Rangers talk with polygamist ranch suspect

[Alonzo]

ELDORADO, Texas (CNN) -- Texas Rangers on Saturday met with -- but did not arrest -- the man accused by a teenage girl of physically and sexually abusing her at a polygamist compound.

Arizona probation officials said the meeting with Dale Evans Barlow, 50, happened just across the Arizona state line in St. George, Utah.

"The Texas Rangers met with him. He was allowed to go, and no arrest was made," said Friend Walker, director of the Mojave County, Arizona, probation office.

Barlow's attorney, Bruce Griffen, said the meeting was voluntary.

He said he and Barlow are working to gather evidence that his client could not have been in Texas when the crimes are said to have happened.

"We shook hands; we left," Griffen said outside Barlow's home in Arizona.

"They're doing their thing; we're doing our thing. We may meet again. But at this point, Dale is not being arrested, and we are working cooperatively with them, and we made very clear to them that they have made a mistake."

Authorities in Eldorado, Texas, raided the YFZ (Yearning For Zion) Ranch on April 3 after a 16-year-old girl there told a family violence shelter that she had been beaten, choked and forced to have sex with an adult man with whom she had an 8-month-old child after their "spiritual marriage."

In a series of phone calls, the girl -- who identified herself as Sarah -- said her "spiritual husband" was named Dale Barlow and gave Barlow's approximate age.

Griffen said his client has not been to Texas since 1977 and may have been named in a case of mistaken identity.

Barlow served 45 days in jail and is on three years of probation after pleading no contest last year to charges of conspiracy to have sex with a minor.

Authorities entered the compound last week with a warrant for Barlow's arrest.

The ranch is run by founder Warren Steed Jeffs' Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a rogue branch of the Mormon church. State officials removed 416 children, most of them girls, from the ranch during the nearly week-long raid. Two men were arrested: one for interfering with police officers and one for tampering with evidence.

Officials believe that the girl who made the phone calls is in their custody, but they have not identified her because she may be too scared to come forward, said Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the state Child Protective Services Division.

Law enforcement officials and state child welfare workers said in court documents that they found evidence of a widespread practice at the ranch of forcing girls as young as 13 years old to enter "spiritual marriages" with adult men as soon as they reached childbearing age.

Among the evidence was at least one bed inside the sect's temple that the men are said to have used to have sex with the girls immediately after their wedding ceremonies.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/12/polygamy.suspect/index.html

[brien]

I am suspicious of this "unidentified" 16 year old girl. She should be brought forward to corroborate the evidence that produced the original search warrant. Otherwise, it seems to leave too many unanswered questions as to the validity of the search warrant.

Perhaps, fearing another Waco disaster, the authorities invented this 16 year old, and the complaint, which would certainly invalidate the search warrant. We need a full accounting by law enforcement in Texas as to who is charged with which specific crimes because the amount of children placed in foster homes now exceeds 400. They need to provide more than a bed for evidence here. For example, they should produce sworn testimony from eye witnessess(victims) that 13 year old minors are being forced to have intercourse with adult men.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree brien.

It seems as though one testimony was used as an excuse to enter a compound the local authorities have long been suspicious of, for no good reason.

I am seeing signs of Waco and Ruby Ridge all over again.

[brien]

Absolutely Os...There are too many loose threads in this one. These people went peacefully and look at what has happened; the entire 400+ children are now in foster homes. I don't think there should have been a violent shootout, but these members should have surrounded themselves with some lawyers to stop the possible wholesale abridgement of the rights of those people to freely assemble and practice the religion of their choice. It seems to me, from a cursory view, their 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amemendment rights may have been violated. Law enforcement in Texas was lucky this time because these people chose not to arm and defend themselves. Others may not go so peacefully.

[Osborn F. Enready]

After examples like this, Waco and Ruby, I surely will/would not go peacefully if they are using such "flimsy" evidence as an attempt to breach private property using guns and force.

[Alonzo]

I agree brien.

It seems as though one testimony was used as an excuse to enter a compound the local authorities have long been suspicious of, for no good reason.

I am seeing signs of Waco and Ruby Ridge all over again.

No one is disputing that underage girls are being married to adult men. That's illegal right there.

As for the allegation of abuse, that's good enough reason anyway.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
No one is disputing that underage girls are being married to adult men. That's illegal right there.

What level of being "underage"?

"underage marriage" is allowed to some degree in most states.

Alonzo said:
As for the allegation of abuse, that's good enough reason anyway.

A) thats your opinon.
B) since when is a non-corroborated anonymous allegation, reasoning to seperate HUNDREDS of people from their OWN CHILDREN?!?!?

[Alonzo]

A) thats your opinon.

I think the vast majority of people think it's acceptable for police to get a warrant and search anyones home if a child is reportedly being abused.

What level of being "underage"?

"underage marriage" is allowed to some degree in most states.

I've been hearing as young as at least 14. That's younger than any state allows as far as I'm aware.

B) since when is a non-corroborated anonymous allegation, reasoning to seperate HUNDREDS of people from their OWN CHILDREN?!?!?

Maybe I'm wrong, as I've been half paying attention to this, but I think the mothers were left with the children.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
I think the vast majority of people think it's acceptable for police to get a warrant and search anyones home if a child is reportedly being abused.

A lot of people thought the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong.....
A lot of people thought it was valid to burn a witch at the stake, though they could in no way VERIFY that person was a witch.....

Why is "thinking" what you do, any more valid without PROOF?

Alonzo said:
I've been hearing as young as at least 14. That's younger than any state allows as far as I'm aware.

When these "allegations" are VERIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED, I will recognize that as a fact, but not until then. As of now, its just empty allegations and an abuse of government force against innocent people.

Alonzo said:
Maybe I'm wrong, as I've been half paying attention to this, but I think the mothers were left with the children.

You're wrong.

The mothers were seperated, and given an ultimatum of "where they may go" (the mothers), but they do NOT have possesion of THEIR children.

[brien]

Alonzo wrote: "I think the vast majority of people think it's acceptable for police to get a warrant and search anyones home if a child is reportedly being abused."


Brien comments;

There is no problem when the warrant issued is based upon sworn testamonial fact and can be corroborated by a credible source. We have seen neither in this case.

Alonzo wrote:

"I've been hearing as young as at least 14."

Brien comments:

This is hearsay. Is there any proof of 14 year olds being married to whom? Any marriage license produced here? More hearsay without evidence.

[Trish]

There aren't any marriage licenses to be found. The "marriages" of these young girls are "spiritual" marriages. A ceremony in the temple followed (according to news reports and an inside informant) immediately by consummation in the temple itself. News reports here in Texas are saying that quite of few of the teenage girls (around 20 if memory serves) are pregnant and some of those have other children already. 16 is the youngest a person can legally marry in Texas and that has to be with parental consent. As I understand the situation with the FLDS sect in Texas, no one is real sure who the parents are of some of these kids.

It's a big mess and is going to be one huge legal nightmare all the way around!

[Keith Hamburger]

As for the allegation of abuse, that's good enough reason anyway.

OK. So ... I haven't read this thread to the end.

However. ...

I allege you have abused minor children.

Would that be reason enough to put you in jail?

Keith

[Alonzo]

OK. So ... I haven't read this thread to the end.

However. ...

I allege you have abused minor children.

Would that be reason enough to put you in jail?

Keith

It would be enough for the police to come to my house and question me. If you called and claimed to be in my house and being abused, then it would be enough for them to search my house trying to find you.

[cronic]

OK. So ... I haven't read this thread to the end.

However. ...

I allege you have abused minor children.

Would that be reason enough to put you in jail?

Keith

no one has been put in jail "yet"
as of right now its an investigation..

In this situation, an investigation is surely warranted.

[cronic]

this has been handled no differently then any other situation would be..
If the CSPA was to receive a call from your house.. by a person identified as a child claiming abuse, especially sexual.... I guarantee you they will be coming to knock on your door.. if the child is no where to be found..or the CSPA had reason to believe the possible abuse, there is a very good possibility any other children you may have there in your home could be removed until further investigation.

You may not like it but there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

I know it may be hard to swallow also, but the truth is, even tho sometimes it may seem like an invasion or an infringement of ones rights, things like this happen for the protection of the child.

Thats the job of the CSPA... They have to follow up when allegations like this are made.

[Mia]

It really doesn't matter what 'a lot of people think'. The law is what the law is. Allegations of this kind of abuse gave them the right to go in, end of story. Whether she can be found later has no bearing on whether they could have gone in, we don't operate backwards.

She may be too scared to identify herself, other women who have spoken to LE live under death threats.

Now LE can use inevitability - they would have discovered this anyway, so how they did becomes moot.

I am disgusted that so many are defending this and asking questions like 'what is underage?'.

The answer to that is simple. In TX the legal age to marry is 18. 16 with parental consent. These are not even real marriages - even if they occurred at 16, they are only 'spirit marriages' not recognized by the law, ergo it is simply rape.

