary to what you seem to believe, I'm very caught up on the case. [/*]It was mentioned in the emotional letters of those therapists, and in court when speaking a little of the broken bones. Of course, the assumption that this was an invasive, full body exam, is nowhere in any paper - we don't know what type of exam this was - could have been looking for sexual assault, could have been your standard exam to see what medical issues there were that should be addressed. The one bit of info we have is that it did not include an X-ray for all the kids.

Katprint

06-03-2008, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by evalles

In this case, the physical exams have been done, they should know who was molested. [/*]
How can any physical exam reveal emotional harm? Like being groomed to cooperate with future molestations? (There is a lot of evidence indicating that the reason the parents keep insisting that nobody is ever "forced" is because the girls are carefully trained to permit illegal underage sexual intimacy after being assigned to a much older man, to whom they must open themselves, whom they must obey, whose secrets they must keep etc.) Or being groomed to become a molester of young girls?

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

evalles

06-03-2008, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Katprint

How can any physical exam reveal emotional harm? Like being groomed to cooperate with future molestations? (There is a lot of evidence indicating that the reason the parents keep insisting that nobody is ever "forced" is because the girls are carefully trained to permit illegal underage sexual intimacy after being assigned to a much older man, to whom they must open themselves, whom they must obey, whose secrets they must keep etc.) Or being groomed to become a molester of young girls?

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

The law allows court oversight for emotional abuse, but it doesn't allow removal.

zone

06-03-2008, 10:29 AM

zone

06-03-2008, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Carol25
I hope the 10-16 year olds don't disappear..
[/*]

I don't think that will happen although I wonder if some non-FDLS people wouldn't mind if it did so they can say "I told you so".I think FDLS has learned its lesson.

evalles

06-03-2008, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Thanks, Details. That's what I remembered as well. That is hardly conclusive evidence that all the children were thoroughly examined (and to your point earlier, even thorough exams may not show abuse) -- or that no abuse was found.

I was sure I would've remembered significant proof that all the children had been formally examined and none were found to have been abused. That never happened.

Glad to know I wasn't imagining things. [/*]

Since CPS was alleging sexual abuse, they're more incompetent than I thought if they didn't do thorough exams.

evalles

06-03-2008, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Wonderful point, Katprint.

My heart aches for the FLDS children whose little bodies can't 'prove' to the outside world that they've been abused. They are victims no matter which way they turn, with no help to be found.

:( [/*]

Sure. No evidence ? No problem. Take em all anyway.

mariah79

06-03-2008, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Since CPS was alleging sexual abuse, they're more incompetent than I thought if they didn't do thorough exams. [/*]

That would take a lot of time to do that in this case. You are talking about over 400 kids. Finding placing to put these kids was a nighmare in it's self. It would an army of specialist to exmine these kids in the very short time CPS had custody.

evalles

06-03-2008, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by mariah79

That would take a lot of time to do that in this case. You are talking about over 400 kids. Finding placing to put these kids was a nighmare in it's self. It would an army of specialist to exmine these kids in the very short time CPS had custody. [/*]

The kids are spread out all over, the foster care providers would most likely have been required to take the children to the DR.
If there are 12 kids in a home, it's not going to take 2 months.
An examining physician testified at the 14 day hearing.
I believe it's also a requirement that the child receives a physical soon after being taken into custody.

If it were true, if they can't take care of that many kid's medical needs, they're neglecting them.

evalles

06-03-2008, 12:56 PM

mariah79,
Just how long do you think they should be able to keep children without identifying any abuse ?

If your kid was taken and you had done nothing to him, would you be ok with him being with strangers for months until they could find out he wasn't abused ?
What if he was abused in foster care within that 2 months, should it then be blamed on you since an exam wasn't done right away ?

mariah79

06-03-2008, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by evalles
mariah79,
Just how long do you think they should be able to keep children without identifying any abuse ?

If your kid was taken and you had done nothing to him, would you be ok with him being with strangers for months until they could find out he wasn't abused ?
What if he was abused in foster care within that 2 months, should it then be blamed on you since an exam wasn't done right away ? [/*]

The problem here is your not talking about a simple household. I know of no regular houshold that has over 400 kids.

Katprint

06-03-2008, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

<respectfully snipped>
Do you not understand anything about the behavior of children who have been abused, especially by their caretakers? Even children who have not been scared to death about the evils of the outside world do not willingly confide in strangers about their abuse.
[/*]
That is a very good point, Imperfect. Even abused/neglected children love their parents and are deeply unhappy about being separated from them. Contrary to generally widespread belief, they are usually not glad to have been rescued - even from horrific physical abuse - and will happily lie their butts off about how they fell off a swing or down the stairs (the story my own mother was instructed to tell when my grandmother beat her so badly that she had to go to the hospital) or whatever story their parents tell them to say, to avoid being separated from their beloved family.

This is a terribly sad situation.

Katprint

Vinnie

06-03-2008, 03:18 PM

Here are the positives to come out of this case (so far):

1) The FLDS spokesman now says no more marriages will occur with underage girls (under 18). I hope they are held to this as it would be such a relief to know that no other 11-14 year old girls in this sect must be subjected to this unspeakable "duty".

2) The CPS can make unannounced visits to the homes of the parents (whether they go back to the ranch or if they seek housing elsewhere, as some are planning to do).

3) The investigations will continue - of child abuse, statutory rape, etc.

4) One 16-year-old girl is not being returned to her parents so that she has claims that someone in the sect sexually abused her.

5) The parents are not being allowed to leave Texas. This buys time to get all the DNA results.

I also see it as a positive that the women are seemingly beginning to put their children's needs above the commands of their husbands/leaders. This might bode well for both their daughters AND their sons.

evalles

06-03-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Wow. What is it you're really looking for, I wonder?

Visible bruises and welts? Mutilation of reproductive organs? Arms dangling from sockets? Children who scream when they're touched? Children who yell from rooftops that they've been beaten by their parents or raped by their 'uncles?'

Do you not understand that the human body is designed to heal from wounds?

Do you not understand anything about the behavior of children who have been abused, especially by their caretakers? Even children who have not been scared to death about the evils of the outside world do not willingly confide in strangers about their abuse.

I really don't know what you're looking for, but my guess is that if and when physical evidence of abuse of these children is revealed to the public, you will claim it was CPS and the foster facilities who caused it.

It's one thing to have an opinion about whether all the children should have been taken from their mothers, and given your background, I understand your passion about that aspect of the situation.

But IMO, it's another thing entirely to have an agenda that seems to have nothing to do with concern for the FLDS children. That's a little scary, IMO.

:confused: [/*]

There would be evidence of penetration for the girls. They can tell if they are virgins. And yes, there are other types of abuse, but if these men are as bad as you think they are, what would have stopped them ?
I don't have an agenda, I have an opinion.
And I don't care what you think of it.

Details

06-03-2008, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by evalles
There would be evidence of penetration for the girls. They can tell if they are virgins. And yes, there are other types of abuse, but if these men are as bad as you think they are, what would have stopped them ?
I don't have an agenda, I have an opinion.
And I don't care what you think of it. [/*]You're wrong in so many ways.

Sexual molestation is sexual molestation - if you think it's OK to have abuse short of full penetration - that's your problem - I don't. The abuse described in one FLDS family was a bunch of fondling. No marks. Is that OK?

And you cannot tell for sure if a girl is a virgin. I said that in my previous post, I'll repeat it - no you cannot. Bruises heal, as did the broken bones they found evidence of. Tears heal. Sometimes even hymens do (if they did that type of exam - we've only your hypothesis that they did). Even without a hymen (which I assume is what you think makes someone a virgin) - that proves absolutely nothing. Zip. Zero. Plenty of virgin girls have no hymen. Horseback riding is a common thing that will do it - but there are lots of other ways it might go away. A charge that a girl must have been raped because she lacks a hymen would be laughed out of court, without evidence from the girl, without some way of deciding which man did it.

I wouldn't recommend it to most - but maybe you should do a little reading on pedophilia. It's sick, and will leave nightmares - but you'll find that penetration is not the only thing they do - not even all that common. Forcing a girl to perform sex acts, objects, lots of other things. The idea that a child must be black and blue and show evidence of fighting a rape is from the bad old days - these days we know that abuse is not always so easy to spot.

evalles

06-03-2008, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Details
You're wrong in so many ways.

Sexual molestation is sexual molestation - if you think it's OK to have abuse short of full penetration - that's your problem - I don't. The abuse described in one FLDS family was a bunch of fondling. No marks. Is that OK?

And you cannot tell for sure if a girl is a virgin. I said that in my previous post, I'll repeat it - no you cannot. Bruises heal, as did the broken bones they found evidence of. Tears heal. Sometimes even hymens do (if they did that type of exam - we've only your hypothesis that they did). Even without a hymen (which I assume is what you think makes someone a virgin) - that proves absolutely nothing. Zip. Zero. Plenty of virgin girls have no hymen. Horseback riding is a common thing that will do it - but there are lots of other ways it might go away. A charge that a girl must have been raped because she lacks a hymen would be laughed out of court, without evidence from the girl, without some way of deciding which man did it.

I wouldn't recommend it to most - but maybe you should do a little reading on pedophilia. It's sick, and will leave nightmares - but you'll find that penetration is not the only thing they do - not even all that common. Forcing a girl to perform sex acts, objects, lots of other things. The idea that a child must be black and blue and show evidence of fighting a rape is from the bad old days - these days we know that abuse is not always so easy to spot. [/*]

Then, unless a child talks about it, there's no way of knowing it happened. Every single person is being accused, but nobody knows who's guilty. So, is the consensus to just convict them all, just in case ?

Details

06-03-2008, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Then, unless a child talks about it, there's no way of knowing it happened. Every single person is being accused, but nobody knows who's guilty. So, is the consensus to just convict them all, just in case ? [/*]Sure, if that's what you want to believe, believe it. That's not the truth, but you can believe it.

