Polygamist Pedophiles and Papal Pontifications
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 01:32
VIEWED: 23329
PAGE 18 of 28
Frem
I really have no interest in debating your posts at length. But I'll do it this once to point out the issues I have with things you say.
"To cook up a bullshit warrant, go on a fishing expedition ..."
I keep asking you - HOW were the Texas authorities supposed to know ? They got a call from a Texas woman's shelter that deemed the calls that they received credible. All other calls made were to an ARIZONA woman's shelter. So, how was that information supposed to be magically divined in Texas ? HHmmm ? You have still to answer that one, and all your repeated sputtering doesn't address that one simple, straightforward question.
"... and separate every parent of that belief from their kids ..."
Are you trying to tell me that after seeing very young pregnant girls in a group known for underage marriage that it was about beliefs and not children ?
"... permanently ..."
Not permanently. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it any more true.
"... without even an accusation of wrongdoing ?"
One thing I learned elsewhere is that in polygamous societies children call many women 'mother'. So while it MAY be true that children were being 'evasive' as Perry described them, it could also be true that they were just doing what children do in polygamous societies. Or maybe even both. And I don't really care. The problem is is that no one in the group seemed capable of pointing out who was the birth mother or father, and therefore, who was legally responsible for the welfare of any one child - the neglectors if you will. Similarly, no one seemed capable of pointing out the husbands of the younger girls, or identifying the fathers of their children - the abusers if you will. And, as children and women were - by the accounts of those who left or had been kicked out - frequently reassigned to other men and other mothers, even a child who was 'with' a mother might have been birthed by someone else. Hence the need for DNA to untangle lines of responsibility and culpability.
"I haven't for a moment forgotten what FLDS is guilty of, or rather individuals within it are - but that's the thing, you can no more legally stomp this religion for that than you could stomp the entire Catholic Church for the same."
I addressed this elsewhere, but to repeat, the FLDS preaches it as a matter of dogma and suborns parents to enforce this belief. Unlike the catholic church, which, I hope you stop to realize, makes it a different matter.
"Folks bought the warrant too, and now that falls - and if you think they're gonna throw out the search just because it was illegal ..."
And yet again, you make claims completely unsupported by anything but other of your own unsupported claims. This gets back to the first question - until you can explain to me exactly HOW the Texas police were supposed to get information about ARIZONA calls, I just file this under Frem supporting bluster with more bluster. And without that one simple answer, all of your other claims that depend on it fall down.
"... considering how many other laws they have violated at this point ..."
You tell me.
"And just look at the pregnancy issue, look at some of the bullshit that has been thrown, and blown to bits -
Claim of 13yr pregnant girls - straight bullshit, that one."
To be specific, the claim was of a 13 year old who HAD been pregnant. And, apparently, you don't know the permanent physical changes that happen at different stages during pregnancy. So, yes, one can tell if a female has been pregnant and even get a general idea of how many months it lasted. Further, you seem to think that the Texas troopers that did the raid, the medical system that performed the exams, the Texas child welfare department, and the judge are all in on some grand conspiracy to get the FLDS by any means necessary. So the rangers, the caseworkers, the doctors and the judge all have to perjure themselves to create a consistent story regarding their observations and findings. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly.
"Claim of
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A record of that call exists, in fact we have found that in spite of repeated denials, a TAPE RECORDING of that call exists, as well as the billing record of the number in question, which is indeed from Swinsons phone.
SOP for a tip like this is to seek verification prior to a warrant.
Either they did not do this, a violation of procedure, or they did do this, which means they knew damn well the tip was bogus given that it originated from a number previously used in making fraudulent claims.
And the warrant falls regardless, as it was based on a fraudulent claim to begin with.
Is it about belief, hell yes it is.
An underage pregnancy is evidence of a crime, professing to or holding a belief is not evidence of a crime regardless of what the belief in question happens to be.
From a purely legal standpoint here.