The women file for welfare as single mothers, so they aren't married, are they? There is no such thing as marriage before the age of 16, so the 8-15 year olds there is not a shred of doubt.

AOC for sex without marriage is 17, but 18 if the partner is more than (3) years older. that means every girl 17 and younger who had sex with a 54 year old was raped, plain and simple.

[Mia]

It would be enough for the police to come to my house and question me. If you called and claimed to be in my house and being abused, then it would be enough for them to search my house trying to find you.

Exactly - how this fact escapes some, I do not understand.

OK. So ... I haven't read this thread to the end.

However. ...

I allege you have abused minor children.

Would that be reason enough to put you in jail?

Keith

Who is in jail?

If you allege that I am abusing children, that IS enough for a CPS visit, sometimes accompanied by police. If evidence is found, your children may be removed. That's ALL that's happened so far - whether anyone will go to jail, or whether the children be be returned, will depend on what evidence is provided or not.




There is no problem when the warrant issued is based upon sworn testamonial fact and can be corroborated by a credible source. We have seen neither in this case.



Please source the requirements for a warrant in TX under these circumstances, since you claim this one wasn't valid, and source how it isn't valid,,,,,something besides your opinion, please.

[Trish]

I've got news for folks - if someone alleges that a child is being abused in your house, or is somehow in danger in your house, police officials don't even need a warrant - they can enter and search citing "imminent danger." Where child safety is concerned there is a VERY wide latitude given law enforcement. After all the reports of children dying in horrific circumstances all across the country because CPS failed to act in a timely manner, I don't think Texas CPS had any choice but to act exactly as they did. Just because this involves a religious group doesn't mean that different rules apply. This is no different that the sexual abuse of children by priests. The Catholic Church did NOT own up to the sexual abuse of children by priests until forced to do so - why in the world would anyone think that the FLDS sect would be any different? Forcing girls in their early teens to "spiritually marry" men old enough to be their father or grandfathers is rape pure and simple. Raising these children to think that such acts are normal and right is emotional abuse. The fact that there are quite a few of those young teenagers who are already mothers or are currently pregnant is more than enough "proof" that there was sexual abuse taking place.

I don't agree with polygamy. It's against the law. However, there's a lot of difference in adult women CHOOSING that lifestyle and being raised and conditioned from childhood to accept that lifestyle and then being indoctrinated into it at puberty.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
Exactly - how this fact escapes some, I do not understand.

No, you are missing other vital information.

If it is ANONYMOUS, what proof is there? None, unless they have proof that the phone call came from within that "compound". If they traced the call, that would provide SOME substantiation to the claim, enough to warrant a visit to where THAT call originated.

Arresting and detaining hundreds of people based on an anonymous phone call however, is a stretch of logic and leap of faith by ANY means.

Mia said:
Who is in jail?

If you allege that I am abusing children, that IS enough for a CPS visit, sometimes accompanied by police.

Assuming you put YOUR name on the record and verify you will testify to support the statement, should your TIP prove to be wrong.

Mia said:
If evidence is found, your children may be removed.

And if evidence is found, and proper process is not followed, ALL of the evidence and that case can be flushed down the toilet in most cases.

Mia said:
That's ALL that's happened so far - whether anyone will go to jail, or whether the children be be returned, will depend on what evidence is provided or not.

I am only asking the SYSTEM to provide the EVIDENCE they built the case on, and trying to ENSURE they follow the REQUIREMENTS of the law.

So far, we have people posting a lot of emotion based on little to no evidence.

Trish said:
I've got news for folks - if someone alleges that a child is being abused in your house, or is somehow in danger in your house, police officials don't even need a warrant -

ASSUMING that person will STAND BY THEIR TESTIMONY IN COURT, and accept the risk of being held for FALSE STATEMENTS should they prove to be true, and counter suit filed.

Trish said:
they can enter and search citing "imminent danger."

They can do that when there is "reasonable evidence". An anonymous tip is far from "reasonable evidence", and that is all I have been shown so far for the "REASON" they entered the compound.

Trish said:
Where child safety is concerned there is a VERY wide latitude given law enforcement.

And if that latitude goes past reasonable, and there is a counter suit, taxpayers will PAY for the latitude in tax dollars being awarded to a person for WRONGFUL VIOLATION OF RIGHTS, and police not following proper procedure.

trish said:
After all the reports of children dying in horrific circumstances all across the country because CPS failed to act in a timely manner, I don't think Texas CPS had any choice but to act exactly as they did.

Really? So you think an anonymous call is worthy of forcefully seperating hundreds of people from their kids???!?!?!?!??

It certianly may have warranted a "look around the premises", but no way in hell does it cover what is being done now..... not by a long shot.

Trish said:
Just because this involves a religious group doesn't mean that different rules apply.

I fully agree... you may want to tell Texas law enforcement this.

Trish said:
This is no different that the sexual abuse of children by priests.

There is a huge difference. The priests were allowed to walk, due to the power of the church.

Trish said:
The Catholic Church did NOT own up to the sexual abuse of children by priests until forced to do so - why in the world would anyone think that the FLDS sect would be any different?

So explain why anonymous calls and no evidence gives law enforcement the right to take people and their property against their will? In the issue with the priests, there were SEVERAL testimonies, that were NOT anonymous. How is this comparable?

Trish said:
Forcing girls in their early teens to "spiritually marry" men old enough to be their father or grandfathers is rape pure and simple.

Rape is one thing, and one thing only. FORCED PENETRATION.
No form of marriage is rape, sorry.

Trish said:
Raising these children to think that such acts are normal and right is emotional abuse.

Assuming you can PROVE THIS IS BEING DONE. Can you?

Trish said:
The fact that there are quite a few of those young teenagers who are already mothers or are currently pregnant is more than enough "proof" that there was sexual abuse taking place.

You mean the young "looking" ones, or have you checked their birth certificates and verified age?

Trish said:
I don't agree with polygamy. It's against the law.

I don't agree with it either, regardless of any law. Point?

Trish said:
However, there's a lot of difference in adult women CHOOSING that lifestyle and being raised and conditioned from childhood to accept that lifestyle and then being indoctrinated into it at puberty.

Again, where is the PROOF?!?

[brien]

Exac



Please source the requirements for a warrant in TX under these circumstances, since you claim this one wasn't valid, and source how it isn't valid,,,,,something besides your opinion, please.


My "opinion" is based upon the 4th and 5th Amendment. It can trump any Texas state statute(s) you can cite.

People can go around levelling serious felony charges against another but a search warrant must be issued by a judge based upon evidence. This is not opinion Mia, it is fact. The police must have a warrant to enter the premises and the warrant must be issued under "probable cause". If later, the warrant is found to be deficient, or lacking in due process, the warrant gets tossed and any evidence obtained under the warrant gets tossed with it.

The only "probable cause" we have seen so far, is some phantom caller whom the authorities can't produce. Sounds like shaky grounds to me.

[brien]

Os wrote:
It certianly may have warranted a "look around the premises", but no way in hell does it cover what is being done now..... not by a long shot.

My comment;

Os, as I am certain you know, they still need a warrant to "look around the premises." The warrant must state exactly what they are "looking for" because it is considered "evidence" once it is found. Search warrants name people, places, and evidence to be siezed. They are not allowed to be used for "fishing expeditions".

The authorities didn't show up and observe "imminent danger". They came in with a warrant. The warrant must be specific and the authorities must adhere to the specific aspects of the warrant. They are in court today so more information should be released then. I also noted with some interest that there is no shortage of Texas Attorneys lining up to represent these people in court.

[Osborn F. Enready]

WELL SAID BRIEN.

I knew it, I just didn't type it out. Lazy today.....

[brien]

WELL SAID BRIEN.

I knew it, I just didn't type it out. Lazy today.....

Thanks Os

I have a suggestion for everyone discussing this case.

Here are three guidelines I would suggest for anyone observing this case:

1) Wait until the state has made its case in a probable cause hearing before you make any statements on alledged crimes. Without a probable cause hearing, where the state charges defendants, how can anyone possibly know what laws are being violated and by whom? Otherwise, speculation rules

2) Wait until the state charges specific individuals before making comments upon who is accused, not to mention guilty or innocent. Eveyone who pleads "not guilty" deserves a impartial hearing as to guilt or innocence. Presumption of innocence rules.

3) Wait until the state has presented its evidence before you comment upon what you think may be the evidence.

[Trish]

Marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It's also a LEGAL contract. There is no LEGAL marriage in Texas for teenagers under 16. Sex between adult males and 13, 14, and 15 year old girls is statutory rape. Period. Even if the girls consented, they have no legal right to consent. Raised to believe in polygamy and the absolute authority of men in the sect, their "consent" would be questionable regardless of the legal concerns.

