Judge says FLDS children will stay in custody, orders DNA tests

Well, here is post 384 on THIS thread, I'm not sure which thread you are referencing. Perhaps you could double-check?

In Colorado City, AZ, the FLDS is the law. They are the police force, the mayor, the school board. Ever hear of Ruth Stubbs? Yeah, she's not around anymore. She made the mistake of running away from her rapist husband in Colorado City. She did, however, conveniently write a handwritten note asking the police not to prosecute him before she vanished.

I'm quite sure you are very aware of many of the details surrounding these items, such as the UEP, but are counting on other's ignorance to try to paint the government as interfering. In my opinion, the government has not interfered enough.

I, too, believe in one set of laws for everyone. And in that set of laws, child rape is illegal, whether it's for religious reasons or not.

384 posted on Monday, April 21, 2008 10:19:00 PM by the808bass

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

When interviewed by the social worker, did Ruby say she wasn't married? Did she say she was married with her parent's permission?

Was Elizabeth Smart kidnapped and raped by a fundamentalist Mormon polygamist after he performed a "wedding ceremony"? (Psst - the answer's yes)

And yet, after being found and having the chance at freedom and being returned to her parents, she gave a different name and swore she was 18. Weird. I wonder what made her do that.

The information in my post is taken verbatim from "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. You can find it at your local Barnes and Nobles or Borders. I'm sure you won't bother as you took a great deal of time to demonstrate your best skills of sophistry. The fact that you can't tell "who is reporting the details" does not diminish the story at hand. It is inconvenient to actually hear the sordid details of the cult and have to face the sheer evil of it. It's much more fun to talk about the theoretical abuses of the nanny state.

If everything reported about the FLDS is true, then there are people who deserve to be punished. But the evidence against them is no more convincing to me than the evidence that was developed in Duke and McMartin.

Yawn. I mean really yawn. Really? You're against child abuse? Who knew? Golly. What a brave stance you're taking in being against the theoretical abuse of children. As for the evidence being "more convincing," you don't care. You haven't bothered to check any of it. You didn't even bother to read my rather plain citation of where this information came from.

Judith Anne said: "I, too, believe in one set of laws for everyone. And in that set of laws, child rape is illegal, whether it's for religious reasons or not. "

(I think this may be the third posting #384 I have responded to. One of us has certainly confused the threads.)

I don't disagree. But I am very troubled by the fact that people are pointing out two suspicious disappearance as possible justification for the activity seen today.

If the accusation is that the authorities have ignored long-standing evidence of two murders, then the solution is to require those authorities to investigate the murders.

I appreciate that you are pointing out that sufficient evidence exists to investigate some matters today. I haven't yet had a chance to review the information.

Al Capone was eventually brought down by tax evasion charges, and not by his gangsterism. I understand that sometimes massive conspiracies are difficult to break. But given the siezing of 416 children from their parents, I expect to see a massive conspiracy uncovered.

What will disappoint me greatly would be an outcome where all charges are dismissed with the authorities claiming helplessness because of non-cooperation. Non-cooperation is a given in this case and the action of the authorities needs to be consistent with such an expectation.

Judith Anne said: "I do not recognize that post as mine. If you think I am confused, perhaps you can tell me where I said that."

At least once, I accidently responded to post #385 instead of #384. I think that you may have asked for a response to #384 on a different thread (maybe I am mistaken about that).

The mis-attribution here is just that I am used to responding to people's own posts and mistakenly attributed the posting you asked about to you, rather than the original poster. And for the record, lack of HTML skills is not involved.

Judith Anne said: "Must be spring."

That might be it. I also have relatives staying with us right now and I am stealing what moments I can for FR. Your apology is accepted. I hope mine is, too.

I started reading the affidavit on the link you provided, but the power cable on my laptop disconnected on me and the battery isn't charging correctly. So I will have to start again.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.