Posted on 05/18/2008 10:05:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
"Three weeks into covering the polygamous ranch raid story, I keep hearing from colleagues throughout NBC News who want to know more about how members of the sect live."
--snip--
"Here are some of the things members of the sect told me about life on the YFZ Ranch – which stands for Yearn For Zion – in Eldorado, Texas:"
--snip--
"Much of the above sharply contrasts with the picture of alleged physical and sexual abuse painted by state investigators. The courts will ultimately decide which version of the truth is closer to reality. I can’t say whether what ranch residents tell me is true or not, but I thought you’d be interested in what they said." Source: http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx
(Excerpt) Read more at fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com ...
<”Do you have any reports of any of these folks in Texas taking welfare?”>
Yes. It was reported on Fox News. And it has happened in other states with the same group. They support themselves, supposedly, with construction work. But if that were true, why drive out the teenage boys when they are coming of an age to work productively in construction?
The suspected reason adults are refusing to give DNA is to protect the church heirarchy from being charged with non-support of minor chilren. One man plus twenty-two wives equals a lot of children. If he is only married to one woman he cannot be charged with bigamy, BUT he can still get into trouble for avoiding support for all the rest of his children. The amount can add up quickly to huge totals.
And how would you know they are not set up as a religious entity, not taking tax exempt status? Are you a member of the sect? Do you know if that is normal, not to take tax exempt status for LDS and/or FLDS churches?
Oh relax. Take a chill pill, you are hyperventilating. I have nothing to do with flds. It was widely reported that the sect in Texas did not claim religious exception on taxes. There have been no reports save rumor that the Texas sect had any welfare recipients. Rumor and innuendo have no impact on fact.
Here:
http://www.myeldorado.net/YFZ%20Pages/YFZ072904.html
Here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/8122/texas-turns-up-the-heat-on-yfz-ranch
Here”
http://www.eldoradosuccess.com/YFZ%20Pages/YFZ050604b.html
Here:
YFZ Violations
(17) COMPANY: YFZ Land, LLC; DOCKET NUMBER: 2004-0800-
MLM-E; TCEQ ID NUMBERS: 75151, 72321, 72047, 2070006, and
RN104250626; LOCATION: on two contiguous tracts of property totaling
1,691 acres approximately four miles northeast of the intersection
of United States Highway 277 and Rudd Road north of Eldorado,
Schleicher County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: religious retreat;
RULES VIOLATED: 30 TAC §366.051(a), by failing to obtain
a permit and an approved plan to construct, alter, repair, extend,
or operate an on-site sewage disposal system; 30 TAC §281.25(a)(4)
and 40 CFR §122.26(c), by failing to obtain storm water authorization
prior to construction activity at the site; 30 TAC §331.3(a), and
TWC, §26.121(a), by failing to obtain authorization from the TCEQ
prior to the construction and use of a Class V injection well; 30 TAC
§116.110(a), and THSC, §382.0518(a) and §382.085(b), by failing to
obtain permit authorization prior to constructing a concrete batch plant
at the site; 30 TAC §106.512(1), and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to
obtain permit authorization or satisfy the conditions of a permit by rule
prior to the use of two diesel generators at the site; 30 TAC §324.4(1)
and 40 CFR §279.22(c)(1), by failing to label used oil containers; 30
TAC §290.42(b)(1), by failing to provide disinfection equipment for
a public water supply system; Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit Number TXR151300; Part III, Section D.2,
Section F.1(a - d), (f), (h - i), 2(b), 3(a), 4, 5(b - c), and 9, by failing to
comply with storm water permit provisions by failure to post a site notice
that is readily available to the public and not including all required
information on the site notice. Additionally, the storm water pollution
prevention plan was lacking in that it did not include an accurate and
complete list of potential pollutants and sources, the intended schedule
of construction, total and construction acreage, soil type, complete
site map, name of the receiving water, copy of the construction general
permit, stabilization practices, permanent pollution control measures,
description of wastes stored, and pollutant sources from non-construction
areas, and by failing to implement structural controls and identify
non-stormwater discharges; 30 TAC §330.5(a)(3), by failing to prevent
a discharge of diesel fuel to the soil at the site; 30 TAC §106.142, and
THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to obtain permit authorization or satisfy
the conditions of a permit by rule prior to the construction of a rock
crusher; 30 TAC §330.5(c), by failing to obtain authorization from the
commission prior to dumpingmunicipal solid waste at the site; 30 TAC
§111.201, and THSC, §382.085(b), by conducting outdoor burning at
the site; 30 TAC §106.144(4), and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to
obtain permit authorization or satisfy the conditions of a permit by rule