Or you could look to reality a bit - that pregnancy is proof of sex, that there's no reason to disbelieve FLDS records, especially backed up by many ex-FLDS telling consistient stories, and that this shows the problem in the entire compound. And that could lead to a logical investigation where you try to get people to talk, help the children to feel safe to tell the truth, and thus find as many of the guilty as is possible.

But - hey - if you want to disbelieve every ex-FLDS because one of them wore the wrong t-shirt, and ignore the FLDS records, and every bit of information that we have that shows the problem - then I guess you can keep your perspective that CPS is evil all nice and clean and spotless. But it's not reality.

Jan Powell

06-03-2008, 07:54 PM

From the Editoral Board, Austin Statesman:

"But that was a major operation orchestrated, we’re told, by regular CPS staff (who were at the ranch) in conjunction with a district judge. It was a decision made by cell phone, between CPS staff and state District Judge Barbara Walther of San Angelo, according to DFPS."

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/index.html

evalles

06-03-2008, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Details
Sure, if that's what you want to believe, believe it. That's not the truth, but you can believe it.

Or you could look to reality a bit - that pregnancy is proof of sex, that there's no reason to disbelieve FLDS records, especially backed up by many ex-FLDS telling consistient stories, and that this shows the problem in the entire compound. And that could lead to a logical investigation where you try to get people to talk, help the children to feel safe to tell the truth, and thus find as many of the guilty as is possible.

But - hey - if you want to disbelieve every ex-FLDS because one of them wore the wrong t-shirt, and ignore the FLDS records, and every bit of information that we have that shows the problem - then I guess you can keep your perspective that CPS is evil all nice and clean and spotless. But it's not reality. [/*]

Uh huh, the t-shirt thing happened last week, it's hardly had anything to do with my opionion of the FLDS or CPS, only my opinion of Flora Jessop.
I agree with the appeals court's decision.
That's where I stand. That's reality as far as I'm concerned.

SavannahStar

06-03-2008, 08:53 PM

Details

06-03-2008, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Uh huh, the t-shirt thing happened last week, it's hardly had anything to do with my opionion of the FLDS or CPS, only my opinion of Flora Jessop.
I agree with the appeals court's decision.
That's where I stand. That's reality as far as I'm concerned. [/*]Well - your reasons for disbelieving all the other FLDS make even less sense to me than the t-shirt, if possible - so I went with that one. I still don't get that - abused children, proven in court - and you want to ignore them.

Details

06-03-2008, 09:43 PM

It's about kid safety. No one has said otherwise. So - to say that it is different implies you are either a mind reader, and many of us are total liars, or that you are making up motives for us. Which is it?

evalles

06-03-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Details
Well - your reasons for disbelieving all the other FLDS make even less sense to me than the t-shirt, if possible - so I went with that one. I still don't get that - abused children, proven in court - and you want to ignore them. [/*]

Please, oh please show me where it was proven in court that children were abused.

The higher court's opined that the district court did not provide evidence sufficient to retain these children, yet you continue to imply that you and other posters know better than myself,the appeals court and supreme court justices.
What is your reason for believing that you know better than they do ?
I still don't get that - overturned by two higher courts - and you want to ignore them .

:shrug:

Details

06-03-2008, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by evalles
Please, oh please show me where it was proven in court that children were abused.

The higher court's opined that the district court did not provide evidence sufficient to retain these children, yet you continue to imply that you and other posters know better than myself,the appeals court and supreme court justices.
What is your reason for believing that you know better than they do ?
I still don't get that - overturned by two higher courts - and you want to ignore them .

:shrug: [/*]More of those links you don't seem to read is where it was proven in court. Elissa Wall, the girl who visited her father in jail to confront him on his sexual abuse of her, and several similar cases. All these former FLDS with stories, many of them proven in court - and you ignore them - for t-shirts and because one of them wrote a book (horrors!), apparently.

I know exactly what the high court's ruling was - and they overturned only a very small, limited bit of CPS's case. They didn't say there was no abuse. They didn't say there was nothing to investigate. They didn't say CPS was wrong to investigate every family based on some children appearing to be abused.

What they said was that the conditions for removing the children were not met - and that the judge could use other conditions to protect the children and allow the needed investigation. That's it.

I think it's a bad decision, and I'm very worried the children will vanish, especially any where there is evidence of abuse - but I understand why. It's not something the law is well designed to handle, a compound of children where the parents turn their responsibility over to another person.

evalles

06-03-2008, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Jan Powell
From the Editoral Board, Austin Statesman:

"But that was a major operation orchestrated, we’re told, by regular CPS staff (who were at the ranch) in conjunction with a district judge. It was a decision made by cell phone, between CPS staff and state District Judge Barbara Walther of San Angelo, according to DFPS."

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/editorial/index.html [/*]

This is pathetic. This was done over the phone ? With a regular CPS worker ?
Power breeds corruption.

evalles

06-03-2008, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Details
More of those links you don't seem to read is where it was proven in court. Elissa Wall, the girl who visited her father in jail to confront him on his sexual abuse of her, and several similar cases. All these former FLDS with stories, many of them proven in court - and you ignore them - for t-shirts and because one of them wrote a book (horrors!), apparently.

I know exactly what the high court's ruling was - and they overturned only a very small, limited bit of CPS's case. They didn't say there was no abuse. They didn't say there was nothing to investigate. They didn't say CPS was wrong to investigate every family based on some children appearing to be abused.

What they said was that the conditions for removing the children were not met - and that the judge could use other conditions to protect the children and allow the needed investigation. That's it.

I think it's a bad decision, and I'm very worried the children will vanish, especially any where there is evidence of abuse - but I understand why. It's not something the law is well designed to handle, a compound of children where the parents turn their responsibility over to another person. [/*]

A little bit ? The appeals court said CPS had no right to take them and then at the 3 day hearing no right to keep them.
That's not a little bit, that's the whole thing.
Elissa Wall wasn't one of the kids removed, was she.

You didn't show me that evidence was presented on court to show these children were abused. So far, we know there was one. Is that all you can find ? One victim and ex-members.
What evidence was presented in these cases ?

Please show me what justifies taking over 400 children ?

Details

06-03-2008, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by evalles
A little bit ? The appeals court said CPS had no right to take them and then at the 3 day hearing no right to keep them.
That's not a little bit, that's the whole thing.
Elissa Wall wasn't one of the kids removed, was she.

You didn't show me that evidence was presented on court to show these children were abused. So far, we know there was one. Is that all you can find ? One victim and ex-members.
What evidence was presented in these cases ?

Please show me what justifies taking over 400 children ? [/*]It's so hard posting with someone who doesn't read the posts. I posted that I didn't understand how you ignore ex-FLDS members - even though their stories of abuse were proven in courts. You asked me to prove my statement about abuse. I quoted some of the court cases. You now change the context as if I was talking about abuse of the 400 children proven in court. I never was. And I still don't understand how you ignore the ex-FLDS with all of their stories, all the proof they tell the truth.

A little bit. Yes, that's only a little bit. Did they say the investigation was out of line? Nope. Did they say the warrent and documents and evidence siezed were out of line - nope. Did they say the children should go back with no restrictions - nope - quite the contrary - they explicitly said the judge could issue restrictions, and that's why they didn't need to be taken from their homes. This is one small thing - a little difference of opinion about what degree of threat to these children has been proven in court. CPS and the original judge thought enough was proven that they needed to be removed, the appeals court and supreme thought that they needed individual hearings to prove that. That's the only difference.

evalles

06-03-2008, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Details
It's so hard posting with someone who doesn't read the posts. I posted that I didn't understand how you ignore ex-FLDS members - even though their stories of abuse were proven in courts. You asked me to prove my statement about abuse. I quoted some of the court cases. You now change the context as if I was talking about abuse of the 400 children proven in court. I never was. And I still don't understand how you ignore the ex-FLDS with all of their stories, all the proof they tell the truth.

A little bit. Yes, that's only a little bit. Did they say the investigation was out of line? Nope. Did they say the warrent and documents and evidence siezed were out of line - nope. Did they say the children should go back with no restrictions - nope - quite the contrary - they explicitly said the judge could issue restrictions, and that's why they didn't need to be taken from their homes. This is one small thing - a little difference of opinion about what degree of threat to these children has been proven in court. CPS and the original judge thought enough was proven that they needed to be removed, the appeals court and supreme thought that they needed individual hearings to prove that. That's the only difference. [/*]

I'm not ignoring the ex-members, they're not proof that these children were abused, and you've been unable to provide evidence that they have been.
No investigation is out of line.
Did they say they had no right to take them ? Yep. Did they say the lower court abused it's discretion by not giving them back ? Yep. If they were abused, they had almost two months to prove it. Yet at the status hearings CPS testified that there was no evidence of abuse.
No evidence of abuse, in case,after case,after case. Yet you keep telling me that I'm wrong to believe that.

warhorse46

06-03-2008, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

The real issue is not the kids safety at all to most posters here, it is about the kids being taken away period for what they perceive is the ONLY possible logical and "right" result to come of all of this. [/*]

I am not included in your "most posters" then because this entire case is about child safety to me. I don`t care @ all what goes on behind compound walls between consenting adults, I don`t care if they worship God, or Warren Jeffs or a pancake. But once their behavior crosses the legal lines & starts violating laws, then I do care. Freedom of religion has never given anyone the right to break any laws.

warhorse46

06-03-2008, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Details,

ITA. Hope you saw the link from earlier today about the 18 indictments (so far) coming out of Judge Walther's courtroom. If not, you can find the story at sltribune.com. [/*]

Here it is.

