Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Sect members live 'normal' life on polygamous church ranch

Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:02 PM EDT
us-news, rick-perry, retreat, west-texas, polygamist, san-angelo, protective-services, polygamist-retreat, texas-children, marleigh-meisner
Jennifer Dobner, Associated Press
Marleigh Meisner
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 31 photos
<p>The main temple on the grounds of the "Yearning For Zion" Ranch, home of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas, Thursday, April 10, 2008. When authorities moved to search the large white temple on the polygamist compound in West Texas, about five dozen of the sect's men prayed and cried around the structure, state investigators said Thursday. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)</p>

The main temple on the grounds of the "Yearning For Zion" Ranch, home of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas, Thursday, April 10, 2008. When authorities moved to search the large white temple on the polygamist compound in West Texas, about five dozen of the sect's men prayed and cried around the structure, state investigators said Thursday. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Advertise | AdChoices

ELDORADO — The women who belong to an embattled polygamist sect wear 19th Century-style dresses, but their daily lives don't differ much from their neighbors', including trips to discount super stores and the orthodontist, members said Wednesday.

Members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints gave tours of their Yearning for Zion ranch two weeks after it was raided by law enforcement searching for a 16-year-old girl who called a hot line claiming her husband beat and raped her.

Child welfare officials have removed all 416 children living there from the custody of their parents. The 16-year-old has yet to be found.

Members said Wednesday they wanted to show that their lives — isolated from what they regard as a hostile and sinful outside world — center on family and faith.

A gleaming, white limestone temple is the center of the 1,700-acre ranch with large, log-style homes, a school, a dairy, a rock quarry and a community garden planted with vegetables, fruit trees and a grape arbor.

Set back some three miles from a state highway, the ranch sits behind two locked gates, which outsiders and excommunicated members suggest is a symbol of the control church elders have over the lives of the faithful.

No one who lives there calls it a compound.

"All of us say the ranch. It's the ranch. It's home," said Rozie, a 23-year-old married member of the sect. Members won't allow their last names to be used because they worry about the effect on their children in state custody.

Although they grow much of their own food, the members still shop at Costco and Wal-Mart. A ranch school using an accredited home schooling curriculum teaches kids from first through 12th grade. Women say modesty dictates their custom of donning long dresses, and they say they are not forced to marry.

A tour inside of one the homes, given by one of sect's mothers to CNN, showed a modern kitchen with women baking bread from wheat ground at the ranch. The plain dining area included dozens of chairs arranged at long folding tables, and bedrooms included multiple bunks and a row of twin beds spaced closely together.

"Can I leave the premises? Yes," said Nancy, a 40-year-old mother of four, who rises daily at 4:30 a.m. "We have a post office box. We get mail and we take the children to the orthodontist."

Families meet daily for religious devotions, prayer and singing. The community also gathers for church meetings on Sundays.

"It is lifeless here without our kids around here" said Dan, 24, whose wife remains housed in the San Angelo Coliseum complex 45 miles to the north with their 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son.

On Thursday, a custody hearing starts in the Tom Green County Courthouse to decide whether the children, who range in age from six months to 17 years, will be placed in permanent state custody. State officials alleged a pattern of abuse by adults, including marriages between young girls to older men.

Sect members deny children were abused.

"It's the furthest thing away from what we do here," Dan said of the abuse allegations. "There's nothing that's more disliked and more trained against.

Under Texas law, the Child Protective Services, an attorney for each child and attorneys for the parents must be given a chance to weigh in on whether the children should remain in state custody.

Typically, each child also is given a separate hearing, but given the number of cases, it's likely the judge will have the state, the children's attorneys and the parents' attorneys make consolidated presentations, at least initially, said Harper Estes, the president-elect of the state bar.

"You can't go one-by-one," Estes said.

A parade of attorneys appointed to represent each child — many volunteers recruited by the bar association — met with the children being housed in shelters and filed notices with the court on Wednesday. A separate group of attorneys arrived at the compound in Eldorado to meet with their parents.

The children have been held in shelters, first in Eldorado and then in San Angelo since they were removed from the sprawling compound nearly two weeks ago. All but the youngest children are being cared for by state workers and child care providers.

The FLDS came to West Texas in 2003, relocating some members from the church's traditional home along the Utah-Arizona border. The faith practices polygamy in arranged marriages and believe the lifestyle brings exaltation in heaven.

The sect traces its religious roots to the early theology of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which now denounces polygamy and excommunicates members found practicing it.

___

Associated Press writer Michelle Roberts contributed to this report from San Angelo.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jennifer Dobner's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , San Angelo
  • Public Discussion (168)
ryandsmith

If they want to live totally apart from society then leave them to it.

    #1 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
    Jace

    That's fine if consenting adults want to choose to segregate themselves from society, but I don't believe they have the right to force that upon their children and deny them their freedom.

    • 14 votes
    #1.1 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:52 PM EDT
    look-upon-me

    Living apart from society is different from indoctrinating children/girls/women into a cult so they can be repeatedly raped and traded around like baseball cards.

    • 11 votes
    #1.2 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:55 PM EDT
    iamsdr

    Yeah man, and if they want to rape and imprison as many 13 year old girls as they want as much as they want, leave them to it. It's like, a free country, right?

    Did you read the article all the way through, #1?

    • 5 votes
    #1.3 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:00 PM EDT
    insist09Deleted
    crutch

    One point insist, it was the the State of Texas that carried this out, not the US gov't (as in Waco).

    • 5 votes
    #1.5 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:46 PM EDT
    E.D.Kain

    Perplexing and difficult to be sure, but I still lean towards the freedom to be free and the Constitutional right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.

    There was nothing unreasonable about this search and seizure. They had probable cause; had a long history of monitoring the compound as well as knowledge of the practices of this organization in other locations. The distress call is plenty of reason to invade the compound.

    What should the police do when a young girl calls for help? Doesn't she have a Constitutional right to be protected?

    • 2 votes
    #1.6 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:03 AM EDT
    Dr Know

    Was it a young girl? It was anonymous and CLAIMED to be a young girl.

      #1.7 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:15 AM EDT
      E.D.Kain

      Was it a young girl? It was anonymous and CLAIMED to be a young girl.

      So what? The police should just ignore it? What would you do if you were the police? They got a warrant, so what's the problem?

      • 1 vote
      #1.8 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:16 AM EDT
      Dr Know

      How does anyone know the call was NOT the police? They ARE legally allowed to lie. The only people in court asking for the warrant were cops. They can lie to the judge with impunity since their is no one presenting any conflicting information. There is never anyone in court to oppose search warrants except for the judge him/herself.

      • 4 votes
      #1.9 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
      E.D.Kain

      There is never anyone in court to oppose search warrants except for the judge him/herself.

      So you oppose the entire notion of a search warrant, is that it? This statement could apply to pretty much any crime anywhere with any warrant.

        #1.10 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
        jpark

        Dr Know,

        Precisely. A warrant is supposed to be issued only on probable cause and supported by an oath or affirmation:

        U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

        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.

        A statement allegedly received from an unknown person over a cell phone does not meet the requirements of the law.

        • 1 vote
        #1.11 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:35 AM EDT
        E.D.Kain

        A statement allegedly received from an unknown person over a cell phone does not meet the requirements of the law.

        Take it up with the judge. I'm pretty sure a call of distress qualifies though, regardless of its anonymity. The assumption is that the caller is really in danger. The consequence of not believing the caller should they be the real deal is far greater than the opposite scenario.

        • 2 votes
        #1.12 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
        Cletus Wilbury

        Dr Know -

        Just to clarify, they cant' legally lie to the judge.
        They can legally lie to someone during the process of an investigation,
        as a tactic.

          #1.13 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:45 AM EDT
          Wheel

          . The consequence of not believing the caller should they be the real deal is far greater than the opposite scenario.