The phone call gave law enforcement probable cause. With probable cause CPS and law enforcement had no problem obtaining a warrant and serving that warrant. While they didn't NEED the warrant to search for a minor IF they believed that minor to be in imminent danger, they had more than enough probable cause to get a warrant. The ONLY people that have been arrested were 2 men who interfered with the search. No one else has been arrested. The kids were removed for their own safety until all this can be sorted out in courts - EXACTLY like it is handled in every other case where any type of abuse is ALLEGED. The allegation of child abuse is sufficient for an investigation. Removing the children from the parents' control until the investigation has been concluded is standard procedure.

You can't cover all this up with the religion band-aid. Promoting sexual activity between young girls and grown assed men is ILLEGAL whether you are a FLDS deacon or the average pervert. Failure to intervene and protect a child from being preyed upon by these child molestors masquerading as pious husbands is also child abuse.

The FACT that there are several FLDS teenage girls 16 and under who are either pregnant or already have children is PROOF that there is at the very least an unhealthy situation for those kids. 13, 14, 15 year old girls getting pregnant by their boyfriends is one thing - being DELIBERATELY impregnated by a bunch of horny old men who conveniently "believe" in having multiple wives whom they "marry" in secret at puberty is just obscene.

If someone reports my children are being sexually abused, CPS will most certainly remove them from my care until the matter is investigated. Just because these people hide behind a religious curtain doesn't make the rules different for them. They'll get their day in court. Until they do, the kids' welfare is paramount and mandates that they be kept safe from possible further harm.

[Mia]

Os, there is no case built yet, I am sure they are working on one for prosecution. One doesn't need a case built for a warrant. One needs probable cause. As Trish noted, CPS has wide latitude. Don't like that? Work to change the CPS rules. But they have not acted improperly so far under the rules and law they currently operate under.

Brien, let me get this straight. I call from your house saying that you are holding me captive beating and raping me. How do the police verify me and my condition without coming in? Remember I called a domestic abuse hotline, not the police directly.

They're supposed to go 'oh well, Mia's going to have to suck an egg, she didn't call the right place, we can't verify she exists, much less made the call from that house, we'll just forget about it'.

The reason I mentioned TX is that while warrants fall under federal rules, CPS operates on a state-to-state basis, and this was a CPS operation, not LE, although they use LE in conjunction.

It might behoove you to familiarize yourself with CPS procedure before claiming they did it all wrong.

[Mia]

If someone reports my children are being sexually abused, CPS will most certainly remove them from my care until the matter is investigated. Just because these people hide behind a religious curtain doesn't make the rules different for them. They'll get their day in court. Until they do, the kids' welfare is paramount and mandates that they be kept safe from possible further harm.

Yes. People here are acting like this place has been picked on - I know they are intelligent to know this would happen to any family, so I'm starting to wonder if they believe these people should have some kind of exemption from the laws the rest of us live under.

I also tire of the accusation of 'emotion'. Um, I seem to be one of the few in this thread who has done any research on this topic, so how I'm getting that label, I don't know.

I think some other posters are the emotional ones - taking no time to learn a damn thing about this before running off at the mouth about supposed rights violations. Asking things like 'what is underage anyway?'

Os wrote:
It certianly may have warranted a "look around the premises", but no way in hell does it cover what is being done now..... not by a long shot.

My comment;

Os, as I am certain you know, they still need a warrant to "look around the premises." The warrant must state exactly what they are "looking for" because it is considered "evidence" once it is found. Search warrants name people, places, and evidence to be siezed. They are not allowed to be used for "fishing expeditions".

The authorities didn't show up and observe "imminent danger". They came in with a warrant. The warrant must be specific and the authorities must adhere to the specific aspects of the warrant. They are in court today so more information should be released then. I also noted with some interest that there is no shortage of Texas Attorneys lining up to represent these people in court.

Can you source the wording of THIS warrant and show us how it was abused?

If not, you're just speculating, while asking others not to do the same from the other end.

[potter]

No one is disputing that underage girls are being married to adult men. That's illegal right there.

As for the allegation of abuse, that's good enough reason anyway.


Is that good enough to imprison everyone's children and take everyone's children away from them? What is it, 451 children? On the basis of one claim?

No, this is heavy handed fascist government at work once again.

[Mia]

Is that good enough to imprison everyone's children and take everyone's children away from them? What is it, 451 children? On the basis of one claim?

No, this is heavy handed fascist government at work once again.

Yes, it is enough. The children are not imprisoned. Children are removed when there are allegations and evidence of serious abuse, until an investigation can be done they are not leaving the children to endure more.

If they were to keep the children after finding NO evidence, then your comments would be valid. There is a hearing today. Everyone is getting due process.

[potter]

Yes, it is enough. The children are not imprisoned. Children are removed when there are allegations and evidence of serious abuse, until an investigation can be done they are not leaving the children to endure more.

If they were to keep the children after finding NO evidence, then your comments would be valid. There is a hearing today. Everyone is getting due process.


Yes, they ARE imprisoned by the state. You think they have any freedom? Removing them from their mothers is cruel.

This is nothing more than guilty until proven innocent. Fascism at it worst.

[Mia]

Yes, they ARE imprisoned by the state. You think they have any freedom? Removing them from their mothers is cruel.

This is nothing more than guilty until proven innocent. Fascism at it worst.

Their mothers handing them over to be child brides is cruel. CPS action was appropriate.

[potter]

Their mothers handing them over to be child brides is cruel. CPS action was appropriate.

So now I see where we get the mind set that bombing a city because there are a few terrorist in that city is justified and AOK. The residents of the city must have known there were bad apples so they all must be punished.

Same here, they must have known there were a few bad apples on the bunch so they ALL must be punished.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well said potter, and I agree.

[Mia]

Strawman. Thank you for that worthless contribution.

[Trish]

Their mothers handing them over to be child brides is cruel. CPS action was appropriate.

Exactly right!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia, the state imprisoned people (in state custody) without evidence AGAINST THEM.

I am going to wait to see the states case before I discuss this further, and you KNOW I don't support sex between adults and children, but this is a "blanket approach" tactic by the state, and the only people suffering are those kids being seperated from thier family by the state, and those mothers who are wondering what they should do if they don't "fit the bill" being "put on them" by the state.

I don't doubt there are some people who deserve this treatment, but I can assure you they all do not. Those that don't I would bet, will sue the hell out of the state after this, and rightly so I think. I hope they bankrupt the state in financial recuperation, maybe it'll teach them a lesson too.

[potter]

Call it a strawman if you want Mia, that's exatly what they did. They are punishing everyone in that compound for the actions of a few. Collective punishment.

You say well, they are only imprisoning (collectively punishing all the families) the children in the compound for awhile until they find out if they really have a reason to do so....that's so wrong.....on so many levels.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia and anyone else would have a DIFFERENT OPINION were they the one being wrongly held captive by the state, as child or mother. Talk about breeding a hate for the state........ blowback from this could be severe in the long run.

[potter]

I agree, and that blowback will be harsh...

[Trish]

So now I see where we get the mind set that bombing a city because there are a few terrorist in that city is justified and AOK. The residents of the city must have known there were bad apples so they all must be punished.

Same here, they must have known there were a few bad apples on the bunch so they ALL must be punished.

Who's being punished? No one. The children are being protected. Punishment isn't even a factor until authorities can 1) identify just which children belong to which "mother", 2) determine what abuse took place, if any, 3) identify the "husbands" of these teen-age girls, 4) charge, try, and convict these pedophiles masquerading as religious husbands.

[Mia]

Mia, the state imprisoned people (in state custody) without evidence AGAINST THEM.

I am going to wait to see the states case before I discuss this further, and you KNOW I don't support sex between adults and children, but this is a "blanket approach" tactic by the state, and the only people suffering are those kids being seperated from thier family by the state, and those mothers who are wondering what they should do if they don't "fit the bill" being "put on them" by the state.

I don't doubt there are some people who deserve this treatment, but I can assure you they all do not. Those that don't I would bet, will sue the hell out of the state after this, and rightly so I think. I hope they bankrupt the state in financial recuperation, maybe it'll teach them a lesson too.


How do you know until the investigation is through? How can you assure anything?

I like your statement that you will wait to see the state's case - that's helpful :thumbsup:

Informed commentary is always so much more interesting.

[Trish]

Mia and anyone else would have a DIFFERENT OPINION were they the one being wrongly held captive by the state, as child or mother. Talk about breeding a hate for the state........ blowback from this could be severe in the long run.

I wouldn't be handing my 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 year old daughter over to a man old enough to be her father or grandfather as his "bride." I wouldn't be calmly accepting the repeated sexual violation of my child by some fake husband. IF I did, the state would have EVERY right to take my child from me because I had failed to protect my child from harm.

WHEN is the step supposed to step in and protect a child when its parents refuse to do so? Should the state have to wait until I beat my child to death to step in? Should the state have to wait until I starve my child to death to step in. Does the state have to wait until my 12 year old is passed around to a dozen different men for sex to step in? Being given to 1 man isn't sufficient?