ELDORADO, Texas - Hours after signing an order releasing FLDS children from state custody, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther arrived at the Schleicher County Courthouse in Eldorado to swear in a grand jury that may be considering indictments related to the polygamous sect.
By the end of the day, 18 indictments had been issued, although no details were immediately available. The number was more than the usual; typically, five to 15 indictments are returned, a court clerk said.
Much more to the article here
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9456349

evalles

06-04-2008, 12:41 AM

I know that this link has been posted, but there are a couple of new videos. The laughing children contradict the claims that laughter is prohibited on the ranch.

http://www.captivefldschildren.org/Videos.php?VID=27

evalles

06-04-2008, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Well thats good news, they are doing things according to the law finally, and they are planning to prosecute those that are guilty of child abuse (let's hope thats what it is, bigamy at this point would be petty). I dont think anyone disagrees that they should be prosecuted if they have abused any kids. But no way they had to take away all 400 kids from many innocent parents to do this. [/*]

Great news, and about time.
I wish there was a different judge presiding. Many are going to think this is a vendetta by Walthers.

Jan Powell

06-04-2008, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Very good editorial. More balanced than most. Here's more:

[/*]

It is a good editorial, I wasn't sure how much I could actually post, but the part I posted I hadn't read before.

Gov Perry's office has been called MIA on this before. Whether he actually was who knows. Five of the nine SC judges are his appointments, he may have just wanted a court decision whatever it was.

Jan Powell

06-04-2008, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by evalles

This is pathetic. This was done over the phone ? With a regular CPS worker ?
Power breeds corruption. [/*]

I think in emergency situations they should be able to respond the way this was done. I think the magnitude of the children and the allegations should have required mich more oversight on CPS part in this case.

IMO, what they did was a means to an end. It's been brewing for a long time, it was just a poorly executed and IMO the wrong agency. If they believed what they alleged and thought they had the evidence, they should have involved LE upfront to try to get their search warrants.

FurthurBB

06-04-2008, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by walton

How many victims would it take to make it right in your book? [/*]

To take every child? Do you really need to ask?

FurthurBB

06-04-2008, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by KKKKKKatie

To save one child....I would rather they all were away until it is sorted out.

that is my opinion [/*]

So, it is right to abuse over 400 children to save one? That is disgusting. IMO

FurthurBB

06-04-2008, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by walton

If I was a fireman and there was a burning building filled with kids but only two were screaming for help. Would I just grab the two? or would I grab them all?

I'd grab them all. And then I'd put out the fire. But that is just me. I have a tough time just standing around complaining about the guy that invented the matches. jmo [/*]

Why would you only save two? I do not think just because you want to traumatize all these children to save one that you are evil enough to leave them all to burn to death, if that is what you are trying to say.

Details

06-04-2008, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by evalles
I'm not ignoring the ex-members, they're not proof that these children were abused, and you've been unable to provide evidence that they have been.
No investigation is out of line.
Did they say they had no right to take them ? Yep. Did they say the lower court abused it's discretion by not giving them back ? Yep. If they were abused, they had almost two months to prove it. Yet at the status hearings CPS testified that there was no evidence of abuse.
No evidence of abuse, in case,after case,after case. Yet you keep telling me that I'm wrong to believe that. [/*]You don't accept the evidence - that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The Bishops records, the teen girls who are pregnant, the 5 that are unequivocally sexual abuse victims per the appeals court, the broken bones, and no doubt plenty more we don't know about are the base evidence, the stories from the ex-FLDS show how this fits the pattern that they've described, a pattern that shows across all FLDS. I only mention the court cases of ex-FLDS due to the numerous times you've denigrated them, to show that their allegations are backed up by court testimony that puts the abusers in jail. One more thing I just don't get - to be so callous to abuse survivors. It's the story every abuser tells them - "no one will believe you" - and some people make it true.

CPS did not testify there was no evidence of abuse - quite the contrary. You can take one small segment of one individuals testimony, and ignore all the other testimony if you like - but that's not a way to get to reality.

Two months - not very long - and the indictments are coming down.

FurthurBB

06-04-2008, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Jan Powell

I think in emergency situations they should be able to respond the way this was done. I think the magnitude of the children and the allegations should have required mich more oversight on CPS part in this case.

IMO, what they did was a means to an end. It's been brewing for a long time, it was just a poorly executed and IMO the wrong agency. If they believed what they alleged and thought they had the evidence, they should have involved LE upfront to try to get their search warrants. [/*]

The last paragraph of this post is so right on the money. I do not understand why this was done so poorly. I am sure that there was a much better way that could both protect these children from abuse and trauma as well as not comprimise the rights of every US citizen. IMO

Details

06-04-2008, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB
Why would you only save two? I do not think just because you want to traumatize all these children to save one that you are evil enough to leave them all to burn to death, if that is what you are trying to say. [/*]Where the heck do you get that?

All these children are in a cult with beliefs that amount to child abuse. It's widespread and constant, per the stories told by everyone not controlled by the cult (and to some degree, even by those in the cult) who has ever been in it. That's the fire. Leave the children in the cult, they'll be burned. Now - if only two of the children have been burned enough to cry for help, or if only two are able to overcome their training to tell the truth and ask for help - should only those two be saved? The rest are left?

I'd also choose to save them all, and try to put out the fire - in other words - make it clear to the parents of the cult, and all members anywhere that a blind eye will never be turned to compounds, underage marriage, child labor, abuse, nor discarding underage teenage boys.

FurthurBB

06-04-2008, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by Details
Where the heck do you get that?

All these children are in a cult with beliefs that amount to child abuse. It's widespread and constant, per the stories told by everyone not controlled by the cult (and to some degree, even by those in the cult) who has ever been in it. That's the fire. Leave the children in the cult, they'll be burned. Now - if only two of the children have been burned enough to cry for help, or if only two are able to overcome their training to tell the truth and ask for help - should only those two be saved? The rest are left?

I'd also choose to save them all, and try to put out the fire - in other words - make it clear to the parents of the cult, and all members anywhere that a blind eye will never be turned to compounds, underage marriage, child labor, abuse, nor discarding underage teenage boys. [/*]

Well, that is the only way that the post made sense. I do not know what you are going on about now. IMO

Details

06-04-2008, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings
What are you talking about?! I never said it was legal. The crime of polygamy is called bigamy...perhaps you should do a little reading before you attempt to start educating people, because it is YOU who does not understand. [/*]Did you not read the definition? The crime of bigamy is completely different from polygamy. Bigamy is multiple legal marriages, where the wives do not know there is another wife. Polygamy is multiple marriages where the wives DO know about the other wives.

Two different terms, two different crimes.

Details

06-04-2008, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings
Maybe it does very well exist... Are you suggesting Texas prosecute everyone even with no evidence?

Dont you know what happens then? They are found not guilty and get to keep the kids and the State of Texas gets sued by every single one of them for malicious prosecution. [/*]Texas does have evidence - as I said above. Not accepting it doesn't make it vanish.

19 indictments suggests they're putting that evidence to more good use. It was sufficient to get the CPS investigations going on every child in the camp - even the appeals and supreme courts agree about that - I'd say they've got plenty of good evidence.

Details

06-04-2008, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB
Well, that is the only way that the post made sense. I do not know what you are going on about now. IMO [/*]Clarifying the analogy, since somehow it was twisted around for you into leaving kids, when the posters intent was the opposite.

If you see a bunch of kids in a compound, and as they grow up, their parents have two fates in mind for them - one, be an underage bride of an old man; two, be used as child labor and most likely thrown away on the side of the road - do you let them stay, and endure their fate? Just leave the fire to burn until they are consumed?

Carol25

06-04-2008, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Details
Did you not read the definition? The crime of bigamy is completely different from polygamy. Bigamy is multiple legal marriages, where the wives do not know there is another wife. Polygamy is multiple marriages where the wives DO know about the other wives.

Two different terms, two different crimes. [/*]
Is that a legal definition? I've looked up the definition of bigamy and it doesn't say anything about knowing about the other spouse. :shrug:

Carol25

06-04-2008, 04:01 AM

I found this, but it still says it is more frequently is referred to "bigamy" in legal proceedings.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bigamy

BIGAMY, crim. law, domestic relations. The willful contracting of a second marriage when the contracting party knows that the first is still subsisting; or it is the state of a man who has two wives, or of a woman who has two husbands living at the same time. When the man has more than two wives, or the woman more than two husbands living at the same time, then the party is said to have committed polygamy, but the name of bigamy is more frequently given to this offence in legal proceedings. 1 Russ. on Cr. 187.

The Free Dictionary

Wouldn't it be great if they started going after the FLDS for bigamy?

walton

06-04-2008, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by FurthurBB

Why would you only save two? I do not think just because you want to traumatize all these children to save one that you are evil enough to leave them all to burn to death, if that is what you are trying to say. [/*]

BB

I keep telling ya to wear those glasses and not just leave them on top of your head. ( they aren't helping you up there) :)

Check this out: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html

Do you think it was a good decision to bus all of the children off the ranch?

Doran: I feel like they (CPS) had to get them to a location where they could interview them in an area without a lot of influences. There was an ongoing law enforcement operation out there. Yes, if CPS was going to perform their duties, they were going to have to do it in a manner that was most conducive to their investigation. If they felt it was the best decision at the time, so be it. Again, it was acting on an order from a district judge.

This is from Sheriff Doran. You might have read about him earlier.

He is the guy that was there.

evalles

06-04-2008, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by walton

BB

I keep telling ya to wear those glasses and not just leave them on top of your head. ( they aren't helping you up there) :)

Check this out: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html

Do you think it was a good decision to bus all of the children off the ranch?

Doran: I feel like they (CPS) had to get them to a location where they could interview them in an area without a lot of influences. There was an ongoing law enforcement operation out there. Yes, if CPS was going to perform their duties, they were going to have to do it in a manner that was most conducive to their investigation. If they felt it was the best decision at the time, so be it. Again, it was acting on an order from a district judge.

