Posted on 05/06/2008 5:16:55 AM PDT by MrEdd
Census sheets found in a safe at a polygamous sect's ranch in west Texas both support and contradict the state's claim of a widespread culture of underage marriage.
Texas authorities used the sheets to convince a judge that there was a "pervasive pattern" among the FLDS of marrying underage girls to older men.
A review of the "Father's Family Information" sheets shows a handful of 16-year-old wives, 13 young monogamous couples and 24 men with multiple wives - including one man with 21 wives and 36 children.
A Texas Ranger testified about the census sheets during an April 17-18 court hearing before 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, who accepted the records as evidence despite objections from attorneys representing FLDS parents and children. The pages were recently released by the court. Sgt. Danny Crawford said the sheets were found April 5 in an office at the ranch, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Texas authorities raided the ranch on April 3 after receiving reports of an abused 16-year-old, calls now being investigated as a possible hoax.
Authorities have said, however, they found evidence of a polygamous lifestyle and underage marriage practices at the ranch that supported removing 464 children.
The bishop's record sheets helped them make that case.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Algore has set himself up a never-ending “greenhouse gas” gravy train. Once he (in the name of reduced carbon footprint and water use) has converted us to privies and corncobs, then he can start rabble-rousing against the resulting increase in methane... ‘-}
Why were GAME WARDENS involved in this action?
Answers here.
http://phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-11-10/news/wanted-armed-and-dangerous/
Apparently, no matter what specific issue one wants to discuss regarding this case (in this case, what documents should be sufficient to prove a child is yours), the CPS supporters just want to go back to “the children were in danger”, as if that excuses any and all actions.
“Plus they had no way to identify them”. While there were some apparently who weren’t easily identified, there have been multiple stories about specific families where the parents and the children were known to each other. And, oddly enough, this subthread you are commenting on was specifically about families who had LEGAL DOCUMENTS showing their marriage and the birth of their children, and those documents were not accepted by the court.
So apparently, the term “no way to identify them” has some different meaning in these threads, I think it means “they were FLDS, so we have to take away their children”.
The authorities might not of handled this in the *proper* manner but, everyone knew something evil was happening at the ranch and it had to be stopped.
Could you or I do anything? NO! We have government to take care of enforcing the laws, as they are constitutionally bound to do.
The minute people in Texas were aware this Sect had bought property here, (through a 3rd party no less) we knew it was only a matter of time before things would happen. Unlike some of the more *lily livered* states in the Union, Texans don't play that game, Homie.
“That’s an entirely different question, and completely off the topic of what documentation should be sufficient to prove your child belongs to you.”
YOU SAID:
“You do realise they took children who were not pregnant, showing signs of abuse, or thrown out in the street.”
I SAID:
“If you had five children, and one of them had signs of abuse, do you think they would leave the other four?”
I think that my question is exactly on topic to your remark.
They were in the cult. That means they were engaging in the behavior that brought the law down on them. Since many members were not cooperating, it would be difficult to tell who was telling the truth.
It’s a simple question, and has nothing to do with “how many other cases where this has happened”. Since some of hte objection is how odd this is relative to what happens elsewhere, and that objection could be stated as “something’s different about this case”, I think most people will agree.
But my question was, if we don’t accept official birth and marriage records, what would it take to prove your kid was yours. Because when the Judge justified the removal of 460 kids from dozens of parents partly on the basis that some of those kids couldn’t readily be identified as belonging to a parent, I got to thinking where the paperwork was in my house to prove my kids are mine.
But if the paperwork isn’t good enough, maybe I need to get a pre-emptive DNA test.
When did it become illegal to "be in a cult"?
could someone who understands the lds/flds religion explain to me what this means have seen it a few times but so far have not figured out what it means.
thanks
Maybe everyone should submit a DNA test to the government and they should make a huge database with this information. To readily identify us, perhaps a barcode of some type (relating to the DNA) could be printed on each of our arms so that law enforcement, game wardens, and CPS can just scan every person. Who would we put in charge of the database is the question, perhaps a limited non-elected group appointed by whatever President is in charge at the time.
When the cult begins engaging in illegal behavior as part of its normal operation. If these men had been running a shell game, the kids wouldn;t have been picked up. But instead, they were screwing the kids.
If that’s really your concern, it would seem to be misplaced, since this appears to be the ONLY CASE, and in fact, you are not living in a polygamist compound, marrying underage girls, etc. I think I will worry about things that might really happen.
susie
“Apparently, no matter what question you are asked, if it doesn’t apply to the one issue you want to talk about, you ignore it.
Why?
I have asked you many questions, and you haven’t answered.
Not that you have too, but you must admit, you are establishing a pattern of avoidance.
I think that many posters, including myself, have tried to answer 90% of your questions, and have addressed the ‘specific issue’ you want to discuss, over, and over, for days.