You have the accusation that this belief does certain things.
That has to be proven to a legal standard, one could accuse other beliefs of the same things, but without solid evidence of the belief as a whole making it an official practice, you have nothing, otherwise we might as well round up all Catholic children as well based on the same accusations.
You have the accusation that certain folk are members of this belief.
Now that's simple, you can ask them and they will likely tell you, but it does require at least much effort to establish the connection.
You have the accusation that certain folk within this belief have committed one or more crimes.
Well, once you have verified a specific allegation and have probable cause to believe this is true, then you get a warrant and arrest them for the crime in question, and this is followed by a trial to determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent of such.
I note that this has not yet occured whatsoever, the initial warrant was completely fraudulent and thus invalid, and the second warrant was based on the evidence of an illegal search, and broad enough in scope to violate the fourth amendment protection against blanket searches.
Unless a specific allegation against each INDIVIDUAL parent, backed by an actual warrant, exists - which it does not, then this is indeed founded on the basis of belief, and a violation of the first amendment as well as the fourth.
As for the State's intent to make that seperation permanent ?
That intent was announced quite publicly by Marleigh Meisner, of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, on April 15th 2008 at approximately 2pm during a news conference at the San Angelo museum.
As for the rest, some of it,
A judge can issue a warrant, but not an outright decree.
Those are different things, because a warrant can be challenged, but if no warrant exists, that presents a legal hurdle never intended in our system since by having nothing TO challenge, there's very little in the way of procedure to put a stop to it, and a warrant must be specific, to an individual or it violates the fourth amendment requirements.
As I said before, you do not get my hole cards until you show your own, you have yet to show me absolute proof that FLDS preaches these things as a matter of official policy, and until you do that, I will not share information obtained out of the public eye - but you might perhaps consider reading some of the court transcripts yourself, as they are legally public information and I am sure they would be quite... informative... regarding both these issues and the relative merits and intentions of the State in this matter.
As for the laws they broke, shit, well let's start here..
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presen
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is an INDIVIDUAL requirement, for each and every child, with a specific time limit, and in fact this law exists to PREVENT incidents like this.
And it WAS violated, utterly - no one can make the claim that it was not.
===========================================
§ 262.106. INITIAL HEARING AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD IN EMERGENCY WITHOUT COURT ORDER.
(a) The court in which a suit has been filed after a child has been taken into possession without a court order by a governmental entity shall hold an initial hearing on or before the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession. The court shall render orders that are necessary to protect the physical health and safety of the child. If the court is unavailable for a hearing on the first working day, then, and only in that event, the hearing shall be held no later than the first working day after the court becomes available, provided that the hearing is held no later than the third working day after the child is taken into possession
(b) The initial hearing may be ex parte and proof may be by sworn petition or affidavit if a full adversary hearing is not practicable.
(c) If the initial hearing is not held within the time required, the child shall be returned to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian who is presently entitled to possession of the child.
(d) For the purpose of determining under Subsection (a) the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession, the child is considered to have been taken into possession by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services on the expiration of the five-day period permitted under Section 262.007(c) or 262.110(b), as appropriate.
§ 262.107. STANDARD FOR DECISION AT INITIAL HEARING AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD WITHOUT A COURT ORDER IN
EMERGENCY.
(a) The court shall order the return of the child at the initial hearing regarding a child taken in possession without a court order by a governmental entity unless the court is satisfied
that:
(1) there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child if the child is returned to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian who is presently entitled to possession of the child or the evidence shows that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse on one or more occasions and that there is a substantial risk that the child will be the victim of sexual abuse in the future;
(2) continuation of the child in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare; and
(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child.
(b) In determining whether there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of a child, the court may consider whether the household to which the child would be returned includes a person who has:
(1) abused or neglected another child in a manner that caused serious injury to or the death of the other child; or
(2) sexually abused another child.
===========================================
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And just to add fuel to the fire ?