          Exactly right. These same people that are berating the police for going into that mess, would be raising hell if the police had ignored the plea for help and then later graves of disobedient sex slaves...errr...reluctant teen brides was discovered.

          • 3 votes
          #1.14 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:48 AM EDT
          Tedd Riggs

          Just a basic question as I cannot find it by looking at the news. Did they ever locate the girl that did place the call to the police ? Or at least where she called from ?

          • 4 votes
          #1.15 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:51 AM EDT
          E.D.Kain

          Just a basic question as I cannot find it by looking at the news. Did they ever locate the girl that did place the call to the police ? Or at least where she called from ?

          Not yet...though the kids aren't talking, and I'm sure the girl doesn't want to be singled out. She wants to remain anonymous for many reasons (safety, humiliation, etc.) If they do find her I doubt they'll release her identity.

          • 4 votes
          #1.16 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:10 PM EDT
          Tedd Riggs

          No. I would not think they would ever release her identity for her sake. Just that would rule out any of the comments about this raid being a "setup" as I have heard once or twice. I would think it would be a tough time for the kids and might take some time for the girl to feel safe to talk about it.

          • 4 votes
          #1.17 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:13 PM EDT
          Cletus Wilbury

          I hope she can remain anonymous, and doesn't let the police psychiatrists freak her out too much. One has to take that psychiatry stuff with a few grains of salt. Some of it is good, but the details are still fuzzy.

          • 2 votes
          #1.18 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:17 PM EDT
          jpark

          There is nothing which shows that the caller was even on the grounds or even ever had been on the grounds. A call from an unknown person originating from an unknown location does not constitute probable cause.

          The posts which say the raid was necessary because the caller might be in danger ignore the fact that the authorities do not know who the caller is, where the caller called from or where the caller is located.

          • 1 vote
          #1.19 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:47 PM EDT
          E.D.Kain

          Well, there you have it. We'll just start ignoring all pleas for help unless the caller reveals who they are.

          • 2 votes
          #1.20 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:58 PM EDT
          jpark

          Well, there you have it. We'll just start ignoring all pleas for help unless the caller reveals who they are.

          If you don't know who or where the caller is, what point is there in going somewhere to 'rescue' the unknown person. The probability of someone being in any particular random place is virtually 0. The probability of recognizing an unknown person in a group of people is also virtually 0.

          • 2 votes
          #1.21 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:02 PM EDT
          Jarandhel

          The caller stated that she was trapped on the compound. That gives a defined "where", which was the basis for the warrent. We also had a defined what: beaten and raped. Do you really want to pretend that police are too stupid to be able to recognize a beaten and raped pregnant teenager in a group of people in a specific location without hearing her name?

          • 3 votes
          #1.22 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:34 PM EDT
          jpark

          Jarandhel,

          They have apparently had exactly that problem.

            #1.23 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:51 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Jarandhel,

            They have apparently had exactly that problem.

            jpark, you are ignoring facts left and right.

            Fact: A woman called a shelter claiming to be the victim of abuse. She stated where she was and who was abusing her.

            Fact: This was the basis for a warrant. It was ordered by a judge based on the report.

            Fact: The girl in question has not been identified to the public. This does not mean that she doesn't exist. There are a number of reasons she may not be revealed to the public, not the least of which is her own safety.

            Fact: The girl in question lived on a compound owned by the FLDS. The warrant covered that property. Separate cabins on that property are considered part of that property. This is not like a neighborhood with separately owned houses. This is the law. You may not like it, but that's what it is.

            Fact: The police followed due process by acquiring and serving a warrant (followed by other warrants once they had searched the compound) and you have not shown where they haven't. You've made numerous claims that reveal your poor understanding of the law including that the police did not know where she was, and that a distress call is not basis for a warrant. Fortunately the Texas judge has a stronger grasp of the law than you do.

            The probability of someone being in any particular random place is virtually 0. The probability of recognizing an unknown person in a group of people is also virtually 0.

            What the heck are you talking about? Random place? And there is no "probability" of finding the girl in question. That is part of the investigation. It is a very high probability that they will uncover who the girl was. You say 0? Based on what?

            I think that if you don't admit that in terms of due process you are 100% wrong then you're just arguing for the sake of it at this point. Quit diverting the conversation.

            • 3 votes
            #1.24 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:11 PM EDT
            jpark

            Anytime the authorities are asked if they have found/identified the person who called, they say they have not.

            That is not speculation. The authorities themselves admit they are unable to locate the person.

            • 2 votes
            #1.25 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:14 PM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            One good way to protect her anonymity, don't even attempt to identify her.

            • 3 votes
            #1.26 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:19 PM EDT
            jpark

            Since warrants were issued on the alleged existence and complaint of this person, if the person is not identified, the authorities cannot show that they had probable cause to seek a warrant.

            I think it is a safe bet that these women and children will not be released until the authorities find someone among the arrested who will agree to become this complainant.

            • 2 votes
            #1.27 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:26 PM EDT
            Jarandhel

            jpark:

            Not being able to locate her, and not being able to identify her, are two different problems. Of course, if there are a number of pregnant underage girls who have been beaten and raped, maybe identification is an issue too, in which case aren't you glad they have been removed from the situation through the use of a legal warrant and appropriate application of the plain sight doctrine?

            • 3 votes
            #1.28 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:27 PM EDT
            Jarandhel

            jpark: I believe the call itself constitutes probable cause. Whether it turns out on further investigation to have been a crank call, or to have basis in fact, there was probable cause for the warrant to be issued. Whether there was also probable cause for the removal of these children will soon be determined, during the upcoming hearings. And no, there is no question of them being held till someone agrees to "become" this complainant. Legally, there will be a hearing within 14 days showing probable cause for the removal of these children, or they will be sent home. You seem to be ignoring a lot of the actual facts and legalities surrounding this case... is that intentional, or do you simply lack an understanding of the legal facts as outlined in the articles? To quote: "A custody hearing to begin to decide whether the children, who range in age from six months to 17 years, will be in permanent state custody begins Thursday." Hardly what you would expect if the state were planning to hold them indefinitely until one steps forward to become your alleged imaginary complainant.

            • 3 votes
            #1.29 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:34 PM EDT
            atonhunter

            Re: Lying to the judges, etc...

            Texas authorities are notorious for making the evidence fit the crime. I'm sure if they don't find the alleged girl, they'll find something. :-) I recall reading where a Houston lab routinely created fake results to prosecute suspects. Look in this archive, and just scan for Texas cases.

            • 3 votes
            #1.30 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:06 PM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            Impressive summary, atonhunter, thanks.

            • 3 votes
            #1.31 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:56 AM EDT
            Dr Know

            The police may not LEGALLY lie to a judge but there is plenty of evidence that police in every jurisdiction HAVE lied to judges repeatedly. The police in Texas are on the end of the spectrum of more lies to judges than less.

            They found the guy named in the arrest warrant, they talked to him THEN they released him.

            • 3 votes
            #1.32 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:15 PM EDT
            Wheel

            Dr. Know,

            Police perjury is probably the most prevalent form of perjury.

            • 3 votes
            #1.33 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:31 PM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            Dr. Know & Wheel - Yes.

            That was my point, to make some distinction there. Oh, yeah, that they aren't supposed to lie under othe (however you spell that?)

            • 1 vote
            #1.34 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:18 PM EDT
            Dr Know

            The FBI lab in Washington has been properly accused of making evidence fit the alleged crime as well.

            • 2 votes
            #1.35 - Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:30 PM EDT
            Reply
            E.D.Kain

            If they want to live totally apart from society then leave them to it.

            It's certainly not that simple. The FLDS Church commits horrible atrocities toward women, children, and humanity. I live very near Colorado City, and I assure you that the way these people live is far from okay.

            For a really, really insightful look into the problem of Fundamentalist Mormons, read John Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" which is a brutal, terrifying look at what actually goes on in these cults.