[Mia]

Mia and anyone else would have a DIFFERENT OPINION were they the one being wrongly held captive by the state, as child or mother. Talk about breeding a hate for the state........ blowback from this could be severe in the long run.

How do you know it's wrongly? If what they think is going on in there really is, you don't think the children needed removing? NO adult has been held.

All the women were given a choice: safe house or back to the compound. All but 6 chose to leave their children and go back to their shared husbands 'who are so patient, loving, kind' to 'Zion' which is 'heaven on earth'.

Yeah, I always thought DAMN why wasn't I illegally married off at 13 to a 54 year old with 6 other wives? That would be heaven, lol.

[cronic]

You can't cover all this up with the religion band-aid. Promoting sexual activity between young girls and grown assed men is ILLEGAL whether you are a FLDS deacon or the average pervert. Failure to intervene and protect a child from being preyed upon by these child molestors masquerading as pious husbands is also child abuse.

:clapper:

[Mia]

I wouldn't be handing my 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 year old daughter over to a man old enough to be her father or grandfather as his "bride." I wouldn't be calmly accepting the repeated sexual violation of my child by some fake husband. IF I did, the state would have EVERY right to take my child from me because I had failed to protect my child from harm.

WHEN is the step supposed to step in and protect a child when its parents refuse to do so? Should the state have to wait until I beat my child to death to step in? Should the state have to wait until I starve my child to death to step in. Does the state have to wait until my 12 year old is passed around to a dozen different men for sex to step in? Being given to 1 man isn't sufficient?

Os has momentarily forgotten that your constitutional rights don't cover your ass for violating those of another, and that children have rights in these United States.

He's a smart guy, he will remember this soon and be forced to apply some consistency about 'rights' to these kids. ;-)

[Osborn F. Enready]

Trish said:
WHEN is the step supposed to step in and protect a child when its parents refuse to do so?

When they have evidence.

Trish said:
Should the state have to wait until I beat my child to death to step in?

No, they have to wait however until there is evidence against YOU, (not those you live next to, or go to church or Bunco with) at least enough to legally make a case that CAN stick.

Trish said:
Should the state have to wait until I starve my child to death to step in.

Are you serious? They have to wait until the have evidence. If they never have evidence until the deed is done, then yes.

Trish said:
Does the state have to wait until my 12 year old is passed around to a dozen different men for sex to step in? Being given to 1 man isn't sufficient?

Are you not reading?

E V I D E N C E must be available to PROSECUTE WITH. So far I have not seen, though it may exist, evidence to seperate hundreds of people from their kids.

Mia said:
How do you know it's wrongly?

The question I AM ASKING, is how does the State know ITS NOT?!?
Evidence should be presented. From what I have seen so far, the state is NOT providing evidence enough to satisfy these people being accused, and seperated from their kids, and they have good reason to be more than a little upset. Did you watch Larry King interview some of the mothers last night?

Mia said:
If what they think is going on in there really is, you don't think the children needed removing?

I think they should do what has to be done based on EVIDENCE for individual cases, not against all of the people who live there as a group, as was done from all best estimates so far that I have seen.

Mia said:
NO adult has been held.

Being in state custody is like being in prison for those kids Mia.

Mia said:
All the women were given a choice: safe house or back to the compound. All but 6 chose to leave their children and go back to their shared husbands 'who are so patient, loving, kind' to 'Zion' which is 'heaven on earth'.

I am no fan of any religion Mia, so save the religious condecension for someone who will be affected by it.

Mia said:
Yeah, I always thought DAMN why wasn't I illegally married off at 13 to a 54 year old with 6 other wives? That would be heaven, lol.

Mia, thats bullshit. Did I advocate that somewhere? Have you seen me supporting polygamy or child rape or molestation?

No.

I am simply saying that ALL of those people are individuals, and they all have rights, and the state should not be treating them like cattle because they are part of a "religious sect" that has a reputation.

[Alonzo]

No, they have to wait however until there is evidence against YOU, (not those you live next to, or go to church or Bunco with) at least enough to legally make a case that CAN stick.

So if a little kid says her father touches her, the police have to wait until the kid presents actual evidence or proof before they can remove her against the fathers will?

That's BS, and I'm glad we don't operate that way.

[brien]

Brien, let me get this straight. I call from your house saying that you are holding me captive beating and raping me. How do the police verify me and my condition without coming in? Remember I called a domestic abuse hotline, not the police directly.

They're supposed to go 'oh well, Mia's going to have to suck an egg, she didn't call the right place, we can't verify she exists, much less made the call from that house, we'll just forget about it'.

The reason I mentioned TX is that while warrants fall under federal rules, CPS operates on a state-to-state basis, and this was a CPS operation, not LE, although they use LE in conjunction.

It might behoove you to familiarize yourself with CPS procedure before claiming they did it all wrong.


I never claimed anyone did anything "all wrong". Please.. I have no quarrel with the warrant to enter the premises. I know they had one. I am not arguing this. I am questioning the validity of the information the warrant was based upon because if it falls short of being air tight, any evidence siezed under it, will be excluded in a future trial.

I do question the existence of this alleged 16 yr old girl. They can't produce her and they can't produce any phone records to support the claim she called in to make the report. This is very suspicious.

I know what CPS can do, I would like to see them have to act like any other law enforcement agency and operate under the 4th amendment. If we don't hold these agencies to the same standards that we hold police to under the law, then we may as well throw out the 4th amendment.

[Mia]

E V I D E N C E must be available to PROSECUTE WITH. So far I have not seen, though it may exist, evidence to seperate hundreds of people from their kids.

Os, calm down, take a deep breath. No one is being P R O S E C U T E D without evidence. Child were T E M P O R A R I L Y removed in order TO conduct an investigation.

CPS cannot keep the kids without a H E A R I N G, during which E V I D E N C E must be produced, or back they go.

[Mia]

OS, I am simply saying that ALL of those people are individuals, and they all have rights, and the state should not be treating them like cattle because they are part of a "religious sect" that has a reputation.That's not what's happened. If I as a regular person had 10 kids here, and two were being abused, they could remove all ten. They remove all children thought to be in danger while they investigate - that's procedure - in this case, they took kids 5 or older only.

Don't like the law? Work to change it, but don't claim they're not operating within it, because they absolutely are.

[brien]

So if a little kid says her father touches her, the police have to wait until the kid presents actual evidence or proof before they can remove her against the fathers will?

That's BS, and I'm glad we don't operate that way.

So, if a little 8 year old girl gets angry with her father because he didn't let her watch Hanna Bannana, and she reports sexual abuse by him to her teacher in a government school, then how should the government go about investigating this charge? Should there be any reprisals by the state for false accusations? Do you take the word of an 8 yr old girl, over the word of a father who has never been in trouble with the law?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So if a little kid says her father touches her, the police have to wait until the kid presents actual evidence or proof before they can remove her against the fathers will?

No, and that doesn't tie into anything I said at all, since it is between a parent and child, not the child, the parent at the BEHEST of the state.

In that case, the child would be providing their OWN testimony as evidence, which would not be "anonymous".

[Alonzo]

No, and that doesn't tie into anything I said at all, since it is between a parent and child, not the child, the parent at the BEHEST of the state.

In that case, the child would be providing their OWN testimony as evidence, which would not be "anonymous".

So what if the child, after confessing to a teacher, upon being asked by police, refuses to answer one way or the other? That's very common.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
Os, calm down, take a deep breath. No one is being P R O S E C U T E D without evidence. Child were T E M P O R A R I L Y removed in order TO conduct an investigation.

Temporarily imprisoned, without evidence being presented, from what we have seen so far. For their own protection or not, the children see this as being TAKEN BY FORCE from their parents, which would be obvious when they physically seperated them at threat of force.

I don't think the state has the right to do this, without explicit evidence being present.
(my argument, as some of the mothers argue, is that that evidence is not being PROVIDED YET, while they have been seperated now for a period of time)

Mia said:
CPS cannot keep the kids without a H E A R I N G, during which E V I D E N C E must be produced, or back they go.

Hopefully, they will have to pay exorbitent sums of restitution to the mothers and children that are being wrongfully seperated, as I ALLEDGE many most likely are.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So what if the child, after confessing to a teacher, upon being asked by police, refuses to answer one way or the other? That's very common.

Then the police should have to wait until there is FURTHER EVIDENCE, or the girl agrees of her own will to testify.

Children also make false claims all the time Alonzo.... that happens a lot to, but you don't mention that of course.....

[brien]

So what if the child, after confessing to a teacher, upon being asked by police, refuses to answer one way or the other? That's very common.


Shouldn't there be consequences for filing false reports? Minor or no minor, if the police are going to rely upon a minor to base a investigation into sexual abuse, then if that minor files a false report, shouldn't they be prosecuted or placed into counselling for filing a false police report? There has to be a common ground that protects the rights of everyone involved without deferring to any one side before the truth is known.