This is from Sheriff Doran. You might have read about him earlier.

He is the guy that was there. [/*]

Again, the SC didn't agree with him either.
This was based on his opinion that CPS could use any means under the guise of protecting the children.

walton

06-04-2008, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Again, the SC didn't agree with him either.
This was based on his opinion that CPS could use any means under the guise of protecting the children. [/*]

evalles in all the posting I had to have missed the post you made about knowing what it is truly like to respond to a call for help from a young girl.

I must have missed the post telling us your experience in dealing with search warrants and how to investigate a situation involving a group of people that are being evasive and hiding children from spot to spot.

I'd love to know your first hand knowledge of what it might be like approaching a group of people that has had history of hiding a felon. Thinking that there might be 200 and the total is over 500. Do tell me evalles.

No? You haven't answered any calls for help? You haven't shown up at a lock gate lined with men that might have guns?

What would you have done evalles?

walton

06-04-2008, 09:16 AM

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060408dntexcps.3ba4457.html

"They went in there not expecting to find 400 children," Ms. Piferrer said. "You can easily see where it went larger than just those two entities – CPS and law enforcement."

Within a day of the raid, more than 100 girls and women had left the compound, but more children kept turning up as log cabins on the ranch were searched. Supplies were called in from the Red Cross, Goodfellow Air Force Base and local shelters. CPS workers' state-issued credit cards were quickly maxed out.

walton

06-04-2008, 09:18 AM

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060408dntexpolygamists.59202c61.html

While 397 of the sect's 440 children in the custody of Child Protective Services had been released by late Tuesday, Mr. Jeffs' daughter was the only one accorded special protections, said her lawyer, Natalie Malonis of Flower Mound.

State District Judge Barbara Walther of San Angelo allowed the girl to be released to her mother, Annette Jeffs, at a Midland foster care facility after ordering the mother to keep her in the San Antonio area where she lives – and away from the alleged perpetrator, a 38-year-old sect member.

evalles

06-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by walton

evalles in all the posting I had to have missed the post you made about knowing what it is truly like to respond to a call for help from a young girl.

I must have missed the post telling us your experience in dealing with search warrants and how to investigate a situation involving a group of people that are being evasive and hiding children from spot to spot.

I'd love to know your first hand knowledge of what it might be like approaching a group of people that has had history of hiding a felon. Thinking that there might be 200 and the total is over 500. Do tell me evalles.

No? You haven't answered any calls for help? You haven't shown up at a lock gate lined with men that might have guns?

What would you have done evalles? [/*]

I'd like to know what makes you think you know more and better than both the appeals and the supreme court.

If the only evidence I saw was some pregnant girls that I believed to be minors ?
I wouldn't have disrupted the lives of every child there.
Past that, I don't know. I don't know what I'd be allowed to do by law. If I could do what I wanted, I would have requested an order to "seal" the ranch, put guards at any exits to prevent anyone from leaving. Investigated, identified any perpetrators, arrested them or had them leave the ranch. Identified any victims and sought medical care. I don't have time to think beyond that right now.

lotty

06-04-2008, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by litchfield29

I'm sorry, but you are completely incorrect. Polygamy is illegal in every state and is a federal crime as well. There have been individuals prosecuted many years ago for polygamy, not bigamy. I'll have to look for links later.

The FLDS members do not marry the girls within the confines of a legal ceremony which would include a marriage license from the city, county, or state, etc....It's a spiritual marriage only. That's their explanation of it, and it's true. It's only bigamy if one person marries another within the confines of the laws in the city, county, and state.

I know it's a little confusing. I hope this helps a little. [/*]
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/index.html
Utah polygamist found guilty
May 19, 2001 Posted: 6:29 AM EDT (1029 GMT)

Tom Green, 52, a self-professed "fundamentalist" Mormon who lives with his five wives and 29 children near Trout Creek, 125 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, had testified that he married the women in a spiritual sense.

evalles

06-04-2008, 12:18 PM

oops

evalles

06-04-2008, 12:25 PM

These kids don't sound brainwashed to me.
They sound a little bratty & defiant, like you expect kids to be these days.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231704,00.html?pg=1

Roux

06-04-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by evalles
These kids don't sound brainwashed to me.
They sound a little bratty & defiant, like you expect kids to be these days.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231704,00.html?pg=1 [/*]

Did you also read the interview with the sheriff? Based on your past opinions, you probably think he was lying about everything.

FurthurBB

06-04-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Carol25

Is that a legal definition? I've looked up the definition of bigamy and it doesn't say anything about knowing about the other spouse. :shrug: [/*]

No bigamy is the legal definition of being married to more than one person at a time. Polygamy is the social anthropology name for having more than one spouse. IMO

dsmith

06-04-2008, 01:22 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/

FLDS update: Polygamous sect's DNA testing results arriving in Texas

Walther ordered the DNA tests in mid-April. The state hired Laboratory Corporation of America, based in North Carolina, to collect samples from 600 adults and children. Each test cost $100, according to Rolfe, a tab the state picked up.
She said the reports will be shared with attorneys, parents and DFPS - but not with anyone conducting a criminal investigation at this point.
"They would have to seek a court order [for that]," she said.

DNA results arriving in Texas
The tests were ordered in mid-April; how the findings will be used now is uncertain
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 06/04/2008 02:21:36 AM MDT

SAN ANGELO, Texas - Stacks of reports that describe how genetic tests have matched children and parents from a polygamous sect continue to arrive at the Tom Green County Courthouse.
Janece Rolfe, a spokeswoman for the Texas attorney general's office, said Tuesday that reports will filter into the courthouse throughout the week. They are being delivered to 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, who ordered them in mid-April to clear up confusion about identities of parents of the children removed in April from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado.
Six packets of reports have arrived. How the results will be used now is unclear.

MyrDawn

06-04-2008, 01:23 PM

Bigamy is a crime. It's the crime of marrying while one has a wife or husband still living, from whom no valid divorce has been effected, in places where polygamy is illegal.

Polygamy is the practice or condition of having more than one spouse at one time. It's only a crime if it's practiced where it's illegal. It becomes the crime of bigamy in that case.

http://www.christianpolygamy.info/bigamy/
JMO

evalles

06-04-2008, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Roux

Did you also read the interview with the sheriff? Based on your past opinions, you probably think he was lying about everything. [/*]

Why so argumentative ? If I don't respond to a post, it's usually because I haven't formed an opinion yet. With the sheriff, IMO it's political at this point. I don't really care though.

Instead of responding to my post and article, you try to insult me.

You claim this is about the kids, yet you don't acknowledge their suffering.
You seem more concerned with the sheriff. Why ?:shrug:

Roux

06-04-2008, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Why so argumentative ? If I don't respond to a post, it's usually because I haven't formed an opinion yet. With the sheriff, IMO it's political at this point. I don't really care though.

Instead of responding to my post and article, you try to insult me.

You claim this is about the kids, yet you don't acknowledge their suffering.
You seem more concerned with the sheriff. Why ?:shrug: [/*]

You have me mixed up with someone else, I made no claim about the kids and I'm not concerned with the sheriff. I simply asked you a question...sorry I didn't wait for your reply.

And if there have been insults over the past two months they certainly have not come from me.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by evalles
These kids don't sound brainwashed to me.
[/*]

<snipped>

How would you expect them to sound if they WERE brainwashed?

evalles

06-04-2008, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

<snipped>

How would you expect them to sound if they WERE brainwashed? [/*]

I don't know and don't care what brainwashed sounds like.
All I care about is that they sound like normal kids.

evalles

06-04-2008, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Roux

You have me mixed up with someone else, I made no claim about the kids and I'm not concerned with the sheriff. I simply asked you a question...sorry I didn't wait for your reply.

And if there have been insults over the past two months they certainly have not come from me. [/*]

Based on your previous post, where you said :

Did you also read the interview with the sheriff? Based on your past opinions, you probably think he was lying about everything. [/*]

it sounds like you're trying to provoke an argument. Why ?
My concern since this started, was that all the children that weren't abused went home and that the corruption within the family court system would be exposed, to hopefully bring about reform. Since, as far as I'm concerned, these two things have come to pass, I'm content to wait for the rest of the story to unfold.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by evalles

I don't know and don't care what brainwashed sounds like.
All I care about is that they sound like normal kids. [/*]

Why would you NOT care about what brainwashed 'sounds like'? It is one of the core issues that affects every single aspect of this case, from the FLDS standpoint & from the standpoint of every 'outsider' who has to deal with them.

The same website you linked has an interview with the sheriff & one of the things he reiterated was how UNcooperative the residents were on the compound. They LIED about how many people were present. They made every effort, over many hours time, to thwart the efforts of the initial investigators. Hid children, denied they were there, moved them around, etc, etc.

THAT'S an effect of brainwashing.

Did you notice young Zachary's father telling him in so many words to 'keep sweet'?

"We don't want to be mad, boys"

No respect for the individual's emotions, just a coercive reminder that what the group, the family, the FLDS wants to portray is the order of the day.

evalles

06-04-2008, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I would thwart every effort for them to take my kids too without a warrant and I am not brainwashed, Im not even a member of the FLDS! [/*]

I'm glad I read your post, I was getting ready to post a similar answer.
Lots of stories coming in now about the effects of the separation on the children.

Since I would gladly give my life for any one of my children, you can bet that I'd lie to keep them from being taken and given to strangers.

evalles

06-04-2008, 02:57 PM

"We don't want to be mad, boys"

Mimi,

What is wrong with this statement ? What should he have said ?

He's encouraging his children to forgive and to not hold a grudge and you think this is wrong ?