            I totally agree with Jace. This is not about consenting adults--this is about young children, especially girls, who are forced into bondage and into sexual relations with older men who are often their relatives. These so-called "spiritual leaders" are nothing more than perverts and power-mongers--criminals who need to be arrested and locked up for a very, very long time.

            • 7 votes
            Reply#2 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:59 PM EDT
            Gwenny

            It's certainly not that simple. The FLDS Church commits horrible atrocities toward women, children, and humanity. I live very near Colorado City, and I assure you that the way these people live is far from okay.

            IN YOUR OPINION. I happen to think most folks' lifestyles are obscene. Doesn't mean I have the right to send the cops in to make you live like I want you to live. If girls are being abused, then stop it. But that is not your REAL issue is it. Your real issue is they aren't living the way you want them to live.

            • 2 votes
            #2.1 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:46 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Your real issue is they aren't living the way you want them to live.

            Oh yes, because I really have the time to care about how people live. Then again, you obviously have a really good idea about "my real issue" since we're on such close terms...or...

            No. My real issue is that these people are committing crimes against children. That is not my opinion, that is a fact.

            I happen to think most folks' lifestyles are obscene

            I happen to think most people are good and their lifestyles are fine. And none of my business or the governments. 99 times out of 100 people should be left to their own devices (or vices) but when it comes to hurting kids, you have to draw the line.

            • 4 votes
            #2.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:30 PM EDT
            Reply
            E.D.Kain

            Here's a link to Under the Banner of Heaven on Amazon.

            I had trouble reading parts of this, it was so disturbing.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#3 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:00 PM EDT
            Rebecca Yarowsky

            Thanks for that link, E.D. Kain. I read Krakauer's Into the Wild which, while disturbing, was a completely different and sympathetic take on a lost soul, trying to find forge a solitary life in the wilderness. Krakauer's an excellent and insightful writer. If I have the courage and stomach for Under the Bannerof Heaven, I'll make it my next read. Gulp.

            As for the article, I too believe that consenting adults are free to make their own choices. Like anything else, if what you're doing is only harmful to yourself and doesn't involve others or infringe on their rights, the law should step back. But when it comes to children who are suffering--and suffering mightily--because of the wrong-headed choices others have made for them, then legal intervention becomes imperative.

            • 9 votes
            Reply#4 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:35 PM EDT
            TheJonesGirl

            I second Under the Banner of Heaven. It's eye-opening and terrifying.

            • 5 votes
            #4.1 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:59 PM EDT
            Tedd Riggs

            There are few books I have missed starting from "Into Thin Air" from Jon Krakauer that I have not found very well done and hard to put down, when I read Under the Banner of Heaven at times I had no choice but to put it down and just take a "mental health break" as that book while an excellent piece of work, is also very terrifying to read. So I third the recommendation of Jon's book, when you are ready.

            • 3 votes
            #4.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:00 PM EDT
            Reply
            ajdamore

            The Lifetime movie "In God's Country" actually made me think about things like this recently. I never really realized that things like the happen in civilized countries until I saw that movie.

            On one hand, these people have the right to believe as they wish to, but what about all of the women and children in the groups? Have they all chosen to live that way? I am sure that many if not all of them were never presented with a real option to leave. They have been brainwashed into believing that the rest of the world is out to destroy everything they believe in, so even if a few were presented with an option to leave, it would be unlikely that they would do so.

            It makes me very sad to think about this.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#5 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:37 PM EDT
            Cassandra

            To me, the worst thing about their practices, as far as what the article showed, was their kidnapping girls under six to live there. Apparently, a good many of such children. This is not acceptable by any standards. If the men want to live that way and can find enough adult women who also want to live that way, it's OK by me. But if the women change their minds and want out, they should be able to get out. And little girls of 13 being married to 50-year-old men and impregnated, whether or not this is "their choice," is just sick.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#6 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:07 PM EDT
            Gwenny

            To me, the worst thing about their practices, as far as what the article showed, was their kidnapping girls under six to live there.

            Where did it say that?

            • 1 vote
            #6.1 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:49 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            To me, the worst thing about their practices, as far as what the article showed, was their kidnapping girls under six to live there.

            Where did it say that?

            I think it was another article--but it actually said that only girls under six were moved from other FLDS compounds or were allowed to enter this compound. No kidnapping charges have been made.

            • 2 votes
            #6.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:34 PM EDT
            Cassandra

            Sorry, Gwenny, I think E.D.Kain is right. It was in another article I read about the same time. Apparently, they had moved a lot of children into the compound without their parents, although the parents might have been part of the same religious group, that was not clear. It was implied that the parents did not give their consent; the children were just taken. I think for little ones to be taken that way is not acceptable.

            • 2 votes
            #6.3 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:55 PM EDT
            Reply
            Jarandhel

            It's interesting the emotional terms used in this article. They seem so shocking, but many of them actually apply to children brought up in any fundamentalist household, whether it's behind the white walls of a compound or not. Particularly the idea that the outside world is hostile and immoral, and that contact with it would lead to damnation. And the idea that children (and at this point many adults raised in such environments) "are so naive and they have been sheltered to the point that they don't even trust their own judgment."

            • 5 votes
            Reply#7 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:08 PM EDT
            4evermyheart

            I have been following this story the last couple of weeks and every time I read a story or watch a news clip it really makes me sad to think that these women and children are treated this way. It breaks my heart that any of them have had to live through some of the things they have endured.

            I am also saddened that there are people out there that tell me I am part of this sect and that is what my church practices, it is hard to believe that people don't know that the LDS and FLDS are very different. The LDS is a church we are given free will, we do not live in/on compounds, we do not have men running around with 10 wives nor do we have 13 year old wives/mothers. The FLDS members are a cult and are all of the things that I just said the LDS are not.

            The women and children who have suffered many pains because of the FLDS are and will remain in my thought and prayers. I hope that they make this most difficult transition without much pain or confusion.

            • 6 votes
            Reply#8 - Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:38 PM EDT
            Gwenny

            I have been following this story the last couple of weeks and every time I read a story or watch a news clip it really makes me sad to think that these women and children are treated this way.

            I totally agree. It's f***ing insane that the government stepped in and ripped these families up on apparently false information.

            The LDS is a church we are given free will, we do not live in/on compounds, we do not have men running around with 10 wives nor do we have 13 year old wives/mothers.

            Really? So you eschew polygamy? Aren't planning on a Temple Marriage and exaltation then, I guess.

            • 1 vote
            #8.1 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:59 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            I totally agree. It's f***ing insane that the government stepped in and ripped these families up on apparently false information.

            You need to do a little research on the FLDS then.

            • 3 votes
            #8.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:35 PM EDT
            Reply
            Lisa D

            Controlling people through fear. Now there's a novel thought.

            I find it all very simple. The adult men forcing sex on underage and/or non-consenting women are rapists holed up in a camp that hides behind religion. That's all.

            • 6 votes
            Reply#9 - Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:32 AM EDT
            Denise DuCharme

            The article said a 16 year old girl called because her 50 year old husband was beating and raping her. Isn't that a red flag to people. 50 year old husband. What the hell does a 50 year old man have in common with a 16 year old teen. It's just NOT healthy. Now here in Canada that is illegal.

            When you teach with FEAR, all you teach is fear. It's total control of a vulnerable person. A free country, teaches freedom of speech and free to think. If you are being controlled, you are NOT free.

            I think it is about time, the authorities went in and broke this up. It will take time, years maybe, to deprogram. The younger ones not as long.

            • 3 votes
            #10 - Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:48 AM EDT
            jpark

            Here is America, we have a thing called due process.

            Apparently, we have abandoned that due process in this instance.

            U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

            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.

            It is quite possible that the State of Texas will be sued for false arrest and could lose the suit because they failed to use due process.