When I was a child, we all knew that if we pulled the hook down on the firebox at the end of the street, we could be arrested for filing a false alarm. Is this any different in teaching children consequences for their actions?

[Alonzo]

Then the police should have to wait until there is FURTHER EVIDENCE, or the girl agrees of her own will to testify.

And you and I both know that if the girl won't say anything the father won't, and may very well threaten her not to say anything. There certainly won't be any evidence either without an investigation.

Children also make false claims all the time Alonzo.... that happens a lot to, but you don't mention that of course....

I'd like to see you back up the claim that false reports of abuse from children is common (I'm not talking about the satanic ritual abuse type crap that they actually believe).


Shouldn't there be consequences for filing false reports? Minor or no minor, if the police are going to rely upon a minor to base a investigation into sexual abuse, then if that minor files a false report, shouldn't they be prosecuted or placed into counselling for filing a false police report? There has to be a common ground that protects the rights of everyone involved without deferring to any one side before the truth is known.

Usually when a child reports it on their own, or gives clear signs on their own, then it's legit. They may deny it later, or refuse to answer, but at the very minimum any serious report should lead to an investigation. Rape victims often don't want to report, especially since they're often threatened.

Having an investigation and temporarily removing the child allows the best chance of uncovering evidence, and prevents the child from being threatened by the abuser.

[Trish]

So, if a little 8 year old girl gets angry with her father because he didn't let her watch Hanna Bannana, and she reports sexual abuse by him to her teacher in a government school, then how should the government go about investigating this charge? Should there be any reprisals by the state for false accusations? Do you take the word of an 8 yr old girl, over the word of a father who has never been in trouble with the law?

They remove the child from the home and conduct an investigation. They take the child to the doctor, they talk to family members, they talk to neighbors, teachers, ministers, etc. until they have evidence to support the allegation or dismiss it. But the FIRST thing they do is REMOVE the child. And yes, you most certainly do take the word of the child, because by the time most children report abuse they're already severely damaged. Most abuse isn't reported at all but found out by "accident."

[Trish]

Temporarily imprisoned, without evidence being presented, from what we have seen so far. For their own protection or not, the children see this as being TAKEN BY FORCE from their parents, which would be obvious when they physically seperated them at threat of force.

I don't think the state has the right to do this, without explicit evidence being present.
(my argument, as some of the mothers argue, is that that evidence is not being PROVIDED YET, while they have been seperated now for a period of time)



Hopefully, they will have to pay exorbitent sums of restitution to the mothers and children that are being wrongfully seperated, as I ALLEDGE many most likely are.


I don't have a print source yet as I just saw the report on my local ABC affiliate, but today was the first day of court appearances for all these cases. The state produced a document which lists 10 "marriages" of men to girls under 16. TEN. This is reported as being detailed on an "official" FLDS document found during the search. The authorities HAVE evidence. They had probable cause to conduct a search and they have evidence. Now the courts step in. This is all being done legally. Far from "rights" being denied, "rights" are being protectged - the rights of those children to BE children.

Do you not understand that this doesn't stop with the 10 girls? That EVERY girl there will face the same thing? Spiritually married to a much older man, forced to be sexually intimate, impregnated and bearing children that will endure the very same thing their mothers did? Even the boys aren't safe because they are being raised to believe this is right. For the adults - for the ones that CHOOSE this lifestyle I can turn a blind eye, but for the children, I agree with absolutely every thing that the state of Texas is doing and think they are handling things extraordinarily well considering the magnitude of this crisis.

[Mia]

Quote:
Mia said:
All the women were given a choice: safe house or back to the compound. All but 6 chose to leave their children and go back to their shared husbands 'who are so patient, loving, kind' to 'Zion' which is 'heaven on earth'.
I am no fan of any religion Mia, so save the religious condecension for someone who will be affected by it.

My sarcasm was directed at them, not you.

[Mia]

So, if a little 8 year old girl gets angry with her father because he didn't let her watch Hanna Bannana, and she reports sexual abuse by him to her teacher in a government school, then how should the government go about investigating this charge? Should there be any reprisals by the state for false accusations? Do you take the word of an 8 yr old girl, over the word of a father who has never been in trouble with the law?

The girl would be removed from the father if they believed her, and then an investigation would ensue.

Do you doubt that sexual abuse is taking place in this compound? Did they get pregnant perhaps by in-vitro fertilization, or are there more messiahs on the way?


I don't have a print source yet as I just saw the report on my local ABC affiliate, but today was the first day of court appearances for all these cases. The state produced a document which lists 10 "marriages" of men to girls under 16. TEN. This is reported as being detailed on an "official" FLDS document found during the search. The authorities HAVE evidence. They had probable cause to conduct a search and they have evidence. Now the courts step in. This is all being done legally. Far from "rights" being denied, "rights" are being protectged - the rights of those children to BE children.

Do you not understand that this doesn't stop with the 10 girls? That EVERY girl there will face the same thing? Spiritually married to a much older man, forced to be sexually intimate, impregnated and bearing children that will endure the very same thing their mothers did? Even the boys aren't safe because they are being raised to believe this is right. For the adults - for the ones that CHOOSE this lifestyle I can turn a blind eye, but for the children, I agree with absolutely every thing that the state of Texas is doing and think they are handling things extraordinarily well considering the magnitude of this crisis.

Excellent :worship:

I can't believe it took so long to get in there. God bless those kids and help them adjust.

[Mia]

I don't know which thread this belongs in, but let us not forget about welfare fraud. These people have gotten almost 3M from the government to finance this little party.

1/2 of that is welfare checks to single mothers. Single mothers? I thought they are married. Weird. Married or not, one is supposed to give the name of the father to get welfare, so that the state can seek child support from him.

No matter which way they try to twist things, they are breaking a lot of laws.



Shouldn't there be consequences for filing false reports? Minor or no minor, if the police are going to rely upon a minor to base a investigation into sexual abuse, then if that minor files a false report, shouldn't they be prosecuted or placed into counselling for filing a false police report? There has to be a common ground that protects the rights of everyone involved without deferring to any one side before the truth is known.

When I was a child, we all knew that if we pulled the hook down on the firebox at the end of the street, we could be arrested for filing a false alarm. Is this any different in teaching children consequences for their actions?

Sounds like a new thread in the making - can we refrain from derailing this one?

[Trish]

I can't believe it took so long to get in there. God bless those kids and help them adjust.

It took so long because they had to have probable cause to go in there. They may have "known" or "suspected" or whatever, but until those phone calls they didn't have probable cause. The women and kids rarely, if ever, left the compound. With the women and kids safely confined in the compound there was no way to verify any suspicion. Those phone calls changed everything.

I hope they find that girl. Since during the 2nd call she was crying and recanting what she said during the 1st, I'd bet you good money someone found out about that first call and was trying to do damage control. I hope she's okay. I have a dread that she's being held somewhere out of touch with everyone. But that's just my suspicions based on nothing but my gut.

[Mia]

Then the police should have to wait until there is FURTHER EVIDENCE, or the girl agrees of her own will to testify.

Children also make false claims all the time Alonzo.... that happens a lot to, but you don't mention that of course.....


I hope my post on this gets moved with all the other off-topic ones. The subject of false allegations in general, not related to this cult, deserves its own thread.

Yes, there are false allegations.

What would constitute proof to a debater like Zo, however?

I'm not answering until I know.

[potter]

I don't know which thread this belongs in, but let us not forget about welfare fraud. These people have gotten almost 3M from the government to finance this little party.

1/2 of that is welfare checks to single mothers. Single mothers? I thought they are married. Weird. Married or not, one is supposed to give the name of the father to get welfare, so that the state can seek child support from him.

Sounds like a new thread in the making - can we refrain from derailing this one?

Welfare fraud is a more solid reason to bust them IMO. Bust the leaders and leave the women and children together.

What the authorities did was wrong IMO.

[potter]

Who's being punished? No one. The children are being protected. Punishment isn't even a factor until authorities can


That's real easy for you to say sitting there in your home at your computer. The kids are scared shitless, I guarentee. They want their mommies and these feds are giving them nightmares.

[Mia]

That's real easy for you to say sitting there in your home at your computer. The kids are scared shitless, I guarentee. They want their mommies and these feds are giving them nightmares.

At least the feds aren't raping them.

[Trish]

That's real easy for you to say sitting there in your home at your computer. The kids are scared shitless, I guarentee. They want their mommies and these feds are giving them nightmares.

Unlike the nightmare of having an old man crawl on top of you for sex when you're 16 or under? Somehow I think I'd choose the fed nightmare - at least I couldn't get pregnant with that nightmare.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Trish said:
Unlike the nightmare of having an old man crawl on top of you for sex when you're 16 or under? Somehow I think I'd choose the fed nightmare - at least I couldn't get pregnant with that nightmare.

Mia said:
At least the feds aren't raping them.


...... yea, because we know state care is all happiness and being treated like royalty.....

I am betting neither of you have visited or stayed at a state youth facility?