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I would thwart every effort for them to take my kids too without a warrant and I am not brainwashed, Im not even a member of the FLDS! [/*]

You are putting the cart before the horse. The initial contact at the compound was to do INTERVIEWS. Before they could begin to question ANYONE, they were lied to. Hours upon hours before they ever got the order to remove children, their efforts to speak to people were thwarted.

Roux

06-04-2008, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Based on your previous post, where you said :

Did you also read the interview with the sheriff? Based on your past opinions, you probably think he was lying about everything. [/*]

it sounds like you're trying to provoke an argument. Why ?
My concern since this started, was that all the children that weren't abused went home and that the corruption within the family court system would be exposed, to hopefully bring about reform. Since, as far as I'm concerned, these two things have come to pass, I'm content to wait for the rest of the story to unfold. [/*]

I'm going to make one more comment regarding the sheriff's interview and then I'm done. You have been so vociferous in your criticism of the actions of CPS that I simply wanted to know what you thought after reading his version of what went down that day. I figured that you would probably not accept anything he had to say, so if I misjudged you, my apologies.

But if I wanted to be argumentative, I would ask you how you know that the TEXAS family court system is corrupt? Please don't furnish me any links.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by evalles
"We don't want to be mad, boys"

Mimi,

What is wrong with this statement ? What should he have said ?

He's encouraging his children to forgive and to not hold a grudge and you think this is wrong ? [/*]

You assume motive not in evidence. NOWHERE in that article was the father quoted as telling his child(ren) to forgive. He was telling them WHAT to think. Get in line, get obedient, keep sweet.

evalles

06-04-2008, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

You are putting the cart before the horse. The initial contact at the compound was to do INTERVIEWS. Before they could begin to question ANYONE, they were lied to. Hours upon hours before they ever got the order to remove children, their efforts to speak to people were thwarted. [/*]

So, without evidence of abuse, CPS can take your kids, if you lie to them ??
How do you know CPS is telling the truth ? Just because they didn't believe them, doesn't mean they were lying.
Remember all the teen girls who were lying about their age and then turned out to be adults ?
The FLDS weren't the only ones lying.

evalles

06-04-2008, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

You assume motive not in evidence. NOWHERE in that article was the father quoted as telling his child(ren) to forgive. He was telling them WHAT to think. Get in line, get obedient, keep sweet. [/*]

No, those are your words, all he said was "we don't want to be mad boys" and you've turned it into something that better suits your opinion.

NOWHERE did he tell them what you're claiming he did.

FoxySly

06-04-2008, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by lotty

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/index.html
Utah polygamist found guilty
May 19, 2001 Posted: 6:29 AM EDT (1029 GMT)

Tom Green, 52, a self-professed "fundamentalist" Mormon who lives with his five wives and 29 children near Trout Creek, 125 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, had testified that he married the women in a spiritual sense. [/*]

I believe tom green is still in prison and Leavitt, who prosecuted him, comes from polygamy lines also.

Sly

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

No their intention before they went there was to take the kids, the information shows that here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060408dntexcps.3ba4457.html [/*]

That article makes it VERY clear that AFTER the children were removed that the state considered an OPTIONAL PLAN of removing mothers from children. It certainly does not indicate they planned to take the children before they even got there.

evalles

06-04-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

That article makes it VERY clear that AFTER the children were removed that the state considered an OPTIONAL PLAN of removing mothers from children. It certainly does not indicate they planned to take the children before they even got there. [/*]

It didn't ?

The governor's office was first informed there was a problem on April 1, when CPS and Texas Rangers said they were planning to raid the polygamist ranch in two days – on a Thursday.

The raid was on April 1st, they've been lying from the beginning.
Thanks for posting that Bratlings.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by evalles

So, without evidence of abuse, CPS can take your kids, if you lie to them ??
How do you know CPS is telling the truth ? Just because they didn't believe them, doesn't mean they were lying.
Remember all the teen girls who were lying about their age and then turned out to be adults ?
The FLDS weren't the only ones lying. [/*]

No one has said, hinted or suggested that the remedy for adults lying to investigators is to remove children. If you truly believe that, I sincerely wonder about your cognitive abilities.

The children were removed because of evidence found during the investigation.

From Sheriff Doran's interview, a few excerpts. . .

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html?pg=2

Doran: No, there was a level of accomodation, but I can't say there was a full level of cooperation. They met us at the gate, we laid out what we had going on. We were held up at the gate for about two to three hours. . .

(CPS) put in a request to see so many girls, but that request was not carried out. It was in small increments through the night and not as requested by CPS."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html?pg=3

CPS conducted interviews all through the night, I mean through the full night and up to the next day. Law inforcement started getting involved and stepping it up and brought the perimeter in, just to a staging area - never at an entry deal - by noon the next day. A new plan was formulated.

Even then, because not all of the children that were requested to be brought forward was brought forward to CPS. They were not satisfied that that these people were cooperating like they requested to do. So it was requested to do a residential to residential search.

Deseret News: But then it got to the point where search started being executed and evidence started being rounded up.

Doran: . . . The second search warrant was by the Texas Rangers based on evidence that was located on the property during the initial assistance with CPS. That's when evidence of crimes were seen in plain sight by law enforcement.

evalles

06-04-2008, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

No one has said, hinted or suggested that the remedy for adults lying to investigators is to remove children. If you truly believe that, I sincerely wonder about your cognitive abilities.

The children were removed because of evidence found during the investigation.

From Sheriff Doran's interview, a few excerpts. . .

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html?pg=2

Doran: No, there was a level of accomodation, but I can't say there was a full level of cooperation. They met us at the gate, we laid out what we had going on. We were held up at the gate for about two to three hours. . .

(CPS) put in a request to see so many girls, but that request was not carried out. It was in small increments through the night and not as requested by CPS."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html?pg=3

CPS conducted interviews all through the night, I mean through the full night and up to the next day. Law inforcement started getting involved and stepping it up and brought the perimeter in, just to a staging area - never at an entry deal - by noon the next day. A new plan was formulated.

Even then, because not all of the children that were requested to be brought forward was brought forward to CPS. They were not satisfied that that these people were cooperating like they requested to do. So it was requested to do a residential to residential search.

Deseret News: But then it got to the point where search started being executed and evidence started being rounded up.

Doran: . . . The second search warrant was by the Texas Rangers based on evidence that was located on the property during the initial assistance with CPS. That's when evidence of crimes were seen in plain sight by law enforcement. [/*]

What evidence ? All I've heard is they saw pregnant teenagers.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Is "RAID" now a new word for investigation?? Is anyone else besides you confused about what "RAID" really means????? [/*]

I know exactly what a 'raid' entails. And if you believe it entails standing around at the gate for 2-3 hours while LE chats with the compound spokesman, you are sadly mistaken.

If the reporter chose to use the word 'raid' - well, that's on her.

I believe LE was prepared, if the discussions had not gone well, to have brought in a greater use of force, but at NO TIME did I see or read where they overwhelmed the property or the people by use of force.

A 'raid' involves force AND surprise, it sure as heck doesn't mean stand around & debate & discuss how an investigation is going to be conducted & when & where & with whom.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
I guess some people really believe that investigations are really conducted with armored vehicles and busses. lol [/*]

Did you see people rounded up & wearing handcuffs? If it had been a 'raid', you would have. Did you see armored vehicles breaking through the gate? No, you didn't.

You know very well the armored vehicles were called in as insurance, in case the FLDS decided to deny entry into the compound. Their presence reinforced to the FLDS elders that the investigation could either go easily or with difficulty - & if they chose to deny entrance, the armored vehicles could be used to gain entry.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

In Waco it was a raid, only difference is they had a warrant. lol [/*]

ALL raids by LE are done with a warrant. Ever been close to one? You won't soon forget it. A friend of mine a couple of years ago was living in a rather distressed neighborhood after she separated from her spouse & I had the dubious pleasure of being there when one of the biggest raids in the county took place in the 4-plex next to hers.

Holy guacamole! Guns drawn, bullhorns hollaring out for all the neighbors to remain inside, bullhorns hollaring for the people in the raided house to come out with their hands up, helicopters overhead, emergency vehicles of every kind just down the street, streets blocked off, jack-booted snipers with high-powered rifles aimed at the doors & windows.

THAT'S A RAID.

(scared the heck outta me, I can tell ya)

evalles

06-04-2008, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Boy - that article really seems to make it clear that had the FLDS more fully cooperated with the authorities initially, perhaps a lot of this could have been avoided, or at least done differently.

That's one of the drawbacks of having 'lying for the lord' as a founding principle of your way of life.

It's also one of the drawbacks of living in such isolation that you don't realize it's not in your best interests to play hide and seek with the authorities.

Whether you have anything to hide or not, once you start the game, they'll be sure to finish it for you.

I really wonder how everything would have unfolded if the FLDS had cooperated. I don't blame them for being shook up and intimidated.

But if they had nothing to hide, they shouldn't have started with the games. [/*]

Based on the games that have been played by the state, I'm not sure that the FLDS was playing at all. That many workers that many kids, I think they were confused and didn't want to admit it.
Much easier to blame their target.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

That is misleading, they did not have a warrant for the kids, or to gather evidence, not even to speak to the kids. They had a warrant for the man they believed was molesting "sarah" who did not exist. [/*]

The misleading part is calling what happened a 'raid'. It wasn't a raid. The FLDS was served the proper papers to get on the property - to attempt to find the people in question & to allow CPS to investigate a claim of abuse. Any CPS investigation includes the possibility that children will be spoken to. And anytime LE is on your property, if they see evidence in plain sight of a crime, they have the right & the authority to seek additional warrants to seize said evidence.

If CPS came to my house with LE, to investigate a claim of child abuse & if, while they were in my house they saw evidence that I was cooking up meth - they sure as heck are allowed by law to seek a warrant to address THAT crime.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Based on the games that have been played by the state, I'm not sure that the FLDS was playing at all. That many workers that many kids, I think they were confused and didn't want to admit it.
Much easier to blame their target. [/*]

The FLDS attempted to stall them at the gate for over 2 hours. That makes it pretty clear who started playing games.