            They raided a community on hearsay statements of someone they cannot identify or locate. They cannot even prove that such a person exists or ever existed. They disrupted the households of numerous families, removing children from their families for no legal reason.

            There is no valid reason for arresting an entire community on a complaint that some child may have been abused in a single family.

            • 2 votes
            #10.1 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:59 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            They've been monitoring the compound for several years. I hardly doubt they will have a problem with due process. Nice try, though.

            • 3 votes
            #10.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:14 AM EDT
            Jarandhel

            I think you miss the fact that these people live in such close quarters with one another, and have such close social ties, that effectively they are a single family (particularly when one takes into account the reports of incest). The fact that they found multiple minors there pregnant, and had no reports of statutory rape from any of the adults in the commune, goes to support the idea that all female children in that community faced similar abuse and that it was sanctioned by the entire community.

            There is also the plain view doctrine to consider. If the officers found these things in plain view while pursuing a valid warrant on another matter, they are considered to have probable cause to sieze them without a warrant. Pregnant children in the compound found while looking for another pregnant abused child pretty neatly fit the qualifications for things in plain view whose incriminating character is immediately apparant and not concealed.

            • 5 votes
            #10.3 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:16 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Good points, Jarandhel. I hope that these poor kids and these very confused, brainwashed women will be okay someday. I worry about their safety, too. The FLDS is a dangerous organization, and its various branches have been linked to many assassinations, kidnappings, etc.

            • 3 votes
            #10.4 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:23 AM EDT
            jpark

            E.D.Kain & Jarandhel,

            I have no doubt that the authorities have been monitoring the community for several years and have been seeking an excuse to raid the place.

            It is insufficient to say "Something good may come of this." The end, however good or bad, does not justify illegal means.

            If they truly had a complaint from a young girl of abuse, why did they not ask that girl who she was and where she lived? Why did they not then go to her domicile and remove her (and any other children in that domicile)? Why did they invade the whole community?

            They plainly exceeded any authority they may have had to protect a minor child. Note that all their activities have not protected that child because their activities were not directed to protect that child. They were directed to invade the whole community.

            • 3 votes
            #10.5 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:41 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Why did they not then go to her domicile and remove her (and any other children in that domicile)? Why did they invade the whole community?

            Her domicile was a gigantic compound. It was everyone's domicile. Have you even bothered to look at the pictures for this story??? They did everything you just suggested. They went to the "domicile" and removed her and all other children there.

            Note that all their activities have not protected that child because their activities were not directed to protect that child.

            Probably because said child wishes to remain anonymous due to the very high likelihood her life would be in danger if her identity were ever revealed.

            Please do a bit more research before making these statements. It will save us all time. Take a quick look at the top of the article. There's a picture of the "domicile" in question where all the little girls lived....the Texas authorities did everything you suggested....

            • 3 votes
            #10.6 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
            jpark

            The temple is not a home. These people also have homes. Why don't you flip through the pictures at the top of this page to see one of the homes?

            • 2 votes
            #10.7 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:11 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            The temple is not a home. These people also have homes. Why don't you flip through the pictures at the top of this page to see one of the homes?

            All the homes are in one compound. This means that they are all on the same property. When entering said compound, it was impossible for the law enforcement folks to miss the obvious atrocities being committed....on the same property. The physical separation of the "homes" is, from a legal standpoint, inconsequential.

            • 3 votes
            #10.8 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:21 AM EDT
            jpark

            Ah, so by redefining people's community and their homes with the term 'compound', we make it OK to go anywhere and do anything.

            And tell me, by what authority does the government invade a temple? The first amendment to the constitution would tend to prohibit that unless, of course, there were reason to believe that a child was being raped in the building.

            • 3 votes
            #10.9 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:50 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Ah, so by redefining people's community and their homes with the term 'compound'

            No. The fact is that this land was all owned by the same entity. Thus by entering the compound, or ranch, or whatever you want to call it, the police were entering a single property. There is no redefinition here. Living communally was a choice that these people made.

            And tell me, by what authority does the government invade a temple? The first amendment to the constitution would tend to prohibit that unless, of course, there were reason to believe that a child was being raped in the building.

            There was plenty of reason to believe that illegal activities were happening on all the grounds, including the temple.

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

            There's the first amendment. I don't see how that gives people the right to rape children.

            • 3 votes
            #10.10 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:24 PM EDT
            jpark

            No. The fact is that this land was all owned by the same entity. Thus by entering the compound, or ranch, or whatever you want to call it, the police were entering a single property.

            So, if you live in an apartment complex which is owned by a single entity, when your neighbor is suspected of an illegal activity, the warrant obtained by the authorities is sufficient to allow entry into the complete complex, including your domicile?

            You don't mind that you don't have a right of privacy or due process?

            • 3 votes
            #10.11 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:35 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            You don't mind that you don't have a right of privacy or due process?

            When you're renting you are subject to the discretion of the landlord. It sucks, but it's the case. If they want to let the cops in they can. However, the cops aren't going to search your apartment just because the landlord did something wrong.

            These people, however, aren't renting. The situation is completely different and thus your argument has no relevance to this case.

            • 3 votes
            #10.12 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:37 PM EDT
            jpark

            The situation is not completely different.

            These families have places they live. Such places are generally called homes. Entering someone's home requires a warrant properly issued. Seizing items and people from someone's home requires a warrant properly issued.

            A warrant issued to enter your home and remove your children does not extend to entering your neighbor's home and removing his children.

            Since the authorities do not know the identity of the of the person who is alleged to have requested assistance nor do they know that person's home, they obviously do not have a proper warrant to enter that person's home.

            Entering everyone's home and raiding their temple is a gross violation of the law.

            • 2 votes
            #10.13 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:44 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Entering everyone's home and raiding their temple is a gross violation of the law.

            Not true. Under the law this compound is considered a single property. Not to mention the fact that once on the compound it became apparent to the law enforcement agents that widespread abuse was occurring.

            Sorry, but the Temple isn't protected. The religion is, but not the building. If a church was located on a large compound that turned out to be a marijuana-growing ranch, law enforcement would search the church, too.

            And by the way, I'm all for the legalization of pot, but since it's illegal, they would have the right to search said Church which would have no bearing on the religion.

            • 3 votes
            #10.14 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:54 PM EDT
            jpark

            They certainly would have the right to search the temple with a proper warrant.

            U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

            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.

            You contend they had a properly executed warrant to search the temple?

            Who listed the persons to be seized? The alleged person who complained is not even listed.

            • 2 votes
            #10.15 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:01 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            They had a warrant. If a cop gets a warrant to search a building looking for a bag of cocaine and stumbles on a room filled with drugs and guns, but doesn't find the bag of cocaine, that does not delegitimize the warrant.

            • 3 votes
            #10.16 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:07 PM EDT
            jpark

            Are you just saying that or do you have personal knowledge that they had a properly executed warrant to search the temple?

            • 1 vote
            #10.17 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
            Jarandhel

            They had a warrant to search the entire commune. The temple is part of that commune.

            • 2 votes
            #10.18 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:59 PM EDT
            jpark

            Then the question becomes "What judge issues a warrant to search an entire community on a complaint of a single teenager who does not even identify herself?"

            • 2 votes
            #10.19 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:14 PM EDT
            atonhunter

            jpark, I laud you for being one of the few in here to not convict these people without due process. You, are correct: these people have already been found guilty by the media. Notice the use of terms like "compound" and "sect" and some articles haven't even bothered using the word "alleged" in front of sexual abuse.