prior to the construction of a bulk mineral storage silo at the site; 30
TAC §210.5(a), by failing to obtain authorization prior to discharging
any reclaimed wastewater; 30 TAC §290.46(r), by failing to provide
at least 35 pounds per square inch throughout the distribution system
of the public water supply system; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(B), by failing
to provide a well casing that extends at least 18 inches above the
natural ground surface for a well that services the public water supply
system; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(J), by failing to provide a proper sealing
block for the well; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(K), by failing to provide
a well casing vent; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(N), by failing to provide a
meter to measure water ow at the well; 30 TAC §290.41(c)(3)(O) by
failing to provide an intruder-resistant fence or locked well house; 30
TAC §290.46(n)(2), by failing to provide a map of the distribution system;
30 TAC §290.39(m), by failing to notify the TCEQ upon start
up of a new public water system; 30 TAC §290.43(d)(7), by failing to
maintain the pipes discharging from the well and associated with the
pressure tank; 30 TAC §290.43(e), by failing to secure the pressure
tank within a locked building or an intruder resistant fence; 30 TAC
§290.45(b)(1)(A)(i), and THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to provide
the requiredminimumwell capacity; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(A)(ii), and
THSC, §341.0315(c), by failing to provide the requiredminimumpressure
tank capacity; 30 TAC §290.44(a)(1), by failing to provide piping
that conforms to American National Standards Institute/National Science
Foundation Standard 61; 30 TAC §116.115(c),Air PermitNumber
72151, Special Conditions Number 4.D., and THSC, §382.085(b), by
failing to install a cartridge lter on the bulk storage silo, in accordance
with permit requirements; PENALTY: $20,373; STAFF ATTORNEY:
Laurencia Fasoyiro, Litigation Division, MC R-12, (713) 422-8914;
REGIONAL OFFICE: San Angelo Regional Ofce, 622 South Oakes,
Suite K, San Angelo, Texas 76903-7013, (915) 655-9479.
“Two of the so called children were truthfully and factually legal adults. “
Those two were pregnant. Doesn’t matter if they were 12 or 120.
Their unborn children were in custody.
It has been discussed they had the highest property tax in the county it ran into the millions of dollars that would tend to make one think it was not set up as a religious property.
“They were not on a public street or driving a motor vehicle.”
They were, however, the subject of a police investigation.
Here’s a history of articles on the view of some Texans , before the ‘raid’.
http://www.childbrides.org/texas.html
“I guess I am lucky that I never needed to know those things before.”
Other than making new friends on these threads, I wish we hadn’t ‘needed to know’.
If CPS will lie to them how do you know they're not lying to the public also?
I can’t respond to a person who can’t reason in a straight line.
I do not believe there has ever been an unborn child in custody.
In fact after the birth of both they had a hearing to add them to the kids in custody of cps.
If they were already there why run another hearing??
I’ve explained it already on this thread.
“If CPS will lie to them how do you know they’re not lying to the public also? “
How do you know CPS lied to them?
Did they lie, or just decide not to tell them why they were separating them?
If they did lie, and that lie compromised the whole affair, then why didn’t the lawyers, WHO WERE THERE, object?
I think a lot of the issues have not been brought up in court because they have not had individual court hearings. You may be OK with this, I'm not.
“In fact after the birth of both they had a hearing to add them to the kids in custody of cps.”
“If they were already there why run another hearing??”
All I can say is that the CPS took the two pregnant mothers, based on their best guess of them being underage.
How many ‘hearings’ did they have?
Should have been four hearings.
Two for the new kids, two for the adults mistaken as minors.
If what you say is true, there should have been four.
Were there? Or was a hearing not needed for the ‘change’ in custody?
“I was responding to your statement that you supported them lying to the women. I did not bring the issue up.”
You are right. It’s still not proven that they did lie, that is just the word of some ‘anonymous’ complaints from the MHRH volunteers, who had reason to ‘twist’ the truth.
“I think a lot of the issues have not been brought up in court because they have not had individual court hearings.”
They are having them. 400 some individual hearings take time. Perhaps we will hear some of these complaints in those hearings.
The one filed a writ of habits corpus part of it was cps apparently took her id from what I read.
Proactive punishment of possible offenses.
460 odd hearings, which are required by law. Thus the call for attorneys and attorneys ad litem for each early on. Don't know the exact requirements, but it's not "whenever" we get to you.
Here is the latest thread, with some ‘new’ info, related to the hearings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2018386/posts
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.