Roux

06-04-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
What I find most entertaining in that article with the sheriff is that he keeps making reference to a warrant...as if they had a warrant to conduct investigations and gather evidence. The ONLY warrant they had was an arrest warrant for a man in another state and this girl Sarah that supposedly made the phone call. Correct?

So of course when they (the flds) couldnt produce either of them they would say that the FLDS group was not cooperating and satisfying their requests for cooperation. [/*]

IIRC the article with the sheriff stated that there were females named Sara Barlow in the compound but the FLDS said there was no Sara Barlow. Maybe the whole thing could have been cleared up if they'd just produced the Sara Barlows -- probably none of those Saras would have fit the age and/or circumstances of the caller.

Roux

06-04-2008, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

No matter what they were told, or who they were shown they (supposedly) believed she really existed and was being hidden from them. According to that warrant there was no way to cooperate unless they produced that man and Sarah girl. Even if they produced another girl named Sarah of a different age, unmarried and NOT pregnant it would not have been believed that she was the one, dont you get it? [/*]

the point I was trying to make was that the FLDS lied in saying there was no Sara Barlow there. I guess since neither you nor I were privvy to the conversation, we don't know exactly what was said.

Details

06-04-2008, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
That is misleading, they did not have a warrant for the kids, or to gather evidence, not even to speak to the kids. They had a warrant for the man they believed was molesting "sarah" who did not exist. [/*]Incorrect.

They had a warrent to go find Sarah. When looking for Sarah, they saw things that concerned them, went to a judge, got a SECOND warrent, based only on what they'd seen in the compound, and that warrent is what they used to find children, records, etc. Doran: Phase two, that's really what I can't talk about. The second search warrant was by the Texas Rangers based on evidence that was located on the property during the initial assistance with Child Protective Services. That's when further evidence of crimes were seen in plain sight by law enforcement....

At the same time, when we were told there was no Sarah Barlow out there with that name, we uncovered several and one closely resembling that description.http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231682,00.html?pg=3
State investigators on Sunday got a second, wider search warrant for records related to the birth of any child to a mother aged 17 and under. The initial warrant was only for the records related to the girl who called to report abuse last week.http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=4601755&page=2

Details

06-04-2008, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
No they didnt lie as far as I have seen, there has been no evidence that I know of there was a Sarah Barlow there at all of any age. :shrug:

In fact news report say that in fact no Sarah barlow was found at all.

"After several days, lawmen still hadn't found Sarah Barlow." http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010012/posts [/*]IIRC, there are several listed as being in CPS custody, as well as in the Bishops list. Both Barlow and Sarah are common names. They did not find one that appears to be the one described in the calls.

Details

06-04-2008, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
Please read my posts before you pretend to understand what I am talking about. In my posts I clearly said the only warrant initially was for Sarah Barlow and her husband/molester. [/*]Initially was nowhere in your post. And is irrelevant to the later searches that were done under the other search warrent that does not depend in any way on the Sarah Barlow phone calls.

KKKKKKatie

06-04-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Please read my posts before you pretend to understand what I am talking about. In my posts I clearly said the only warrant initially was for Sarah Barlow and her husband/molester. [/*]

yes...and so what? They got a 2nd warrant based on what they saw and went back. Doesn't matter if the first warrants premise was incorrect...not one bit.

Roux

06-04-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

No they didnt lie as far as I have seen, there has been no evidence that I know of there was a Sarah Barlow there at all of any age. :shrug:

In fact news report say that in fact no Sarah barlow was found at all.

"After several days, lawmen still hadn't found Sarah Barlow." http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010012/posts [/*]

Perhaps I misinterpreted the Deseret News interview with the sheriff, who stated "...at the same time when we were told there was no Sarah Barlow out there with that name, we uncovered several..."

evalles

06-04-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

The FLDS attempted to stall them at the gate for over 2 hours. That makes it pretty clear who started playing games. [/*]

Stalling : another great reason for taking 464 children.

Details

06-04-2008, 05:22 PM

It doesn't matter. So long as the first search warrent was in good faith (they didn't know the phone call was fake), anything they see is admissible evidence, and when what they see is the basis for a second search warrent, it too is a good warrent. If police go to my house because someone claimed they saw a fire, and find no fire, but do find any other crime - they can and will get a search warrent, and prosecute me for that other crime. And even if the first call turns out to be a pure hoax - so long as police didn't know, they're all good.

We discussed this early in the case, and some found some good case law on it. It's been resolved plenty.

Details

06-04-2008, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Roux
Perhaps I misinterpreted the Deseret News interview with the sheriff, who stated "...at the same time when we were told there was no Sarah Barlow out there with that name, we uncovered several..." [/*]You didn't misinterpret.

It is a matter of semantics - FreeRepublic is speaking of finding the Sarah Barlow who made the phone calls. The sheriff is talking of asking the cult a person called Sarah Barlow, being told she doesn't exist, and finding that several people who had that name do exist - even if none of them so far appear to be the person who made the phone calls.

If they said there was no Sarah Barlow, the FLDS lied. And they had to know it - it's a common name.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by evalles

Stalling : another great reason for taking 464 children. [/*]

Not one person has claimed stalling was the reason the children were taken.

Imperfect posted this: But if they had nothing to hide, they shouldn't have started with the games.

And this is what you posted in response:
Based on the games that have been played by the state, I'm not sure that the FLDS was playing at all.

And I answered that when the FLDS engaged in stalling tactics for over 2 hours from the moment they had contact at the gate with LE, I think it is evident that they were the party that started playing games.

Now you want to pretend that the discussion was really about taking children because of stalling? Nope. Sure wan't.

evalles

06-04-2008, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Mimi428

Not one person has claimed stalling was the reason the children were taken.

Imperfect posted this: But if they had nothing to hide, they shouldn't have started with the games.

And this is what you posted in response:
Based on the games that have been played by the state, I'm not sure that the FLDS was playing at all.

And I answered that when the FLDS engaged in stalling tactics for over 2 hours from the moment they had contact at the gate with LE, I think it is evident that they were the party that started playing games.

Now you want to pretend that the discussion was really about taking children because of stalling? Nope. Sure wan't. [/*]

I get the impression from your posts, that if the FLDS hadn't stalled and hadn't lied they'd still have their kids.

walton

06-04-2008, 07:25 PM

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/

Using bishop's records and photographs found at the YFZ Ranch, the Texas Attorney General's Office alleges:

1. A marriage between Jeffs and a 14-year-old girl on Jan. 18, 2004, in Utah. The evidence: Wedding photos.

2. That the girl gave birth on Oct. 14, 2005, when she was 15. The evidence: Photos of the girl and Jeffs moments after birth; he is holding the newborn.

3. That Jeffs sexually assaulted a 12-year-old he married on July 27, 2006, at the YFZ Ranch. The evidence: Bishop's records and photographs.

4. A marriage between Jeffs and a 14-year-old girl on July 22, 2004, at the YFZ Ranch. The evidence: Bishopâ€™s records.

5. A marriage between Jeffs and a 12-year-old girl on April 16, 2005, at the YFZ Ranch. The evidence: Bishop's records.

LLaFren

06-04-2008, 07:38 PM

Hey guys, I've had spotty internet the last week, going to read upthread.

:seeya:

I'll post an opinion on whats going on, as soon as I know what's going on.

LL

Details

06-04-2008, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by evalles
I get the impression from your posts, that if the FLDS hadn't stalled and hadn't lied they'd still have their kids. [/*]That is possible - had they been upfront, it's possible LE wouldn't have been able to see the evidence that generated the second warrent, and the pregnant teens. But that doesn't mean that stalling is the REASON the kids were taken. It's just a fun ironic bit - one of those things were the paranoia of those who know they are breaking the law is exactly what helps them get caught - that their own actions in trying to cover up might be part of what exposed them.

Had they not stalled, had they told the truth, brought forth all the Sarah Barlows, LE might have not had to search, thus not found the evidence that caused all the children to be removed.

The children weren't removed because FLDS stalled and lied - the REASON they were removed is because evidence of institutionalized child abuse was found. But the evidence leading to the second warrent that found that evidence might not have been found had the FLDS cooperated. It's very ironic. Trying to cover up crimes leads to their discovery.

walton

06-04-2008, 08:19 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9478781

The judge ordered Annette Jeffs to keep her daughter away from her father, as well as a man named Raymond Jessop. She also said the girl may not go to the YFZ Ranch and must stay in Bexar or an adjoining county.

evalles

06-04-2008, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Details
That is possible - had they been upfront, it's possible LE wouldn't have been able to see the evidence that generated the second warrent, and the pregnant teens. But that doesn't mean that stalling is the REASON the kids were taken. It's just a fun ironic bit - one of those things were the paranoia of those who know they are breaking the law is exactly what helps them get caught - that their own actions in trying to cover up might be part of what exposed them.

Had they not stalled, had they told the truth, brought forth all the Sarah Barlows, LE might have not had to search, thus not found the evidence that caused all the children to be removed.

The children weren't removed because FLDS stalled and lied - the REASON they were removed is because evidence of institutionalized child abuse was found. But the evidence leading to the second warrent that found that evidence might not have been found had the FLDS cooperated. It's very ironic. Trying to cover up crimes leads to their discovery. [/*]

According to the higher courts there wasn't enough evidence to warrant removal. All they saw were some teenage girls.
:shrug:

juliekan

06-04-2008, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by evalles
These kids don't sound brainwashed to me.
They sound a little bratty & defiant, like you expect kids to be these days.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700231704,00.html?pg=1 [/*]

Wonder how little Zachary will feel if he is forced to leave the FLDS like the other "lost boys" when he is a teenager? And bratty and defiant isn't appreciated in FLDS society.