As of Apr 27 2008 @ 10:00AM EST.
MIA 1 young male, Age 11 yr
MIA 1 young male, Age 1 yr
The mother has no idea where they are, nor does their appointed attorney, and CPS cannot currently account for their whereabouts at this time.
On Saturday the director of the legal aid offices was informed by the foster care facility that a 2yr old child was removed from said facility for medical reasons and taken to a nearby hospitals ICU - but when the childs Guardian Ad Litem attempted verification, was told by the hospital that they had no such child under their care, CPS cannot currently account for this childs wherabouts or medical condition at this time.
DFPS spokesman Chris Van Deusen admits to some confusion on the matter but flatly denies they have lost track of any children, yet CPS is unable to offer a full accounting and has in fact refused to do so at this time.
When pressed on the matter Van Deusen was unable to offer a specific time frame when this accounting might occur, and stated that the attorneys in question should have that information, although how this might happen when CPS did not provide it is a matter of contention.
No visitation program has been worked up as yet, nor has Judge Walther seen fit to authorise it, and no timetable on that has been offered either, although CPS officials are insistent that this is "in progress".
Oh, and that hearing on Tuesday they were promised ?
The State reneged, almost as soon as the children were out of contact range, the reversed their decision and canned it.
A petition detailing the violation of 262.106/262.107 is in service and by law the State must respond to it by May 2nd, but the attorneys in question are not optimistic about that actually happening given the situation so far.
As far as the whole underage pregnancy thing goes, and this took a while to get, mind you..
From the State's OWN documents on the case...
Of ALL children in custody, only THREE teens are pregnant, one a few months short of 18 (AoC in TX is 17), one simply refused to take a pregnancy test, and one admittedly underage.
Easy enough to sort that, that last one should be investigated and prosecuted, and a court order can be filed in the case of the refusal, but this is TWO cases only.
TWO - show me the thirty, show me that fifty percent.
Van Deusen verbally claims differently, but this is on the assertation that certain of those "minors" are underage in spite of a State issued birth certificate on hand saying otherwise, which leaves the burden of proof on the State, and they have not met such so far.
And those verbal claims are just that, they might have handed that line to the press, but without any proof, it's just an allegation - and it's worthy of note that Van Deusen's been told to stop commenting on that subject.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Related Note:
----------------
This was brought up to me by some of my own, but is also worthy of note.
The subject of forced medical exams on young girls, especially intensive ones, is something I had not considered till it was brought up to me, but in the opinion of some of my own folk of the female persuasion, constitutes to their mind the same thing as sexual abuse of any other kind, and would likely be severely traumatic to those of a strict religious upbringing.
At least one of mine has undergone such and indicates that it was "like being raped" and is still a very painful and traumatic memory for her to this day and admitted feelings of murderous intent towards those responsible.
And so I submit also to you that, without an actual accusation, warrant, or court order for such - that treatment does in fact constitute sexual abuse by the state, of a traumatic nature, and exactly the kind of thing which FLDS is themselves accused of.
And the medical personnel who did not obey their oath and refuse in the face of a lack of good cause should indeed be charged for it, as well as those who gave the order.
This much I tell you - NOBODY lays a hand to my sisters kids in said fashion without their consent... NOBODY, ever.
Or they answer to ME.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem you're being downright PNish. I can't make head or tail of your post.
Quote:Do you mean the Texas phone call? If that;s what you mean, how can WE verify that all of this exists... outside of your say-so? Links please.
A record of that call exists, in fact we have found that in spite of repeated denials, a TAPE RECORDING of that call exists, as well as the billing record of the number in question, which is indeed from Swinsons phone.
Quote:And if evidence existed this was so, then a crime was committed, yes? At least we agree on something!
An underage pregnancy is evidence of a crime,
Quote:This is just you ere re-assertion that it's all about "belief". Can you show me how?
professing to or holding a belief is not evidence of a crime regardless of what the belief in question happens to be.