            I don't personally know if these people are innocent are guilty, but most I see in here, and I'd say western society as a whole has already made up their mind, simply because these people don't fit into the mainstream

            • 2 votes
            #10.20 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:14 PM EDT
            Jarandhel

            jpark:

            Any judge. The thing you seem to be missing is that this is a commune. A single property, shared by the community. And a property upon which the caller specifically alleged to be trapped after being beaten by a husband that this community is alleged to have illegally married her to. It would have been wholly inappropriate to search only a single building in light of that allegation. You seem to be taking the idea of innocent until proven guilty to the extreme of treating the complaintant and authorities as guilty until proven innocent.

            • 2 votes
            #10.21 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:22 AM EDT
            jpark

            Using the word 'commune' doesn't change any legal requirements any more that using the word 'cult' changes the religious nature of the temple.

            Ownership of a property is irrelevant. People have homes even on property owned by the community. In the same manner, people renting an apartment in an apartment complex are on a property with multiple domiciles owned by a single entity. A warrant to enter one of the domiciles is not valid to enter other domiciles.

            • 2 votes
            #10.22 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:43 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Ownership of a property is irrelevant.

            Your grasp of the law is infantile. Ownership of the property is the main point of relevance. The notion of the "domicile" is what is irrelevant. This is a commune, i.e. one property. The warrant covered the property. At this point you're arguing with no wind in your sails. Address the issue at hand, not how you want to see the issue.

            In the same manner, people renting an apartment in an apartment complex are on a property with multiple domiciles owned by a single entity.

            Yes, but if the judge ordered a warrant for the apartment complex it would cover each apartment as they are all owned by a single entity. I'm not sure this has ever happened, but it certainly could. Similarly, the landlord can allow the police to enter any of the apartments should they so choose, without the renter's permission.

            atonhunter

            jpark, I laud you for being one of the few in here to not convict these people without due process.

            Who is convicting anybody? That will happen in court. We are discussing the matter, and our discussion has no bearing on "legal" due process. You are certainly entitled to believing in their innocence or in wanting to wait until all the evidence is out. The current debate is over the legality of the Texas authorities' search and seizure. jpark is arguing that they did so illegally, yet he has no ounce of proof to back up his statements.

            • 1 vote
            #10.23 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:22 AM EDT
            Jarandhel

            If someone was renting a room in a house, would the police need a warrant for that particular room to search it or would one for the house be reasonable and sufficient? It would be the "dwelling" by your standards. Would police need seperate warrants to search a barn and the main house if they were issued a warrant to search a ranch? You insist on trying to define this in such a way as to make the search one of neighbors, but seperate living quarters does not in any way legally limit a warrant, particularly when all members have access to all portions of the compound and allegations have been made that the religious group itself is complicit in the abuse and may be hiding the girl from authorities.

            • 3 votes
            #10.24 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:39 PM EDT
            jpark

            Jarandhel,

            Just for the record, you have no problem with the authorities entering your domicile without a warrant?

            If they do that, you will gladly waive any right you have to any protection under the law due to their illegal entry?

            You will never seek legal redress for any injury you may suffer from such a raid on your domicile?

            You will glad surrender your children to the authorities if they raid your neighbor's domicile because of child abuse?

            • 1 vote
            #10.25 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:55 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Just for the record, you have no problem with the authorities entering your domicile without a warrant?

            You're diverting from the question at hand. There was a warrant. Moot point.

            You will glad surrender your children to the authorities if they raid your neighbor's domicile because of child abuse?

            Also moot point. Because "domicile" here is the entire compound. I don't live on a compound, but if I chose to live on one I would have to accept the fact that should a warrant be issued it would cover the entire property. You are attempting to derail debate at this point. Join the discussion.

            • 2 votes
            #10.26 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:20 PM EDT
            jpark

            E.D. Kain,

            Do you live in a town, a city, etc.? If the police received a call from someone who said they were underage and abused and that they lived in your city/town (but named no domicile), you would be OK for a judge to issue a warrant for every domicile in the city/town?

            Do you really think such broad warrants will be upheld on appeal?

            • 1 vote
            #10.27 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:47 PM EDT
            Jarandhel

            jpark:

            You're playing semantic games. I grew up on a property in which there was a main house used by my grandmother, a "guest house" that was being used as a second dwelling by my parents and myself, a garage, and a barn, as well as a large forest behind that was part of the property. If I had called 9-11 and said I was being beaten and held captive on that property by my family members and giving its address but for whatever reason (perhaps getting cut off?) not giving my name, should the police only search the main house or have to get a separate warrant for each building, or would one warrant for the property cover it? If it wasn't a barn but a family chapel, would you demand a seperate warrant for that?

            • 2 votes
            #10.28 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:24 PM EDT
            jpark

            No, Jarandhel, you are playing games.

            There are hundreds of people involved in this raid. Hundreds of homes raided. A temple raided.

            Hundreds of people arrested, none of which is the person who is claimed to have abused the complainant. None of the people removed 'for their protection' appears to be the complainant. Mothers are being denied access to their children -- children who show no signs of abuse and who claim no abuse.

            This raid is grossly illegal. The people orchestrating the raids are plainly doing so for their own aggrandizement.

            • 1 vote
            #10.29 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:39 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Do you really think such broad warrants will be upheld on appeal?

            jpark don't be ridiculous (if that's possible!) A city/town is not private property. There are multiple private properties within a town. Once again, swing and a miss from jpark...

            • 1 vote
            #10.30 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:02 AM EDT
            jpark

            E.D.Kain,

            Despite your eloquent argument for the totalitarian state, we live in a republic. We have a constitution which grants us certain rights and prohibits the state from engaging in certain behaviors.

            Unreasonable search and seizure is specifically prohibited by the 4th amendment to the US constitution.

            There is no provision for seizing every female adult and every child in a community.

            ---

            We won't even mention the probable 1st amendment violations.

            • 2 votes
            #10.31 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:56 AM EDT
            Wheel

            Unreasonable search and seizure is specifically prohibited by the 4th amendment to the US constitution.

            There is no provision for seizing every female adult and every child in a community.

            What does this have to do with what actually happened?

            There was a lawful warrant, lawfully executed. The women and girls who were taken displayed signs of abuse to trained social workers and were removed from the scene, not 'seized'.

            Your comments have been proven to be without merit. Read the warrant. It clearly addresses all your points.

            • 2 votes
            #10.32 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:51 AM EDT
            jpark

            Don't have the warrant to read.

            • 1 vote
            #10.33 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:05 AM EDT
            Wheel

            check the link to the pdf of the warrant in number 12.20

            • 2 votes
            #10.34 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:19 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Yes, I know, my desire for the totalitarian state. I'm a vice-chair of the Libertarian Defense Caucus. I'm not too big on the so-called totalitarian state. That's why I'm glad to see the Texas authorities used a warrant and went through all the due process of the law to help these young girls. That's what our government is for--to protect us from enemies without and enemies within.

            • 2 votes
            #10.35 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:00 AM EDT
            Jarandhel

            There are hundreds of people involved in this raid. Hundreds of homes raided. A temple raided.

            There are hundreds of people involved, yes. That's because these people chose to live communally, sharing their property on a single compound/estate/ranch/commune. The entire community is alleged to have aided and abetted the "spiritual marriage" of this girl to an older man, and the subsequent abuse. Have you read the pdf in 12.20 yet?

            This raid is grossly illegal. The people orchestrating the raids are plainly doing so for their own aggrandizement.

            Seems quite legal to me. One property, one warrant, obtained after multiple complaints over the course of days. You keep claiming that this is illegal on its face, but you have failed to show any evidence of legal procedure that has not been properly followed. All you can do is continue to argue through analogy, comparing this commune to a city/town or an apartment building. The situation is much simpler than that. The property is held communally by the church. Even the church membership describes it as a "ranch." If you get a warrant to search a ranch, you do not need seperate warrants to search the barn, the bunkhouses, the main houses, any family chapels that are on the land, etc. One warrant covers the entire premises.

            Hundreds of people arrested, none of which is the person who is claimed to have abused the complainant. None of the people removed 'for their protection' appears to be the complainant. Mothers are being denied access to their children -- children who show no signs of abuse and who claim no abuse.