Whats even more interesting, about where these kids are being put? Its an old fort, a museum, and the state is NOT equipped to deal with this as is evidenced by this situation.

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About/News/2008/2008-04-09_chronology.asp

Judge Barbara Walther ordered DFPS to keep all 416 children removed from the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints compound in the San Angelo area until a hearing on April 17, 2008. Therefore, no children will be placed into foster care before the hearing and all will remain in shelters.

A number of state agencies are working together to make all the children as comfortable as possible, and to meet all their physical, medical and psychology needs while they are in San Angelo.

Including 139 women who are companying the children, the state is providing for 555 people in shelters at this time.


The children have been moved to a single large shelter at the San Angelo Coliseum, which provides more room and facilities for guests. With permission from Judge Barbara Walther, DFPS moved about two dozen teenage boys to a facility outside the area.

"Children in the Coliseum and pavilion are adapting well to their new surroundings. About 400 women and children under the age of 5 are housed in the San Angelo Coliseum. About 100 older children are in the adjacent Wells Fargo Pavilion. About two dozen teenage boys are being housed in a licensed foster care facility outside the immediate area."


I still doubt they have grounds to do this to all the people involved.

[Trish]

I am betting neither of you have visited or stayed at a state youth facility?



You'd be correct on that score, but I have endured rape. I wasn't a child at the time, however, I understand full well that helpless, sick, never again going to be clean or safe feeling.

[potter]

At least the feds aren't raping them.


When there is proof anyone else was "raping them" I'll reconsider. Until then....

BTW...you have a much higher opinion of the feds than I, I wouldn't put rape of a captive past the feds for one second.

[Mia]

That's what they are finding out, folks! How else can they? The children won't talk with parents around threatening them with Hell. They can't conduct this investigation inside the compound.

This is how it's done by CPS everywhere across the country. Don't like it, work to change the laws. But they are operating within them right now.

[brien]

They remove the child from the home and conduct an investigation. They take the child to the doctor, they talk to family members, they talk to neighbors, teachers, ministers, etc. until they have evidence to support the allegation or dismiss it. But the FIRST thing they do is REMOVE the child. And yes, you most certainly do take the word of the child, because by the time most children report abuse they're already severely damaged. Most abuse isn't reported at all but found out by "accident."

So, no consequences for the child who fabricates the story? btw, my heartfelt sorrow to learn of your ordeal.

[brien]

[QUOTE=Mia;166031]The girl would be removed from the father if they believed her, and then an investigation would ensue.

Do you doubt that sexual abuse is taking place in this compound? Did they get pregnant perhaps by in-vitro fertilization, or are there more messiahs on the way?

QUOTE]

I don't know anything about what was going on in there. The only people who really know are those who lived there. The investigation will produce evidence, and when it is published, we all will know what was going on in there. I find is useless and somewhat self serving to speculate about it until the evidence is presented to the courts and published in the media.

Are you purporting to know who the biological fathers are to these pregnant women? Doesn't our society produce children, who at age 13, get pregnant? Are they forced as well?

Meanwhile, the circus rolls on down there.

[cronic]

I'm not gonna get re-involved here.. I can't.. so.. I'm sorry Trish and Mia.. I do applaud you both tho for continuing to try and shed light on the nay sayers here who continue to defend mothers who are accomplices to rape and child molestation, as well as welfare fraud. I just can't continue on typing and showing how the law had the legal right to remove those children from the law breakers. No mater how much you show.. it still won't be enough. People read.. but it just doesn't sink in.. They want clear cut video proof, because seeing beyond, even just a little bit into reality, is apparently not an option for them.

Thus, Imma give up for a while.
It's like beating a dead horse... People here wanna defend these people no matter what.. the same people that I see otherwise post in favor of the law..
in this thread.. They don't wanna acknowledge the law

I will expect to read at least a couple people after this post requesting more links and proof.. but just so ya know.. I wont be digging around on the computer more today looking for it..Or this weekend...I probably wont even see it till at least Monday..If you want proof.. google it yourselves because I wont waste anymore of my time. I plan on not logging in to this place for the rest of this day and weekend because I have real life shit to do and frankly.. coming here usually results in me spending way more time then I care to, and it just takes to much of my valuable time away from whats real and important in life.

Its to damn beautiful outside so imma enjoy life on the outside today if I can..
so after this quick post.. bye bye forum and every other webpage on the internet for the rest of the day.

Just a quicky..
and brien.. I not picking on you particular..lol...
hope we still buddies.



Are you purporting to know who the biological fathers are to these pregnant women? Doesn't our society produce children, who at age 13, get pregnant? Are they forced as well?


We are talking about children.. not women..

Statutory rape:
If the girl was 12, 13, or 14, or 15.. horny as hell and ripped her clothes off and told pete and repete.. I'm gonna fuck you silly.. weather you like it or not.. it's totally 100% the girls wishes to have sex with them

It is "still" rape.. and those men can claim they didn't want it.. but.. they will still be charged and go to jail for rape.

Alot more info has come out today.
investigations have now uncovered 20 underage girls that had or are having babies.

also.. someone brought up the missing 16 year old girl...

sorry to burst ya bubbles.. but.. interviews done yesterday with some of the children.. has uncovered a number of girls saying yes.. they do know who the caller is and they had actually seen her in the garden a few days before the raid.. so.. If the children themselves know she is real and seen her.. I guess maybe now we can eliminate or come closer anyways to omit the doubt of her being a fake.

Ok.. ok.. we can wait and see if all of these girls were inseminated or maybe getting pregnant by other minors...

But
My gut.. and my foresight about this cult of people tell me otherwise.
Why?.. I have googled.. I have read extensively on this religious cult of peoples and how they live and how they treat there women and children...


Ok I lied.. here .. I will do your work for you.. I have picked out a few links.. feel free to google yourselves as there is 1323 related stories and My bet is 1000 of them are from this particular case.

You will find the statements I made about 20 girls being preggo and the supposedly fake 16 year old caller being identified by other children, in those links.. I'm not pasting quotes today.. if you wanna know.. freaking read it yourselves

LINK 1 (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5712603.html)
LINK 2 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD904EBFG0)
LINK 3 (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/041908dnmetpolygamy.77507369.html)
LINK 4 (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/18/polygamy.custody/?iref=mpstoryview)
LINK 5 (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4680903&page=1)

Peace out ya all:peace:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Yes, we defend all people equally..... that is what rights are all about.

You think its unnecessary.... until you get caught being the one who did nothing, but slammed by the media, the state, the police, etc.

I think the children being ripped from their mother is doing more harm on the bulk of them, than simply letting them all be together with their kids seperated from the fathers.

For people who care so much about the kids, you sure do underplay the shock and trauma on the kids from being ripped from thier famillies, when the actual "threat" can be removed by just removing the men from the women and kids.

I think they are overstepping their authority, and it could just be done with less trauma for the kids.

[Mia]

[quote=Mia;166031]The girl would be removed from the father if they believed her, and then an investigation would ensue.

Do you doubt that sexual abuse is taking place in this compound? Did they get pregnant perhaps by in-vitro fertilization, or are there more messiahs on the way?

QUOTE]

I don't know anything about what was going on in there. The only people who really know are those who lived there. The investigation will produce evidence, and when it is published, we all will know what was going on in there. I find is useless and somewhat self serving to speculate about it until the evidence is presented to the courts and published in the media.

Are you purporting to know who the biological fathers are to these pregnant women? Doesn't our society produce children, who at age 13, get pregnant? Are they forced as well?

Meanwhile, the circus rolls on down there.

Right, well former members, who lived this, are saying what goes on. This has a long history, dating over 100 years.

You say you know nothing about it; there are a volumes about it available at your fingertips.

I am not purporting to know who the fathers are, DNA testing will determine that, but when you have 20 year olds with 8 children, do the math.:thumbsup:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Why can't they simply seperate the mothers and children from the fathers, instead of seperating the mothers and children and fathers?

Wouldn't the children being with their mothers calm a lot of the dispute between the women, children and state? (yes)

[Mia]

Yes, we defend all people equally..... that is what rights are all about.

You think its unnecessary.... until you get caught being the one who did nothing, but slammed by the media, the state, the police, etc.

I think the children being ripped from their mother is doing more harm on the bulk of them, than simply letting them all be together with their kids seperated from the fathers.

For people who care so much about the kids, you sure do underplay the shock and trauma on the kids from being ripped from thier famillies, when the actual "threat" can be removed by just removing the men from the women and kids.

I think they are overstepping their authority, and it could just be done with less trauma for the kids.

What is your source that they are traumatized besides the mothers (who aren't in contact with them, so how would they know?) saying so and projecting your opinions on them?

Someone overseeing them said they think it's an adventure - like a field trip.

Who is to be believed? IDK, but I know that it's he said/she said on that point until we actually hear from the kids themselves.

[Mia]

Why can't they simply seperate the mothers and children from the fathers, instead of seperating the mothers and children and fathers?