Anyway, real life calls.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Do you mean the Texas phone call? If that;s what you mean, how can WE verify that all of this exists... outside of your say-so? Links please.
This article contains a timeline, AND a mention of some things I could not say till it was attributed publicly.
http://cbs2.com/national/rozita.swinton.polygamist.2.707266.html
April 16: Colorado Springs police arrest Swinton and search her residence in connection to the Feb. 26 call. Two Texas Rangers observe the arrest but return to Texas without making an arrest.
This article mentions the tapes, and the involvement of Texas Rangers, prior to the warrant being issued.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271944,00.html
Since March 30, Jessop has received a flood of daily phone calls from "Sarah," who she said spoke like a little girl and seemed to know the intricacies of life in the FLDS Church and Short Creek, the FLDS strongholds of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
"She was damn good," Jessop said of the girl. "She had the 'crick' lingo down, which is just amazing."
Others were convinced that "Sarah" needed help.
"I thought she was real," said Joni Holm, who shelters FLDS kids and also spoke to the girl.
The conversations would last for hours. "Sarah" said she wanted to run away, and provided details of a life of abuse. "Sarah" gave her addresses of where she said she was inside the FLDS stronghold of Colorado City, Ariz. Jessop reported the calls to child welfare workers, who checked out the homes and found nothing.* The calls continued, always from different cell-phone numbers.
Eventually cracks started appearing in the girl's story.
"She did not use the term 'mother and father.' She used the term 'mom and dad,"' Jessop said. "There were just numerous things, but still she was very convincing as a girl that was in desperate need of help."
Jessop said when she pressed "Sarah" once, the girl talked in hypotheticals about a twin sister who was also a child-bride. The story started to make Jessop more suspicious, and she began tape recording them and called police.
Sting
Jessop said she set up a three-way phone conversation with a Texas Ranger on the line and confronted her.
"By the end of my phone calls with her it was very, very difficult to continue to talk to her and not reach through the phone and choke her," she said. "I asked her, 'Are you tricking me?' I said, 'What's your real name?' She finally said, 'Rozie."'
By that time, authorities had tracked Swinton down in Colorado Springs and Texas Rangers told local officers they were coming to question her.
"They had independently focused one component of their investigation on her and were coming up to our city. We then brought our case to a conclusion, made the arrest and assisted Texas while they were here," said Colorado Springs Police Lt. Skip Arms. "They will evaluate what they have to determine if they'll pursue any charges in the future."
Noteworthy -
These calls were made to Child Protection Project, run by Linda Walker and Flora Jessop, who's cousin, Merrill Jessop, ran the FLDS ranch in question.
Someone was betting on personal grudge, and the bluff failed, Flora became suspicious of the caller in short order, recorded the calls, called the cops.
And yet, despite this - they accepted this persons statement as sufficient cause to issue a warrant, and carried it out while the person who made this calls was under investigation ?
Which was immediately discarded once the compound was entered, and a second warrant requested ?
I say they knew, those tapes are in Swintons voice, the number comes from a phone Swinton had previously used to offer false reports, and the Texas Rangers were involved with an ongoing investigation of this matter before and during the FLDS raid and very well aware that Swinton was likely this supposed "Sarah".
The TX Rangers chose not to question Swinton when she was arrested on Apr16th.
And yet later issued an arrest warrant on Apr23rd.
And sealed all case reco
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And if evidence existed this was so, then a crime was committed, yes? At least we agree on something!
Never said otherwise - I said I was pissed that it would be a bitch to try the case on contaminated evidence, go back and check, seriously.
You get a court order for the tests, based on probable cause and the testimony of an independant physician, have that physician then perform the necessary tests and you issue a warrant for the suspect.
Then you get a court order to test the suspect, and should that match, you arrest them, take them into custody, and it goes to trial.
Where you sic some nasty little bastard like Hero on them and if they're guilty and the prosecutor is any kind of competent, you fry them on the stand sunnyside up and send em to the slam where they belong.