            Some mothers are being denied access to their children. 139 mothers voluntarily left the compound with their children, however, and were permitted to remain with them in state protective custody. Since then, the mothers of all children over 5 have been told they can no longer stay with their children (both safety and crowding appear to have been cited). Some of the mothers then returned to the ranch, others accepted alternative protective custody elsewhere. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-14-Polygamy_N.htm?csp=34 If abuse was not occurring, why do you suppose some of the mothers are willingly staying in protective custody even apart from their children? Why do you suppose so many mothers willingly accompanied their children into protective custody in the first place? You've said multiple times that all of the women and children were seized, but the fact of the matter is that no adult was seized. They went willingly.

            This raid is grossly illegal. The people orchestrating the raids are plainly doing so for their own aggrandizement.

            It would be nice if you actually attempted to make a legal argument rather than just casting aspersions on the officials and trying to play word games by equating the commune with a neighborhood, city, or apartment building. The residents of partment buildings, neighborhoods, and communities do not communally own the property. The church members do communally own this "ranch".

            • 3 votes
            #10.36 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            jpark, you can walk away from this debate. No one will think any less of you.

            • 2 votes
            #10.37 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:05 AM EDT
            Jarandhel

            By the way, perhaps this will answer your question as to why all of the children needed to be removed: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/07/texas.ranch/#cnnSTCVideo

            • 4 votes
            #10.38 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:06 AM EDT
            Tedd Riggs

            Those video's show alot of very interesting information from the towns point of view and especially the reaction of the kids and it sounded pretty clear that the local town people were very concerned and willing to help out and the few contacts with the children seemed to show that they were lacking in getting attention and care. That was a powerful video that did show alot and well worth watching.

            Thanks for that CNN link. I had not seen that before.

            • 5 votes
            #10.39 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:18 AM EDT
            jpark

            ... but the fact of the matter is that no adult was seized. They went willingly.

            Most mothers whose children are being seized will elect to accompany those children.

            • 1 vote
            #10.40 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:30 AM EDT
            Wheel

            They were not 'seized', they were removed, by proper authority and with proper authorization from an abusive environment. Mis-stating the circumstance doesn't change it.

            The proper phrase is 'were rescued', not 'were seized'. Furniture is seized, cars are seized, people are not chattels.

            • 4 votes
            #10.41 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:43 PM EDT
            Jarandhel

            Most mothers whose children are being seized will elect to accompany those children.

            That does not address those mothers who stayed in protective custody, of their own volition, after being seperated from their children. And still shows that you were grossly misstating the case when you said all of the women and children in the community had been seized.

            • 4 votes
            #10.42 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:44 PM EDT
            Dr Know

            There has not been a judgment in court that abuse has occurred. It is ALLEGED abuse until that time.

            • 3 votes
            #10.43 - Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:38 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            There has not been a judgment in court that abuse has occurred. It is ALLEGED abuse until that time.

            True, it's alleged. But those girls didn't get pregnant all by themselves, Dr. Know. Unless I'm quite mistaken, that takes two...

            • 1 vote
            #10.44 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:17 AM EDT
            jpark

            Young girls get pregnant is every community, town and city on earth.

            The authorities do not usually seize every child in a community (town, city) because the community (town, city) contains young pregnant females.

            • 2 votes
            #10.45 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:45 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            You can continue to use abstractions like this all day, jpark. Normal people make observations, deductions, and hypothesis based on the facts at hand. You just argue for the sake of it, using these abstract, unrelated analogies to "prove" your point.

            Hard to admit you're wrong, isn't it? I said it's okay if you just walk away from this one. No need to draw it out endlessly...

            • 1 vote
            #10.46 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:55 AM EDT
            jpark

            You can continue to defend this gross violation of due process and rights as long as you want.

            You are wrong in defending it.

            • 2 votes
            #10.47 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:48 AM EDT
            Wheel

            ED,

            Park is a troll, he doesn't care about right or wrong, only about eliciting a reaction. You're wasting your time trying to reason with him, he doesn't care about reason only about pushing your buttons.

            • 2 votes
            #10.48 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:26 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            You're absolutely right, Wheel. I'm a perfect target for trolls as I can't help but keep arguing, but I will regard your words as wise and learn to hold my tongue.

            • 2 votes
            #10.49 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:32 AM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            This is a tricky situation. I worry that many people will be stigmatized unfairly. How many people lived there? 400 children? Let's not jump to conclusions.

            • 1 vote
            #10.50 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:34 PM EDT
            jpark

            Wheel,

            You continue to follow me around an call me a troll.

            You are violating the COH. You do not have to agree with me, but I have a right to discuss issues without confining my statements to your viewpoint.

            I have reported your violation of the COH and will continue to report your violations of the COH.

            • 1 vote
            #10.51 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:35 PM EDT
            Wheel

            park,

            By all means. But remember what happened to Oscar Wilde

            • 2 votes
            #10.52 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:51 PM EDT
            Reply
            E.D.Kain

            Now here in Canada that is illegal.

            Actually the FLDS has a stronghold in Canada linked closely with those in AZ, TX, UT, and Mexico...

            • 1 vote
            Reply#11 - Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:04 PM EDT
            Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

            Send in the Mounties!

            • 3 votes
            #11.1 - Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:44 PM EDT
            Glinda

            Indeed - in Bountiful, B.C.

            • 1 vote
            #11.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:41 PM EDT
            Tedd Riggs

            Bountiful...That is spooky as I almost went thru that place last time I drove over to Banff, looked like a good shortcut.

            • 1 vote
            #11.3 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:59 PM EDT
            Reply
            Gwenny

            This violation of these people's right, this attack on these women and children by authorities is heinous and will, I hope, result in criminal actions against the state of Texas.

            • 2 votes
            #12 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:08 PM EDT
            jpark

            It should. But almost certainly will not.

            At the very least, however, the people of this community should file a civil lawsuit against the state and local authorities naming specific individuals who orchestrated the invasion.

            (I am forever stunned by the number of people who seem to find no problem with activities such as this. I often wonder if they would have a similar viewpoint if they were the object of these violations of human rights.)

            • 2 votes
            #12.1 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:19 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            What you guys seem to be forgetting in your nonsensical attacks on the State of Texas is that these people are breaking multiple laws, including the rather obvious one of polygamy. You are equating this action with unreasonable search and seizure cases but this is just a form of relativism.

            I'm all for minimal government and proper process. However, you are saying that the government had no right to act in this case and offering no evidence for your statements. This is a classic case of railing against the government for no reason other than mistrust of the government.

            I'm sorry you would prefer that these children remain in the sexually abusive relationships they were in prior to the State's intervention.

            • 3 votes
            #12.2 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:40 PM EDT
            jpark

            E.D.Kain,

            What you seem to be forgetting in your nonsensical support for the activities of the State of Texas is that none of the people raided and arrested have been convicted of any crime.

            Raiding their homes and community, breaking into their temple and seizing their children is not a legal activity.

            • 2 votes
            #12.3 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:47 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            What you seem to be forgetting in your nonsensical support for the activities of the State of Texas is that none of the people raided and arrested have been convicted of any crime.

            Um, no kidding. It hasn't even gone to trial yet. I think you mean "charged." These things take time, and I certainly hope that in their investigation they come up with plenty of evidence to nail these perverts and send them away for a long time.

            I know you're rooting for the pedophiles, but I hope they get put behind bars.

            • 3 votes
            #12.4 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:56 PM EDT
            jpark

            I know you're rooting for the pedophiles, but I hope they get put behind bars.

            I am rooting for due process.

            You are the one with pedophilia on the brain.

            • 2 votes
            #12.5 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:03 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            You are the one with pedophilia on the brain.

            That's probably because of the, you know, news story about Texas raiding a ranch where pedophilia was institutionalized.