Wouldn't the children being with their mothers calm a lot of the dispute between the women, children and state? (yes)

Because the mothers will influence the kids and they want straight answers. Mothers in this situation are always separate from questioning for this reason. It's not unique to this case.

Now, I know that CPS can do the same - demand that children own up to abuse that never happened.

I hope to God they don't do that, as just as sure as I am that some have been abused, I am equally sure many have not been (yet - but they would be if they were left there).

[Mia]

Nancy Grace is rerunning (3) times tonight with lots of interviews with actual sect members and legal experts for anyone who wants to get the information they say is lacking.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Nancy Grace is no kind of investigative journalist..... her bias is as obvious as the oceans.

Nancy Grace has a track record, I am suprised they still let her have airtime.

[brien]

This whole mess is way out of control. It seems like almost everything I have written about this is now true. The original complaint seems to have come from a woman who is not a member of the group who called in a false police report from outside of Texas, ie, there is no 16 year old girl in the group who was hiding because she was scared to come out. The complaintant wasn't 16, and didn't even belong to this church. A fellow was accused of rape at the FLDS and he hasn't been in Texas for several years. The amount of inaccurate information that surrounds this case is astounding.

The grounds for the warrant seems to be based upon false information, filed by a person who is not whom the authorities say she was, and therefore, it seems there was no evidence of immediate child abuse to warrant the raid. There are no battered or bruised children. There are no children complaining of mistreatment. The warrant used by the Texas authorities was fraught with inaccuracies and seems to be based upon misinformation which just may get the FLDS off at the end of the day.

We see some preposterous statements being made by the Texas CPS. This one according to the CSM:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0421/p01s02-usju.html

" At the hearing last week, Texas Child Protective Services workers testified to finding instances of at least 20 girls, some of whom are now adults, who had conceived or given birth before the age of 16 or 17."

************************************************** ****************

Like we don't see this in any other community in the US as well. Furthermore, is this the basis in every community to remove children from their homes? If so, we better start establishing lots of foster care homes across the US because, when we sweep all of America for this, you will have so many 16 and 17 year old mothers, you won't have room for them all.

The incidence of children under the age of 16 being pregnant in the FLDS, is probably far less than that of society in general, yet people are "outraged" over the incidence in this community. Do we see the same "outrage" for this same problem in the black community on social welfare? There is still no evidence that these girls were impregnated by men "twice their age". I have yet to see criminal charges even filed in this case, yet the government continues to separate these children upon no more grounds than mere suspicions. Outrageous.

From the CSM article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0421/p01s02-usju.html?page=2

"As of now, no criminal charges have been filed in this case"

The implications of this raid are far reaching for mothers everywhere in this nation. The erosion of civil and constitutional rights in this case is stunning because it suggests that the government can remove children from their home based upon "suspicions" and little or no evidence. I have no problem with investigating parents anywhere for these types of crimes, even when there is a suggestion of a crime, but when children are actually removed from their home before there is a shred of evidence, it is downright scary, if not unconstitutional. In the FLDS case, there was no immediate verifiable threat to these children.

These people lived in a community of their own and kept to themselves. They practice a religion that may not be mainstream, but it hasn't been proved to be harmful to anyone yet. Everything that goes on in that community, you can probably find in your community as well, perhaps even worse. Doesn't your community suffer from rape, and doesn't it ever involve a minor? Haven't we seen adults abuse minors? Haven't we seen adults consort with underage minors in other communities across America? And when we do see this, does the state rush in and remove those minors immediately from their homes? Do we see the government do this in the black community when underage girls turn up pregnant? Are underage black girls removed from their parents homes and are the parents accused of child abuse?

I seem to recall a school teacher Mary Letourneau having sex with an underage student in her school, and eventually marrying him, and having his child. Were that boy's parents prosecuted for child abuse for allowing their son to have sexual intercourse with his teacher? I don't think you can find one action in the Texas FLDS community that you can't find in your own community. Therefore, when you allow the authorities to run roughshod over the rights of these people, then you are inviting the same type of government behaviour into your own community. I say be careful what you wish for, because you just may get it.

[potter]

"The incidence of children under the age of 16 being pregnant in the FLDS, is probably far less than that of society in general, yet people are "outraged" over the incidence in this community. "


My my my...didn't a movie about the pregnancy of a 16 year old "Juno" garner several Oscars last year? Not for the shocking fact that a 16 year old was pregnant...but because she had quick wit?

:ponder:

[brien]

"The incidence of children under the age of 16 being pregnant in the FLDS, is probably far less than that of society in general, yet people are "outraged" over the incidence in this community. "


My my my...didn't a movie about the pregnancy of a 16 year old "Juno" garner several Oscars last year? Not for the shocking fact that a 16 year old was pregnant...but because she had quick wit?

:ponder:

Ding ding ding ding ding ding....Right on Potter. Give that man his prize.. Our selective outrage is somewhat hypocritical now, isn't it.

[potter]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding....Right on Potter. Give that man his prize.. Our selective outrage is somewhat hypocritical now, isn't it.


"selective" outrage is about right.

We as a society tend to be outraged at whatever the media 'Selects" for us to be outraged at any particular moment.........:dork:

If it weren't for the media we'd never know what to think....

[Mia]

Nancy Grace is no kind of investigative journalist..... her bias is as obvious as the oceans.

Nancy Grace has a track record, I am suprised they still let her have airtime.

What does that have to do with the interviews she's airing?

She's not the one interviewing them - it's still good information.

[Mia]

Ding ding ding all you want, he didn't hit on anything - the comparison of consensual teen on teen sex to spiritual marriage to older men by force is completely invalid.

That is what is alleged. No, it's not been proven yet with regard to the individuals in the TX compound. In this country we do investigations first before prosecuting people - the proof will come.

The outrage is over the allegations, which are very easy to believe since there IS already PROOF that the FLDS does this - Warren Jeff's is in jail for it.

A Utah judge Tuesday sentenced polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs to two consecutive prison terms of five years to life for his conviction on two counts of being an accomplice to rape, a court spokeswoman said.

Jeffs, 51, the "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or FLDS, was convicted in September.


He was accused of using his religious influence over his followers to coerce a 14-year-old girl into marriage to her 19-year-old cousin.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/jeffs.sentence/index.html

Jessop is now the big man on campus in the TX branch - watch the interview with one of his ex-wives (Carolyn Jessop) and tell me she's lying.

[potter]

In this country we do investigations first before prosecuting people - the proof will come.




Now I'm curious Mia, what country do you live in?

In the country I live in, the prosecuting attorney decides someone is guilty pretty much on "gut feelings" and then does everything he/she can regardless of evidence to prove that person is guilty, including ignoring any evidence that might prove innocence....kinda like how we went to war.

I like the concept of how it works in your country though.....probably not as many innocent people rotting away in your prisons are there? :thumbsup:

[Mia]

In the country I live in, the prosecuting attorney decides someone is guilty pretty much on "gut feelings" and then does everything he/she can regardless of evidence to prove that person is guilty, including ignoring any evidence that might prove innocence....

Sometimes true! But there are highly paid attorneys that do the exact same thing for the defense, and these people have the big bucks to hire hundreds of them. :fight:

One aspect that we haven't touched on is that in a small, closed community with people inter-marrying, babies are born with birth defects and disease.

Even if we agreed that they should be able to 'do what they want' what about this aspect?

We (taxpayers) pay for the medical care required as a result of illegal coupling (incest is illegal married or not, underage or not).

There are a multitude of legal and moral issues in play. It's not simple by any means.

[potter]

On that we can agree....it's not a simple issue.

I do hope however that the authorities do not continue with this concept of incarcerating large groups of people (You may sugar coat the term incarceration any way you wish, but it's still incarceration) based on the actions of a very few people.

[Mia]

So are all the children across this country who are TEMPORARILY removed from homes thought to be a danger to them WHILE that allegation of danger is investigated deemed 'incarcerated', or do you have a bias in this case to call it that with reference to these?

[brien]

[QUOTE=Mia;167698]Ding ding ding all you want, he didn't hit on anything - the comparison of consensual teen on teen sex to spiritual marriage to older men by force is completely invalid.

That is what is alleged. No, it's not been proven yet with regard to the individuals in the TX compound. In this country we do investigations first before prosecuting people - the proof will come.

The outrage is over the allegations, which are very easy to believe since there IS already PROOF that the FLDS does this - Warren Jeff's is in jail for it.




Now Mia;
How do you know there is forcible rape going on in that compound. The authorities can't even say this for certain. Please. But no matter, show us your proof that even one girl who was bussed out of there whom was forcibly impregnated by an older man. We need names, sworn testimony, and DNA proof. You have this?

Seems to me you are jumping the proverbial gun here when you allude to Warren Jeffs. Because your neighbor is in jail for the same crimes that Mr Jeffs is, does that make your husband(if you have/had one) guilty by association as well? Preposterous.