And no, I do not expect kids to be bratty and defiant...didn't allow mine to be brats.

Details

06-04-2008, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by BannedSoon
Is there any proof that the first search warrant was in good faith? Is there proof that they didn't know the phone call was fake?

Just asking. [/*]What do you mean by proof? IIRC, there's the crisis center that called, and they didn't have reason to think it a hoax, they called police. The police found details to match real life details of the ranch, and thus there was no reason to believe it a hoax. The names matched names common in the cult, details matched - that's good reason to take it seriously enough to get a warrent and check it out.

There's absolutely zero saying they had any way to know that it was a fake. Absolutely zero saying they did know.

Obviously when the police get a call about a child being beaten and raped - they have to take it seriously and act on it quickly.

Details

06-04-2008, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
You mean perceived evidence. Turns out there wasnt evidence to substantiate their thoughts and opinions of abuse.

And how do you "fun" as a description of children being taken from their parents, those kids were terrorized! That is in very poor taste if you ask me. [/*]There was enough evidence to warrent investigation - the only thing the appeals court said is that there wasn't enough to remove without individual hearings.

Fun isn't removing the kids - fun is when an attempt to conceal crimes results in more crimes being revealled. It is a fun irony that had they been open and honest, what they wanted to conceal might have remained concealled. The Bishop's records might have remained hidden.

Samanya

06-04-2008, 08:47 PM

The court made the right move returning those children.

walton

06-04-2008, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

They did have reason and evidence to suggest that it was a well known crank caller. [/*]

Link please.

Haz

06-04-2008, 09:32 PM

I think some of you wouldn't believe the evil in this cult even if there was a video tape of one of the old pervs deflowering a 12 yr old virgin. I bet you'd say it was photo-shopped.

I like the saying "Ignorance is bliss". I see alot of blissful people here.

walton

06-04-2008, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I actually found it easily, so here it is.

http://kidjacked.com/pdf/CO_arrest_warrant_for_Rozita_Swinton.pdf [/*]

My mistake. I thought you were talking about them having evidence concerning the phone call made at the YFZ ranch.

You must have been talking about the evidence that they had against this girl named Rosita making phone calls from 2007.

Wrong year. Wrong calls. Wrong story.

Sorry.

:o

KKKKKKatie

06-04-2008, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

That document is dated well past the date of the raid.

I understood you to mean that they had evidence before they approached the ranch at all that the call was a hoax.

How does the document you linked fit that notion?

I'm confused. :confused: [/*]

Join the club...I don't get it either :shrug:

Lyndawitha"Y

06-04-2008, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by BannedSoon

... or CPS lied about it. [/*]

Sorry, there has been actual tapes of those conversations with that person who called..so to use your words..they did not LIE ABOUT IT!..Apparantly these conversations went on for some period of time..it certainly was not a "One Cal" bring on the army situation!..Sorry..Nobody in authority lied here!

LMS:seeya:

Lyndawitha"Y

06-04-2008, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by BannedSoon

You keep believing that, LindawithaY. [/*]

It is not just a belief..I heard it with my own ears...and I just know if I atached a link to those calls, you would ingore that evidence..so please don't insinuate..it is just a belief..There are actual phone calls, taped (Video'd) and aired on TV..so sorry, once again..maybe if you watched coverage..you may see all information..good and bad for your view point..LMS:punch:

KatyDid

06-04-2008, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Imperfect

Hi Haz :seeya:

Oddly enough, someone here did say that the picture of Warren soul kissing his adolescent 'bride' had been Photoshop'd. [/*]

Funny how the girl's own brother didn't think so. He redily admitted it was his sister kissing Warren. He is the one who also identified her age in the photo. I'm sure if he thought the photo had been tampered with, he would have never admitted to its authenticity.

KatyDid

06-04-2008, 10:10 PM

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695273270,00.html?pg=1

Sarah

The calls were first made to the Newbridge Family Shelter in San Angelo on March 29 by a girl who identified herself as Sarah Barlow. She said she had an 8-month-old baby and was pregnant with another child. She said her husband, 49-year-old Dale Barlow, abused her and she wanted off the YFZ Ranch.

"Sarah Barlow desired to leave the YFZ Ranch compound, but stated to call takers that if she were caught, she would be locked in her room and not allowed to eat," the affidavit said.

It was that call and additional calls the next day that triggered the raid on the YFZ Ranch on April 3, and ultimately led to the removal of 437 children.

Anti-polygamy activist Flora Jessop also spoke to "Sarah" for more than 40 hours beginning March 30. "She sounded just like a little girl," Jessop told the Deseret News. "She was really damn good."

Meanwhile, "Sarah" had called a battered women's shelter in Everett, Wash., saying that her husband lived at an apartment complex there.

"Sarah Barlow advised she had been moved from the YFZ Ranch approximately three weeks ago and was assigned to a new husband named 'Merrill,"' the affidavit said, referring to Merril Jessop, who is in charge of the YFZ Ranch.
The girl also said she had been moved again, but was unsure where she was. It was at this time that FLDS women and children were being housed in emergency shelters. Authorities were questioning young women, trying to glean if they really were "Sarah," who had described herself as blond-haired, blue-eyed and pregnant.

Texas Rangers had already traveled to Utah to interview her purported husband, Dale Barlow, who was already on probation for his conviction stemming from a marriage to a 16-year-old girl. Barlow told the Deseret News he had never met "Sarah" and hadn't been to Texas in years.

"Sarah Barlow was fearful of revealing her true identity to anyone for fear that the 'sister wives' had told her that her baby would be taken away," Colorado Springs police detective Terry Thrumston wrote in the affidavit filed with the arrest warrant.

On April 10, the shelter in Washington called Schleicher County (Texas) sheriff's deputy John Conner, and put a crying "Sarah" on a three-way phone call.

"Sarah Barlow had repeatedly said she felt she would be punished for the trouble she caused," the affidavit said. "Sarah Barlow insisted that if she came forward her baby would be taken away."
The girl on the phone claimed to have a twin sister and wanted help getting her sister and mother out of Utah. "Sarah" said the women at the shelter brought teddy bears and small cars to the children, but she "didn't want to talk to one of the social workers because she was wearing a short-sleeved shirt."

"Sarah Barlow also stated that the 'sister wives' had told her the workers were trying to poison the people from the YFZ Ranch with food in shiny wrappers," Thrumston wrote.

The girl also blamed a worker at the Newbridge Family Shelter in San Angelo for the raid on the YFZ Ranch, the affidavit said, and would hang up saying the "sister wives" were coming or she needed to pray. Conner pleaded with "Sarah" to come forward, offering to help her leave the shelter area.

"Sarah Barlow advised deputy Conner not to wear red. Sarah Barlow also stated she wanted to leave the shelter at nighttime," the affidavit states. "Each time that deputy Conner would request a description of Sarah Barlow's location, she would not answer and finally hung up."

Other calls

The court papers said the calls came from the same number, and "Sarah" said the phone belonged to a cousin in Colorado. The FBI traced the calls through phone records and eventually pointed Texas Rangers to Rozita Swinton's apartment in Colorado Springs."

Much more about the calls (plural) at the link.

Details

06-04-2008, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings
Right it was not just one call, they had time to investigate, they knew who dale Barlow was, they knew he lived in another state, they could easily have found him in another state but they didnt try to, they intentionally avoided evidence that would not support their warrant. [/*]Changing your story now that your link and assertion they knew it was a hoax at the time they got the warrent was so easily discredited?

With what they were hearing, leaving this girl in the situation they believe her to be in is not something OK - you don't get a phone call from a child being abused and molested, and decide to wait, go hunting for Dale Barlow (and hope that it's the right Dale Barlow - there are several).

Lyndawitha"Y

06-04-2008, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by BannedSoon

I'm not insinuating anything. I am stating as fact that it is "just a belief". One that you and I don't necessarily share. [/*]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/18/ng.01.html

This is a transcript from a Nancy Grace Show outlining just a few conversations..so unless you wish to believe that ALL are are making up such calls, such witnesses..all started in late March..then maybe you just do not to believe anything..everyone is lying, and swapping babbies between adults, forcing young girls to marry old men is obviously OK in your books, ands YES, that indeed you nhave all the rights to your right to beliefs..please do not expect everyone to accept your beliefs with out some sort of evidence..Again, sorry you just haven't backed up your belief with proof..only your humble opinion..Please don't snipe and be sarcastic to those with opinions based on seen, heard, read, and above all personal experience with these deviants!

LMS:no:

Lyndawitha"Y

06-04-2008, 10:43 PM

I guess I am just mistaken, that most people have insight to their statements, but for some reason, what i have read by a few..it is declared lies, wrong, unjust or a conspiracy..I have come to a conclusion, you just can't discuss, or reason with those with earplugs, blindfolds and closed minds..Sorry, not naming names here..but the snipping, sarcasm is just not appreciated..only toxic to any discussion..I must step back for the night before i end up in trouble..have a great evening..

LMS:seeya:

p.S. My Iggy list is growing...yiks!

walton

06-04-2008, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y
I guess I am just mistaken, that most people have insight to their statements, but for some reason, what i have read by a few..it is declared lies, wrong, unjust or a conspiracy..I have come to a conclusion, you just can't discuss, or reason with those with earplugs, blindfolds and closed minds..Sorry, not naming names here..but the snipping, sarcasm is just not appreciated..only toxic to any discussion..I must step back for the night before i end up in trouble..have a great evening..

LMS:seeya:

p.S. My Iggy list is growing...yiks! [/*]

I agree with you at times it is very hard to have a discussion.

You have a very good evening.

:seeya:

Haz

06-04-2008, 11:03 PM

:seeya: Imperfect

Stopping in between periods of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Some of these posters really crack me up. LOL

Their arguments are so lame-IMO. I don't bothering answering them anymore. I am looking forward to when the indictments are made public and the trials start. THAT will be very interesting for a number of reasons.