            And due process was followed...i.e. the search warrant. So what's the problem?

            • 3 votes
            #12.6 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
            jpark

            Oh, I'm sorry. The newspaper convicted the community of pedophilia.

            Of course there is no need for due process when the guilty just need rounding up.

            Just curious though. Why are the courts still involved? Why is there a hearing this Thursday? If the people arrested have already been convicted, shouldn't there just be sentences handed out?

            • 2 votes
            #12.7 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:37 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            What are you talking about?

            They are not convicted. No one said they had been convicted except you. You accused me of having pedophelia on the brain and I said:

            That's probably because of the, you know, news story about Texas raiding a ranch where pedophilia was institutionalized.

            Which is why I have been thinking about this. It has nothing to do with the guilt of the members of the YFN ranch.

            You're grasping for straws so badly at this point, you've stooped to purposefully taking everything I say out of context.

            How about you instead show how due process was not used? Explain how the warrant was illegal, or how the presence of obviously abused minors was not reason enough to remove the girls from the ranch?

            • 3 votes
            #12.8 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:48 PM EDT
            jpark

            How about you instead show how due process was not used?

            I did that on # 10.15 .

            The authorities cannot even identify the person who allegedly filed a complaint. How can any warrant possibly identify the persons ... to be seized when the authorities cannot even identify the person who is alleged to have filed a complaint.

            Why don't you show how the authorities are following due process?

            • 2 votes
            #12.9 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:04 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            Why don't you show how the authorities are following due process?

            The authorities received a call from a young girl in distress. It then became their duty to go and find out what was wrong and help her if need be. The fact that they did not locate this girl in no way demonstrates that they did not follow due process. It is beside the point. They received a warrant and presented it at the compound.

            When at the compound they witnessed other signs of abuse. This is reasonable cause--also a part of due process. They had a warrant to search the compound regardless, which gave them the right to search...you guessed it, the entire compound. If they had found the girl in question--say she'd been waiting to meet them at the gate, then perhaps they would have overstepped--I'll have to read the full contents of the warrant to be sure. But if my memory serves me, the warrant included a search for documents regarding underage marriage etc. which could easily have been located on any building on the premises.

            So, they received a call for help, got a warrant, served the warrant, and carried out the search which revealed other instances of suspected abuse and led to the removal of the children from the compound which was ordered by a judge.

            Am I missing anything?

            Regarding your 10.15 comment/question: A judge ordered the persons removed from the compound in accordance with due process.

            • 2 votes
            #12.10 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:13 PM EDT
            jpark

            Regarding your 10.15 comment/question: A judge ordered the persons removed from the compound in accordance with due process.

            So the persons removed were named in the warrant?

            • 2 votes
            #12.11 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:46 PM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            So the persons removed were named in the warrant?

            No, the warrant covers the initial search. A judge later ordered the people removed. Two separate actions, both well under the umbrella of due process.

            • 2 votes
            #12.12 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:17 PM EDT
            jpark

            No, the warrant covers the initial search.

            And the initial search was for?

            It would be very helpful if you would just post the text of the warrant(s). You apparently have access to them. I don't.

            • 2 votes
            #12.13 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:11 PM EDT
            Dr Know

            The police received an anonymous phone call from an unnamed person who CLAIMED to be the person in question. If it was anonymous, how did they have names? There are many instances of false claims of abuse being called to authorities and the subsequent legal "abuse" by authorities until they find that there was no basis for the claim.

            The cops are legally allowed to lie through their teeth. The citizens have the duty to tell the truth at all times.

            The mothers have complained the state deceived them, revealing the plan only after they and their children boarded buses from historic Fort Concho, Texas, where they had been staying, to the larger San Angelo Coliseum. State officials defended that decision Tuesday.

            Texas Children's Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said officials decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around.

            The authorities will now commence their own form of mental abuse on these children. They are convinced that abuse has happened. They will NOT accept any answer from the children that indicates otherwise. They will wear the children down. It will become another McMartin Preschool. Peoples lives will be devasted. Years of abuse by the system before no guilty verdicts are produced.

            • 3 votes
            #12.14 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:15 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            If it was anonymous, how did they have names?

            What are you referring to exactly?

            The authorities will now commence their own form of mental abuse on these children.

            And you can be sure of this, how? Stating this as fact is misleading. You have no way of knowing this will occur, so state it as opinion, not fact.

            • 1 vote
            #12.15 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:24 AM EDT
            Dr Know

            I have experience with this and have seen it in my immediate family.

            • 1 vote
            #12.16 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
            E.D.Kain

            I have experience with this and have seen it in my immediate family.

            One instance does not make it always so. I admit, the system is broken, but that does not mean we should leave kids in dangerous situations. Two wrongs etc. etc.

            • 1 vote
            #12.17 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
            Cletus Wilbury

            It's many instances, at least here in San Diego. McMartin was another up the freeway a bit.

            Most recently (at least it looks like to me) Thad Jesperson Conviction Overturned - Sept. 13, 2007

            "There was no physical evidence supporting the allegations that Jesperson had inappropriately touched the students, and no witnesses ever corroborated the accusations, according to the appellate court opinion. When first questioned by San Diego detectives, the children who made the initial accusations denied anything happened."

              #12.18 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:55 AM EDT
              jpark

              E.D.Kain,

              Would you please post the contents of the warrant(s). You have discussed the contents of the warrent(s) multiple times. We would all like to know what is in the warrant(s) and could doubtless discuss the legality of the situation better with more information.

              • 2 votes
              #12.19 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 3:51 PM EDT
              E.D.Kain

              This should be helpful as an original source.

              • 1 vote
              #12.20 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:07 PM EDT
              Cletus Wilbury

              E.D. -

              Yes, it is. Thanks.

              • 1 vote
              #12.21 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:25 PM EDT
              Wheel

              That certainly answers a lot of questions.

              The warrant is for the entire compound and all the buildings. The girl made contact, not once, but several times. Choosing to withhold her name was her choice. I suppose 'someone' will demand to hear tapes of the conversations now. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't thought of it already.

              • 2 votes
              #12.22 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:50 PM EDT
              Reply
              Wheel

              It probably is easier to rear your sex slaves into the life rather than beat down an adult woman into submission.

              • 4 votes
              Reply#13 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:18 PM EDT
              Glinda

              I'll buy that.

              • 1 vote
              #13.1 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
              Reply
              Cletus Wilbury

              At least they didn't shoot & kill the officers serving the warrant.

              • 4 votes
              Reply#14 - Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:08 PM EDT
              atonhunter

              At least they didn't burn the people to death inside their home

              • 3 votes
              #14.1 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:06 AM EDT
              Cletus Wilbury

              Good reply.
              So, had they started shooting, and killed a couple police, what should we do?
              I thought Reno's response was reasonable. I'll entertain replies for awhile, I'm hardly an expert in the field so I'll probably learn some stuff.

              • 1 vote
              #14.2 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:38 PM EDT
              atonhunter

              You're OK Cletus. We may be sitting on opposite sides of the fence on these types of issues, but as long as we can look over that fence at each other and say "hi" ... that's a good thing :-)

              I heartily disagree with you about Reno's response and find it shameful that not one law enforcement official was prosecuted for what they did to those children. Waco: Rules of Engagement goes into the details

              • 1 vote
              #14.3 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:12 PM EDT
              Reply
              tc-268048

              Is it FDLS or FLDS? You would think that they would get it right after writing so many stories about it. Is the writer's name Neffijer Bodner or Jennifer Bodner???

              • 1 vote
              Reply#15 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:15 AM EDT
              Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

              Yeah, the AP kinda has some identity issues sometimes...

              • 2 votes
              #15.1 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:53 AM EDT
              Dr Know

              The AP has all kinds of fact issues.