I have no problem with investigations but people aren't normally jailed or removed from their homes while the investigation is being conducted. If this were the case, then we wouldn't have enough jails and foster homes to hold all of these people during ongoing investigations that often lasts for months on end. Your support of removing people from their homes while investigations are being conducted, flys in the face of the 4th and 5th amendment. The only reason one should be forcibly removed from their home is because the search warrant is being executed, but even then, the suspect is usually allowed to return to his/ her home.

This investigation down in Texas is a mess and a legal nightmare and will not be resolved anytime soon. The main difference between you and others in this matter, seems to be that some refuse to predict that anyone is guilty here, and you seem to be hoping there is this great scandal of old men forcibly screwing underage girls. Some hope for the best, and you seem to hope for the worst. Some are content to see what the evidence brings forth, and what the courts determine from that evidence. You seem to predict that the evidence will convict those who you have prejudged in order to vindicate your position here. Some are content to wait and urge the State of Texas to follow the law and respect the rights of the accused according to the limits of their contitutional rights. These people are presumed innocent until proven guilty but you wouldn't know it from some opinions here.

[potter]

So are all the children across this country who are TEMPORARILY removed from homes thought to be a danger to them WHILE that allegation of danger is investigated deemed 'incarcerated', or do you have a bias in this case to call it that with reference to these?

Are any of these children free to leave? and return home?

"Custody" is only a more PC term for incarcerated.

[Mia]

Are any of these children free to leave? and return home?

"Custody" is only a more PC term for incarcerated.

Children who are removed from their parents to a foster home while their parents are being investigated? No, they are not permitted to go home.

I'm speaking to all the children in this circumstance, not the ones from the compound - do you also refer to them as incarcerated?

If so, is that wrong? Should we put all the children back into homes where we have reason to believe they are being abused until the investigation is complete?

You realize kids died when we have done this, hence the policy of removal.

As to your other comments, courts of law are required to adhere to innocent until proven guilty - I'm not an officer of the court. I can look at the volumes of documentation on this and form a personal opinion.

What is fact, is that their prophet, whose picture is on the wall of every single room in the compound and they are told to worship, was found guilty by a court of law for accomplice to rape for arranging a marriage between cousins, one of which was underage.

They were unable to prove (or didn't try? IDK) all the girls he slept with underage, but several have done interviews stating he did - are you saying they are liars?

Warren Jeff's nephew said he and his half-brother were sodomized by Jeffs. Is he lying?

Jessop, the current leader, has two ex-wives who speak regularly with regard to what he does - no, the court has not proven this yet, but I believe them and my comments are based on that and the testimony of many others.

Not to mention what I see from the women who stay - their interviews say a lot too.

[potter]

Would you take this tact with any other church, say the Catholic Church, where many priests are known be pediophiles?

Do you think every child in the catholic church should be taken away from their parents and held by each state government until it is proven they are not being molested by their preist...to protect them? There is just cause for concern. After all it is common knowledge that this practice is widespread in the catholic church, and if you have your child there, the parents are knowingly exposing them to it.

The children must be protected at all cost....right?

[Mia]

That is not remotely comparable.

If there is a compound where the children are under the authority of the pedophile priests, and their mothers are handing them over to be molested, then yes I would support the same action.

The children must be protected at all cost....right?




I didn't say anything of the sort. I said these children should be protected from these parents.

You will not find me in support of every law enacted in the name of 'saving children'. My remarks go to this case.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I fault you for assuming the state takes good care of children Mia.

[brien]

I fault you for assuming the state takes good care of children Mia.

And I fault her for failing to address my last post to her asking her to prove her accusations against the FLDS. Oh well, when one has nothing to say, sometimes it says it all....

[Mia]

I fault you for assuming the state takes good care of children Mia.

Where did I say that?

[Mia]

And I fault her for failing to address my last post to her asking her to prove her accusations against the FLDS. Oh well, when one has nothing to say, sometimes it says it all....

That's a ridiculous request - the state is not ready to prove it yet, they are investigating. If I could do what you're asking, I wouldn't be here typing, I'd be down at the prosecutor's office.

What I am arguing, is that IF the allegations are true, these children need to be removed, and some of these people charged with crimes.

I am also giving my reasons for believing they are true.

I have seen testimony from several people who escaped THIS group, convictions for the guy they worship, and testimony from other parts of the same group in different compounds.

The current leader is a Lt. for the one in jail - what you've got is 'maybe the Lt. decided to take a turn and do things completely different than they've been doing all these years' and nothing to back that up.

[potter]

Would you support imprisoning people in general while the authorities work to determine if there is a crime...or just in this case?

Have you considered the phycological damage the authorities are doing to these children? Especially the babbies that were pulled from their mothers teat?

[potter]

I'd also like to add that some foster homes are run by people who only do it for the check they receive each month from the state. The more children, the bigger the check...which they use to buy cadillacs and fancy homes while the children are tasked with doing the chores.

[Mia]

Would you support imprisoning people in general while the authorities work to determine if there is a crime...or just in this case?

Have you considered the phycological damage the authorities are doing to these children? Especially the babbies that were pulled from their mothers teat?

Nursing mothers are allowed to nurse, as of the judges order yesterday. Minors with children of their own stay with their babies all the time.

You didn't answer my question as to whether every child removed from a home where there is abuse constitutes 'incarceration' and if you support CPS ceasing to remove any children ever to foster care, or if it's specific to this case that you have a bias against it.

Yes, I have considered the damage being done. Taking these children out is like taking them to the moon.

But we have moon-suits. They are breathing just fine, they are enjoying the toys, and the state is working to get more organic food to accommodate their digestive systems.

No one is being raped or water-tortured right now. So I think the bad is outweighed by the good.

[Mia]

I'd also like to add that some foster homes are run by people who only do it for the check they receive each month from the state. The more children, the bigger the check...which they use to buy cadillacs and fancy homes while the children are tasked with doing the chores.

I know that. And these kids are easy marks for such a thing.

There is no easy solution, there is not even a good one. But it would be disgusting just to send them back. Known danger vs. possible danger or possible wonderful life. Which door would you walk through?

Do you think every single person who has escaped from there is lying? Or on what do you base your contention that there is not probable cause to safeguard these kids?

[potter]

You didn't answer my question as to whether every child removed from a home where there is abuse constitutes 'incarceration' and if you support CPS ceasing to remove any children ever to foster care, or if it's specific to this case that you have a bias against it.
.


I have a deep seated distrust of anything government. Once the government has posession of a person, that person basically ceases to be a human and becomes government "property".

So I'll not change my opinion of the "incarceration"

[Mia]

potter, I can understand you on that, and it helps me understand why you argue the way you do.

In this case, though, the women and children are already property, and already incarcerated. I think they have a better shot with the state.

[Mia]

The count is up to 462 children, 25 more pregnant teens:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3160399

Today, Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) says there are dozens of underage girls in that group who have children themselves, or are now pregnant.

Texas Child Protective Services says this is why all of the children were removed from the ranch. Their investigators found evidence of physical and sexual abuse. Azar says, "Based upon what we found when we got to the ranch, not based upon what we had in the original report, we found that there were a number of children that had been sexually abused, and there were other types of abuse.


"And we found there was a systematic process going on in which young girls were being groomed to be wives of middle-aged men and have their children at a very young age, as young as 13 years old. In that environment, there was no way to make those children safe. You have to remember not only did we have adult men, who may have been sexually abusing children, but you had adult women who had not protected them in the past. And in that situation, you can't allow the children to be there at this time."

[brien]

That's a ridiculous request - the state is not ready to prove it yet, they are investigating. If I could do what you're asking, I wouldn't be here typing, I'd be down at the prosecutor's office.

What I am arguing, is that IF the allegations are true, these children need to be removed, and some of these people charged with crimes.

I am also giving my reasons for believing they are true.

I have seen testimony from several people who escaped THIS group, convictions for the guy they worship, and testimony from other parts of the same group in different compounds.

The current leader is a Lt. for the one in jail - what you've got is 'maybe the Lt. decided to take a turn and do things completely different than they've been doing all these years' and nothing to back that up.


Fair enough. However, the state's one wide brush has painted everyone associated with this group a suspect. Now, that said, the next time several teens turn up pregnant in a Section 8 housing project, I wonder if the state would have the bullocks to round everyone up, remove those teens from their respective families while they investigate, and determine who impregnated whom by forcing everyone to be subject to DNA tests. Sound right to you?

[Mia]

Actually, Drs. are required to report all teen pregnancies, and when that is done, it is supposed to be investigated to determine who the father is. If he's an adult, he's going down for statutory rape.

SO, nothing different there. Happens every day here outside of that compound. Go look at the stats on statutory rape convictions,,,,,

However, it is not a fair comparison to round up all the people in a Section 8 housing project, unless they all have their children under the authority of the same adults, adults who are suspected of child abuse - if you find one like that, then yes the very same thing would sound right to me :-)