Leaving for the nite. Have a good one !!

walton

06-04-2008, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

I didnt do that... the search warrant clearly states that they knew that Dale Barlow was arrested in AZ... They knew he was on probation in AZ, they knew he was a registered sex offender in AZ and they did NOTHING to find him until after they got the warrant and look how easy that was after the fact! They had indications that this was a prank call and they did nothing to investigate it because then they would have no basis for a warrant. [/*]

And everyone knows that sex offenders don't move from one spot to the next.

Dale Barlow was NOT registered as a sex offender. His name was not on the register for the state of Utah or Arizona. It was suppose to be but it it wasn't. He was in violation according to the rules of his probation.

No listing. No address. He "phoned" into his probation officer. What a bunch of crap that is as well.

Mimi428

06-04-2008, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Many who disagree with you would say the same about you. You need to respect other peoples as opinions as such unless you can prove otherwise and even then sometimes you have to respect that they see it differently than you. [/*]

Speaking only for myself, my level of respect for some folks on this board would rise greatly if I read more posts which stayed on the subject being discussed & fewer posts that appear to be nothing more than dodges & attempts to shift the discussion away from the topic at hand.

Not at all hard to respect someone having the right to their own opinion, but it can be very difficult to respect people who can't/won't post in a rational fashion.

JMO

Meanwhile, if the calls had been in regard to a smaller general location with 1/10th the population of the FLDS compound, I don't think it would have been nearly so difficult nor complicated to sort through - not for CPS, not for all the members of LE, not for the courts, the attorneys, the parents & children.

walton

06-04-2008, 11:14 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9481849

An Arizona judge has dropped four of eight charges against polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs.
In his ruling filed late today, Mohave County Superior Court Judge Steven Conn dismissed four incest charges against Jeffs at the request of the defense.
The charges stemmed from the arranged marriage of two girls younger than 18 and their older male relatives, one of whom was in his 50s.
Conn ruled that Arizona's incest law only applies if both participants in the sexual activity are older than 18, and that the law does not apply to half cousins.
Jeffs still faces four charges of sexual conduct with a minor in the arranged marriages of the two girls.
Jeffs remains jailed in Kingman.

Judge Steven Conn. The same Judge that issued that one guy 45 days for having his step daughter as his "spiritual wife".

:flamemad:

KatyDid

06-04-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by walton
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9481849

An Arizona judge has dropped four of eight charges against polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs.
In his ruling filed late today, Mohave County Superior Court Judge Steven Conn dismissed four incest charges against Jeffs at the request of the defense.
The charges stemmed from the arranged marriage of two girls younger than 18 and their older male relatives, one of whom was in his 50s.
Conn ruled that Arizona's incest law only applies if both participants in the sexual activity are older than 18, and that the law does not apply to half cousins.
Jeffs still faces four charges of sexual conduct with a minor in the arranged marriages of the two girls.
Jeffs remains jailed in Kingman.

Judge Steven Conn. The same Judge that issued that one guy 45 days for having his step daughter as his "spiritual wife".

:flamemad: [/*]

Hiya walton :seeya:

That is one crazy law the way it is stated. Hopefully somebody in government will bring up the fact that it should be changed. The fact remains the victims are underage girls. I hope they get him on the other charges.

walton

06-04-2008, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

How old was the step daughter? That is gross but not really incest. [/*]

He was still legally married to her mother while "spiritually married" to her.

In her letter to the Judge, she called her stepfather..... father but also called him her husband and their childrens father.

Sad

walton

06-04-2008, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by KatyDid

Hiya walton :seeya:

That is one crazy law the way it is stated. Hopefully somebody in government will bring up the fact that it should be changed. The fact remains the victims are underage girls. I hope they get him on the other charges. [/*]

I think the LeBarons brought this up as well when they announced that their dad had impregnated their sister. It was in the local news not too long ago.

walton

06-04-2008, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Bratlings

Where do you have information that he was not registered in AZ? There is only information that I know of that states he was not registered in TX. [/*]

It was in the link thread. Not sure if it is in this one or the one that vanished. Type in the state and his name or google his name and sex offender list Arizona.

KatyDid

06-04-2008, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by walton

I think the LeBarons brought this up as well when they announced that their dad had impregnated their sister. It was in the local news not too long ago. [/*]

Oh, that's right, they did bring it up. I remember reading the article. Thank you for posting it.

Haz

06-05-2008, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Imperfect

My goodness. If you keep reaching like this, Bratlings, you're gonna dislocate something ...
Clipped for space.......
[/*]

Okay-I lied...LOL The team that I wanted to win won !! So I decided to check back in one more time.

IMP-if I may call you that-you crack me up.....Totally love your posts. Read to the end and backed up to quote this one. You are so right IMO. You have the patience of a saint. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future. You are right on top of what is going on.

Up thread someone responding to my post of indictments and future trials said something about "enjoy bigamy trials." I'm sure there will be more charges than just bigamy. Hope they have valid info on some of these pedophiles and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Okay I'm back to reading about tonites winning game. HAGN

evalles

06-05-2008, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by walton

Link please. [/*]

The arrest warrent for Rozita Swinton.

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

The shelter that she called had caller ID, and the number that she called from was linked to other fake calls.

evalles

06-05-2008, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by juliekan

Wonder how little Zachary will feel if he is forced to leave the FLDS like the other "lost boys" when he is a teenager? And bratty and defiant isn't appreciated in FLDS society.

And no, I do not expect kids to be bratty and defiant...didn't allow mine to be brats. [/*]

After what they went through, they're entitled.

evalles

06-05-2008, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Samanya
The court made the right move returning those children. [/*]

Yes, they did.

evalles

06-05-2008, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Imperfect

I was a little taken aback by what Zach said - the bratty/defiant part. My first thought was that he was probably just tired and overwrought.

Then I considered the possibility that based on his upbringing, he feels it's his right to be rude to 'outsiders.'

And THEN I even considered the possibility that the photographer or the interviewer was African American, and that was the reason Zachary felt he could be bratty and defiant.

Just thoughts I had, based on what I've gleaned from Warren's lessons to the flock. [/*]

Or maybe, since you really don't know anything about it, you're first, most logical instinct was right.
After seeing a picture of the boys, it hit me how close in age they were to my son, and he's just at the age that he would be embarassed by all this attention.

juliekan

06-05-2008, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by evalles

After what they went through, they're entitled. [/*]

Entitled to be banned from their families????

juliekan

06-05-2008, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by evalles

Or maybe, since you really don't know anything about it, you're first, most logical instinct was right.
After seeing a picture of the boys, it hit me how close in age they were to my son, and he's just at the age that he would be embarassed by all this attention. [/*]

I thought you said all kids at this age were bratty?:shrug:

evalles

06-05-2008, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by juliekan

I thought you said all kids at this age were bratty?:shrug: [/*]

Do you have to get off on these totally unimportant side bars ?
Are you just looking for something to argue about ?
IMO, all kids can be bratty at times and for various reasons.
I'm glad you have yours under such firm control.

juliekan

06-05-2008, 02:10 AM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5817593.html

Ok, here's fodder for both sides, but I'm leading with

'"Two weeks ago at their children's custody hearings, a number of mothers, including a wife of YFZ leader Merrill Jessop, testified that their spouses had disappeared, leaving no forwarding information."

On a personal note, when I make my husband watch all my murder mystery shows, he always says he'll be the first one up to offer his timeline, DNA, polygraph, etc., to get it out of the way so they can find who really did something to his family. I can't help but feel they know something they are doing is wrong if they run like Texas jackrabbits at the first sign of trouble.

evalles

06-05-2008, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by juliekan

Entitled to be banned from their families???? [/*]

I'm not takin the bait.

juliekan

06-05-2008, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by evalles

I'm not takin the bait. [/*]

:lol: sounds like someone I know

evalles

06-05-2008, 02:17 AM

Oh Bratlings

Brat-if I may call you that-you crack me up.....Totally love your posts.
You have the patience of a saint. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future. You know everything and remind me of Zena the Warrior Princess.

Gag. LOL.
:beer:

evalles

06-05-2008, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by KatyDid

Funny how the girl's own brother didn't think so. He redily admitted it was his sister kissing Warren. He is the one who also identified her age in the photo. I'm sure if he thought the photo had been tampered with, he would have never admitted to its authenticity. [/*]

He said it was her, but he didn't know where the picture came from nor admitted it was authentic. The state refused to say where they got it.

evalles

06-05-2008, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Bratlings

This letter is particularly sad, but it shows the point that many of these kids were not zombies under mind control. They were free enough to misbehave, smoke cigarettes and run away.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"When he was 10, Johnny's mother was reassigned to then-FLDS Bishop Fred Jessop, regarded as the "catch basin for broken families." Fred Jessop had 39 wives by Johnny's count and, unable to have children of his own, was the stepfather or adoptive father of more than 200 children.

Johnny said he was welcomed into the large fold at first but admits he quickly got pegged as a troublemaker.

"I was considered the little sh--," he said. "I wasn't hop-to obedient or whatever you call it."

Among the hordes of children at Fred Jessop's home, Johnny hooked up with two brothers who had moved to Hildale from Salt Lake City and were the "worst rebels."

"I became like them," Johnny said. "I was an innocent thing until I moved to Uncle Fred's."

Johnny took up smoking cigarettes at age 11 and started drinking at 12, sneaking off to a party spot northwest of town dubbed "Edge of the World."

At home, the pressure built until, sick of being told he was evil, Johnny ran off to Hurricane and spent three days at a friend's home partying. "

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy595.html [/*]

I know I'll get a lot of crap for this, but I think some, if not most of the lost boys were rebellious teens that didn't want to follow any rules.