              • 3 votes
              #15.2 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:16 AM EDT
              Tedd Riggs

              It should be FLDS....

              • 2 votes
              #15.3 - Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:01 PM EDT
              atonhunter

              Maybe the AP writer got confused cause she was also writing a promo for FDS (Feminine Deodorant Spray). :-)

              Not a stretch, but in all honesty, I'm having a real hard time telling the difference between Associated Press and PR Newswire lately.

              • 1 vote
              #15.4 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:08 AM EDT
              Reply
              Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

              By the way people, the judge just ruled that the kids are to remain in state custody.

              • 2 votes
              Reply#16 - Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:34 PM EDT
              jpark

              Yes. All 416 children, even if a particular child has never been abused, even if a particular child is in no danger of abuse.

              This is because it is not really about child abuse, it is about power and persecution.

              • 1 vote
              #16.1 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:32 AM EDT
              Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

              Arguably the state is doing what they are mandated to do. It is only necessary for them to prove abuse within the community being that it is so close and interconnected. It is essentially what they would do anywhere else, remove all of the children and then reevaluate; this particular case just happens to be a very large "family" as they consider themselves.

              This is because it is not really about child abuse, it is about power and persecution.

              I'm inclined to believe that the police can't ignore calls reporting abuse and/or physical evidence of abuse in plain sight (underage mothers and the like).

              even if a particular child is in no danger of abuse.

              But these children could potentially become the outlet for anger about the current situation with the normal victims beyond reach.

              • 1 vote
              #16.2 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:50 AM EDT
              Wheel

              This is because it is not really about child abuse, it is about power and persecution.

              It's about child abuse.

              • 1 vote
              #16.3 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:00 AM EDT
              jpark

              Children are being abused but I don't think Texas is doing this with the intent to abuse them.

              • 1 vote
              #16.4 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:29 AM EDT
              Wheel

              Children are being abused but I don't think Texas is doing this with the intent to abuse them.

              Proof please?

              • 1 vote
              #16.5 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:51 AM EDT
              jpark

              Sorry, Wheel. You don't find forcibly removing children from their homes and keeping them out of contact from their parents and legal representatives for an extended period (confiscating their cell phones and their parents cell phones) as abusive?

              Do you deny that the children have been so used or do you deny that such use is abusive?

              • 1 vote
              #16.6 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:55 AM EDT
              Wheel

              cell phones are hardly a necessity of life. The parents are perfectly free to see the children, just watched a report on CNN about that very point. They just can't take the children back into that abusive environment. You wouldn't want the kids returned to an environment that the courts just ruled abusive would you?

                #16.7 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:11 PM EDT
                jpark

                You fail again to answer a simple question, Wheel. Is taking children from their homes and keeping them out of contact with their mothers abusive?

                • 1 vote
                #16.8 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:26 PM EDT
                Wheel

                not if the environment they are removed from is abusive and the courts have decided that is the case for all 416 children.

                Also, they are NOT being kept from the mothers, they are being kept off the compound. The mothers are free to see them and to leave the compound and live with them.

                  #16.9 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:32 PM EDT
                  Dr Know

                  The decision to keep the children in the custody of the state did not validate that abuse HAD occurred. It was that no evidence was produced that it had NOT occurred.

                  There was no possible way that 416 cases could be adequately investigated to provide proof either way. This is an area where guilt is assumed and must be disproved.

                  • 1 vote
                  #16.10 - Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:35 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  jpark

                  Any child anywhere in any family can potentially be the target of abuse.

                  If these children must all be removed from their mothers' care because there is the potential for abuse, it logically follows that all children everywhere must be removed from their mother's care for the same reason.

                    Reply#17 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:58 AM EDT
                    Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

                    This abuse was occurring in a tight knit community which considered themselves one "family". It is only logical to remove potential victims in a household where abuse is confirmed.

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.1 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:26 AM EDT
                    jpark

                    This abuse was occurring in a tight knit community which considered themselves one "family".

                    1. I don't think that statement is apparent. To be accepted there would need to be something corroborating it.

                    2. You argue that all these children are members of a single 'family', thus evoking the same interventions for each child. Are you truly arguing that this community constitutes a 'family' in a legal sense?

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.2 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:42 AM EDT
                    Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

                    You argue that all these children are members of a single 'family', thus evoking the same interventions for each child. Are you truly arguing that this community constitutes a 'family' in a legal sense?

                    No, but it constitutes a family in a Child Protective Services sense. You forget that they don't follow the conventional family dynamic either, children in this community often consider multiple women to be their "mother". It is impossible to look at this case from a completely linear point of view, as it is based on what is normal in our current society.

                    I would highly doubt that removing children from a potentially harmful environment until it is ascertained how the situation is to be handled is going to harm them in any way. When dealing with communities and families who have a history of abuse it is often good proceed cautiously.

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.3 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:56 AM EDT
                    jpark

                    Texas has separate legal definitions for Child Protective Services? I don't think so.

                    These children are not members of a single family. The fiction of a single family may be touted to justify the unjust actions of removing unharmed children from their homes, but it has no basis in law or fact.

                      #17.4 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:36 AM EDT
                      Wheel

                      Park,

                      apparently you've decided not to read the warrant or to ignore it. The authorities with a legal warrant witnessed wide spread signs of abuse. They were right to remove the children. Legally and morally. You seem to labor under the impression the authorities did something wrong. That is clearly not the case. Read the warrant.

                        #17.5 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:03 AM EDT
                        E.D.Kain

                        Any child anywhere in any family can potentially be the target of abuse.

                        If these children must all be removed from their mothers' care because there is the potential for abuse, it logically follows that all children everywhere must be removed from their mother's care for the same reason.

                        You have some extremely flawed logic. I think you're here just to keep arguing. No rational person would look at it this way. If you want to argue the merits of foster care, the methodology of CPS or something, fine. But at this point, it feels very much like you're just arguing and making outlandish statements to get a rise out of people.

                          #17.6 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:04 AM EDT
                          Wheel

                          he's a troll, examine all his comments, he just keeps re-stating the same thing in a slightly different form over and over.

                          Park, report this comment please. Emily examine parks comments in this thread and judge whether I'm right or not.

                          There park, feel better now? :)

                            #17.7 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:09 AM EDT
                            jpark

                            Wheel,

                            Have there not been at least three warrants issued to date?

                            No links have been posted to any of the warrants. There was a link to a petition for a warrant, but no warrant.

                            Why, since you keep telling everyone to read the warrants, don't you post links to the warrants?

                            Oh, and since you know all about the supposed girl who allegedly called the authorities seeking assistance which resulted in the first warrant, why don't you comment on this article?

                            • 2 votes
                            #17.8 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:43 AM EDT
                            Wheel

                            actually park you're the one who claims to know so much with no proof. I saw that article already and posted to it.

                              #17.9 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:52 AM EDT
                              jpark

                              So you refuse to post links to the warrants you keep quoting from?

                              • 1 vote
                              #17.10 - Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:56 AM EDT
                              Dr Know

                              There seems to be an assumption that child abuse has been proven. It is ALLEGED. There has not been time for any proof to be discovered. The authorities have yet to have time to get any response from any of the children that could be interpreted as abuse or twisted to represent same.

                              • 1 vote
                              #17.11 - Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:37 PM EDT
                              Reply
                              brianalamptonDeleted
                              brianalamptonDeleted
                              Leave a Comment:
                              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                              Newsvine Privacy Statement
                              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                              FUN STUFF:
                              • Leaderboard |
                              • E-Mail Alerts |
                              • Top of the Vine |
                              • Newsvine Live |
                              • Newsvine Archives |
                              • The Greenhouse
                              COMPANY STUFF:
                              • Code of Honor |
                              • Company Info |
                              • Contact Us |
                              • Jobs |
                              • User Agreement |
                              • Privacy Policy |
                              • About our ads
                              LEGAL STUFF:
                              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com