(sadly, not for long ENOUGH, more than likely, but it is what it is)
The problem comes when they throw in your face the bogus warrant, a second warrant based on an illegal search due to the bogus warrant, the states failure to follow the law and procedure... and even in SPITE of having done the crime, they walk.
That's what sent me initially into a flaming rage, but no one seems to have understood that.
Nor how very dangerous setting a precedent where the State is not required to obey it's own rules, regs and laws, can be.
I wanted these bastards to fry, wanted to set the hook clean and deep, leaving them no wiggle room to slip off and continue their predatory behavior, wanted em out of society and away from potential victims for so long as was legally possible.
But a dragnet is a pisspoor substitute, and a badly woven one even more so.
Quote:
This is just you ere re-assertion that it's all about "belief". Can you show me how?
What else do all the parents have in common other than geographical location at the time of the event ?
Seriously.
To date, not only has no evidence been presented to the court, nor any charges filed - not even individual accusations have been made.
What ELSE could they possibly all have in common but that ?
No matter what one would wish to call it, the plain and obvious truth of the matter is that the State has put their Belief System as a whole under the boot, otherwise individuals not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not even accused of a crime, would not have had their children severed from their custody without so much an iota of evidence against them individually.
Quote:
You're not the ONLY force for good in society Frem!
Interesting that you said such a thing, because not 24hrs later we recieved contact and assistance from a similar, Ontario based org of VERY similar structure and intent, and having vetted them as is our policy - have begun sharing information, one interesting tidbit thereof is that they also keep lists of the fallen.
And have offered hard, verifiable proof that the State lied about deaths in the foster care system, offering confirmed media accounts from Year2006 indicating not four, but twelve deaths, as well as their own data going back to 1980, which will be cross-checked, verified and then compared to and integrated with ours.
Which we intend to jointly ram down the throat of both Texas and Ontario, in efforts to reform both Foster Care Systems and reduce the amount of neglect and abuse within them both, if at all possible.
Ironic, but hell if those are the magic words to get more assistance on this issue, say em all you want, several times a day!
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ouch...
Confirmed now - 3 hospitalisations, 2 MIA
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_9075298
"Some mothers have been unable to confirm where their children have gone and others have learned their children have been split up and sent to different locations. TRLA learned this morning that a child thought to be in a group home was actually in a hospital."
Come Monday, they'd best have some answers, and quickly.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Seriously? How about several men including the church prophet who've been convicted of child rape, and consistent stories from those who have left that GIRLS are forced to have children. How can I take you seriously when you keep ignoring the friggin' purple elephant in the room?
What else do all the parents have in common other than geographical location at the time of the event ? Seriously
So, now for some numbers:
Quote:So it's NOT about "belief" Frem, as you keep insisting. As you yourself said:
More than half the teenage girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday. A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant.
"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," he said.
Quote:Then there have been quite a few crimes on the ranch, wouldn't you say? Enough to say that the pattern is pervasive and not limited to one or two perps.
An underage pregnancy is evidence of a crime,
Quote:And where were YOU when girls were getting "married"? I wish you'd hold parents to the same standard that you're holding the State! You have a SERIOUS case of double-standard Frem. And when I see deep double standards- and I don't care it's on the right, left or middle- then there's bad case of doublethink.
Come Monday, they'd {the State} best have some answers, and quickly.
I get that you think "the State" screwed up big time. And prolly they did... not necessarily from a legal standpoint, but from how they're handling the children who are most likely disoriented and could use the reassurance of a familiar face. But when you cross the line from excoriating the state to defending the parents... well, let me put it this way: I've decided that your take on the situation is so biased against the government that were there a group of parents sacrificing children you'd find a way of defending those poor helpless PARENTS.
You see I don't need to paint one group as "innocent" in order think that another group is "guilty". Sometimes both parties are heinously at fault.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME