Posted on 05/04/2008 9:18:32 AM PDT by MizSterious
(Excerpt) Read more at azstarnet.com ...
It IS outright fraud, because in order to qualify for welfare payments, these women have to be representing that the fathers of their children can’t be found or have no assets or earning power with which to support the children. In fact, they know exactly where the fathers are, and the fathers have plenty of earning power, but are mostly working “off the books” and handing over most of their earnings to the cult leaders.
I wish I had that ability, but, alas, I don’t.
I hate pdf!
Thanks for the clarification. From what I have read there is lots of money in the sect and it is not uncommon for the women and children to do without while the men have lots of money to play with.
If such an event happened.
However, by her admission, in her case, for some reason it did not.
So in this specific instance, there is no 'perp' to get yourself all lathered up about.
Oh my, being forced to sew a dress for your future... Geez. Call me back when you get have a crime to talk about.
There may have been murders, shootings, stabbings, rapes, etc. etc. etc. going on at that compound - but THIS witness adds NOTHING to the case.
As long as they are going..they might as well take some q-tips with them.
Thank God!
Being forced to sew a wedding dress for a wedding you don’t want, to a guy you don’t love, for a life of servitude and sexual slavery you don’t want—might not technically be a crime, but it does expose the complete and total moral bankruptcy of this cult. Thank Heaven she escaped.
You are reading a lot into the story that simply isn't there.
Escaped? She turned 18, became and adult and left. There is not dramatic 'escape' story presented.
A guy she doesn't love? No 'guy' was ever selected for her.
A life of servitude? A life of sexual slavery? That is a very dim view you have of marriage. Particularly for a marriage in this instance that was never presented or proposed.
While all of those things may be true (or not) about that group - they are not presented in this story.
Find a woman with a real story and present that.
“Let’s say you’re a 6-month-old girl, no evidence whatsoever of any abuse. They’re simply saying, ‘You, in this culture, may grow up to be a child bride when you’re 14. Therefore we’re going to remove you now when you’re 6 months old,”’ he said. “Or, ‘You’re a 6-month-old boy; 25, 30 years, 40 years from now you’re going to be a predator, so we’re going to take you away now.”’
Exactly. The Constitution is tarnished or maybe dead.
It is dead Jim ... When the Uniform Law group {supposedly our top lawyers in this country} proposes a specific law (UCAPA - aka Uniform Child Abuse Prevention Act) that: 1) allows people to be essentially charged and punished for a felony they have not committed in CIVIL court. 2) allows them to be charged by their EX. 3) allows them to be charged based on COMMON ordinary acts. .. a) Ordinary family acts... ........ picking up your birth certificate ........ picking up your child's medical records. ........ picking up your child's school records. .. b) Ordinary financial acts... {acts done by EVERY person in New Orleans since Katrina) ........ selling a house ........ quitting a job ........ closing a bank account ........ terminating a lease ........ or ANY other 'unusual' transaction .. c) Ordinary life acts... ........ having a sister, brother who lives in another state ........ having 'strong cultural' connections to another state ........ having 'strong emotional connections to another state .. d) Authorizes the judge to rule on an EX-PARTE basis. .. e) Allows the judge to authorize a DYNAMIC entry to take your children should the judge believe the circumstances warrant (aka Eliane Gonzales case). .. f) When such a law passes in over 7 states (Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Kansas, Colorado, Nevada, Texas) with scarcely a murmur of opposition by any of the legislatures. .. g) When these 'risk factors' were supposedly developed by the U.S. Department of Justice. .. h) When the American Bar association voted to approve this bill. .. i) When most of the lawyers out there still think the bill only applies to INTERNATIONAL cases to non-Hague treaty compliant countries when they expanded their scope and it actually covers intra-state and in-state 'abductions'. .. j) When 'abductions' is defined so loosely that it covers any case where there is a dispute over parenting time more than an hour long so that the term is reduced to ABSURDITY. .. k) When they trump up that there are 262,000 'abductions' per year based on this absurd definition. Even though most children are with their other parent; most are returned within a few hours past when the 'first parent' thought they should have been home; even though most of the 'first parents' were not concerned about the 'alleged abduction'. .. l) When the only vocal committee member in the Louisiana legislature was a NON-LAWYER. .. k) When only a SINGLE LAWYER is aware enough and brave enough to testify against this bill in Louisiana. I can only conclude that it is DEAD... ROTTED... DECEASED... GONE... EXPIRED... N. Sources: NCCUSL http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopModules/NewsDisplay.aspx?ItemID=162 Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Child_Abduction_Prevention_Act LaDads http://ladads.info/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=19/
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.