I already stated that some of the FLDS members told the JUDGE they would be ‘willing’ to provide UTAH Birth Certificates, if the Judge would just return ALL THE CHILDREN, indiscriminately.
The Judge said no. I even offered that I could be wrong, and you could counter it. You either ignored or missed my response.
So, that is proof I did address your questions.
You can stop with the NO ONE WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION stuff.
It is blatantly not true.
I have a question:
Why do so many Mormons defend this cult?
Yes, it was off-topic. In your previous response to my question about whether I need more than a birth certificate and marriage records, whether I would need DNA, you gave a specific list of transgressions which, if I was alleged to have done them, would require me to present DNA.
I corrected your perception that ALL of the kids seized met your criteria, and re-asked my question. That had nothing to do with the topic of why the kids were seized, it was noting that the question applied to people who did not meet your criteria.
You then responded with “If you had five children, and one of them had signs of abuse, do you think they would leave the other four?”
Which is completely off-topic. My original question had nothing to do with whether these kids should have been taken, it was about what proof you need that your kids are yours. Your first response said in some cases you would require DNA, so I noted that some kids didn’t meet your criteria and asked the question again.
Do you see now how, up to that point, we were still on the topic of “proof that the kids are yours”.
In my response I NEVER said anything about whether CPS should have taken the kids, I simply noted that some were taken who didn’t meet your criteria.
Therefore, your question in return, NOT about what evidence you need to prove parentage, but about whether the kids should be taken, was entirely off-topic.
But it is normal that no matter WHAT the question is, the pro-CPS folks always bring it back to “don’t you think the children needed to be saved”. I would guess because that is a comfortable question, and for some it allows them to feel superior, and to make up names and insults for those they are arguing with “Child Molester”, “Rape Enabler”, “FLDS defender”, “Polygamy Apologist”.
None of those make sense in response to a question about what proof a parent needs to have that their child is theirs. So you need to take the conversation back to “are you some nut who doesn’t think the kids needed to be saved?”
“But my question was, if we don’t accept official birth and marriage records, what would it take to prove your kid was yours.”
Second, you claim no one will answer your question of “what would it take to prove it otherwise”.
Well, what do we have here?
To: CharlesWayneCT
Prove that baby’s mine?
Foot prints, birth records, baby bracelet, medical records, finger prints, blood type, albums full of pictures, pictures on the walls, birth announcements, pictures of me in the delivery room with said baby, video of everything from birth to first poo poo, holiday cards with our pictures, the child calling me ‘Mom’, the other kids calling him/her sister and me Mom, etc...
And if that ain’t enough, DNA. But usually, for CPS, the prior is usually sufficient.
Odd how the FLDS had none of the above.
None.
158 posted on Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:39:06 PM by najida
So you believe in guilt by membership.
And we are back to the easily defended argument, “they were screwing the kids”. As long as you can say that, any argument back can be dismissed.
“partly on the basis that some of those kids couldn’t readily be identified as belonging to a parent, I got to thinking where the paperwork was in my house to prove my kids are mine.”
How many children do you have living in your house that were taken from their real parents and given to you by a self-proclaimed PROPHET?
“So apparently, the term “no way to identify them” has some different meaning in these threads”
If that is the term that was used by someone, I agree with you, it is not true.
Some of these children may have been positively identified during the execution of the search warrants. Maybe even proof of who their mother is.
That does not, however, prove they were not subject to abuse.
In my post to another freeper, I said, and I QUOTE:
Apparently, no matter what specific issue one wants to discuss regarding this case (in this case, what documents should be sufficient to prove a child is yours), the CPS supporters just want to go back to “the children were in danger”, as if that excuses any and all actions.
In your response to that post, you started with this:
“Apparently, no matter what question you are asked, if it doesn’t apply to the one issue you want to talk about, you ignore it.
I can only hope that your inclusion of quotation marks was an honest mistake, and that you didn't mean to imply that I made that statement.
My statement was about how often, no matter what issue we attempt to discuss, the responses always go back to "the children were abused". I realise for some people, that's all they care about. but those people could simply ignore questions that are not about what they are interested in.
It's those who RESPOND to questions, but respond by changing the subject, that were the object of my complaint. I've had a good exchange of ideas with some posters about the issue of documentation. But others just wanted to go back to the territory they are comfortable with.
I've not complained about people ignoring my questions, but about people who "answer" them by changing the subject.
I doubt there are many questions that have been asked to me that I haven't answered at least once. I can only think of one, and it was an impertinent and completely out-of-line question, and it wasn't asked by you.
If I have nothing further to say about a subject, I sometimes won't respond -- like I have no additional information about the story regarding the birth certificates, so I didn't respond to your response. I can't confirm or deny what you said, so I have nothing to add. If I look up the information later, I might be able to confirm or counter your claim.
As this is the first time I've asked what information would be needed to prove parentage, and I only asked the question ONE time, in ONE thread, it's hardly an apt description to suggest I have only one "specific issue", or that I want to discuss it over and over 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.