Posted on 05/18/2008 10:05:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
So far as I can figure out online, Mennonites can show a little more leg.
“The over-zealous actions, improper court hearings, and violations of the victims rights will be what lets the perps walk, not us. “
If you can prove there was no crime, and it’s all a big joke, then maybe.
I don’t think Jerry Falwell is in Hell. I think he is in a good place with friends and family where he is gaining greater light and knowledge about the Savior.
“You and I both know the latter is not feasible, you’d never get past the dog. ;) “
Good dodging and weaving, but you didn’t answer the question.
(to qoute someone I have the highest respect for)
Despite our theological differences, I think Jerry Falwell was a good man, who did a lot of good things, for which he will receive a reward.
I have also noticed it also.
“Since when is “condoning” lawbreaking punishable? “
Ask Warren Jeffs. That’s what he is in prison for.
“If they don’t legally marry the plural “wives,” and the wives are not underage, it is not against the law.”
IF they aren’t violating any laws, then we should let all the children go back home.
HOWEVER, the Judge, the CPS, and the state of TEXAS, say they are violating the law.
By violating dumping, groundwater, and construction permits, the children are subject to a ‘dangerous environment’ above and beyond the child abuse issue.
Everyone keeps telling me that the Judge’s choice of the words ‘dangerous environment’ don’t mean anything.
I think they do. I think it relates to more than just the ‘doctrines of child brides and polygamy’.
We will have to wait and see.
IF there is any ‘danger’ at the YFZ Ranch, well.... at least the children are safe from it.
And their parents are allowed to visit them, so it’s not as if they are locked away in prison camps, as some suggest.
“I think he is in a good place with friends and family where he is gaining greater light and knowledge about the Savior.”
May we all end up in the same place.
Your comment was that he said “all Mormons are in hell”.
I don’t want you to take my response wrong.
“It is more likely Jerry Falwell is in hell, than it is that ALL MORMONS are in hell”.
You could substitute any other religious leaders name in place of Jerry Falwell, or even a non-religious leaders, if you like.
It is more likely I’ll be going to hell, than it is that ALL MORMONS are going.
“The wholesale confiscation of women and children.”
They may have ‘confiscated’ the children, but not the women.
(you thought you’d get away with that? You know me better than that)
“This is the opinion of a defense lawyer, not involved in the case, but I would give it more weight since these are some of the issues that will be raised if and when these cases ever come before a trail judge.”
However, it is predicated on one thing. And he repeats it over and over.
Paraphrased:” If it was based on just this one single phone call”.
That argument has been considered by the Judge, and does not affect the custody case. Which is what I think we are talking about.
It MIGHT affect any criminal cases, but we haven’t gotten to that point yet.
But I am good at guessing ages. I’d be taking people’s money in a circus if I didn’t choose a different career path.
Start correctly identifying them by age.
It is not up to me to prove my innocence, it is up to the state to prove my guilt. Period, end of line, that is how our system works and it seems far too many here have forgotten that, up to and including our state government!
It was a rhetorical question that really didn't have any basis in the facts at hand, but I will try. Don't know if you'll like it, but here it is.
First, IF someone came to me and attempted all of that, I would kill them. Simply put, all BS aside and I am prepared to accept the consequences. 2nd, I've been married to the same woman for 33 years and I don't think anyone is going to attempt to tell her what to do. They can try and it would probably be worth it to watch. ;)
It's not against the law to be underage and pregnant, it's not right, but it's not against the law.
Something I brought up early on was the mere presence of young pregnant girls, does not in itself constitute evidence of a crime. If so, the same evidence can be found in every high school and probably every jr. high in this country. Of course, I was immediately condemned for this statement and labeled a supporter of child abuse (to put it politely).
I said at first that I thought the state had no option in going in the first time, but after reading the affidavit for the first warrant I had major questions. What's at question, regardless of who called, is the age old, "what did they know and when did they know it"? The issue of the girl being taken to the hospital would have generated a flag for child abuse. I saw no back-up in the affidavit to account for this.
IF criminal activity cannot be proven, why did they take the kids? Because they didn't like their religion? I also said early on that I didn't think religion could be used as a defense, but the state is opening the door wider and wider to this exact defense if they do not produce a perpetrator.
So, if there are multiple children at the YFZ Ranch who are there without their parents, and without their parent’s permission, what should be done?
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.