Posted on 05/30/2008 5:34:10 PM PDT by festus
“There are several members of FLDS active on the Free Republic it seems.”
And lo, verily, I say unto you, that you shalt name them, that we may assign their sign-in dates and user numbers to those more worthy, along with their children: And they shall be bereft, and forced to wander in the desert of the ignorant, until they shall repent of their evil ways; and you, for your good service to the Lord, and to all that is just and true, shall be rewarded with thirty pieces of silver.
interesting response. You argue your side and we are supposed to listen and change our minds. I argue my side and you say I'm stuck on myself because I have an opinion? Are women not allowed to have an opinion in your house?
lololol
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/Polygamist_Retreat.html
The judge wanted
Walther had wanted to add restrictions to the agreement worked out by the parents’ attorneys and Texas Child Protective Services, but the parents’ attorneys argued that she didn’t have the authority.
The judge then said she would sign the initial document, but only after all 38 mothers involved in the case the high court ruled on signed it first.
skip a few paragraphs:
Under the deal CPS released, the families won’t be able to leave Texas until Aug. 31 but would be allowed to move back to the ranch. It also calls for parenting classes and visits by CPS to interview children and parents in the child abuse investigation.
Walther wanted to remove the August deadline and provide for psychological evaluations of the children. She also wanted it specified that parents can’t travel more than 60 miles from their residence without 48 hours’ notice. She also wanted CPS to have access to the ranch and the children at all times necessary for any investigation.
Oooh, you got me good with that one. Yep, I'm just a simple mind wondering how the courts in CA always get it so wrong (ie: gay marriage) but no other courts in any other state make mistakes in their rulings.
If the other posters are correct about the legal definition of "polygamy", that is that anything other than the first marriage is not an actual marriage, then there is really very little concern about legal marriage age.
The accusations are that adult men are engaging in sex with UNMARRIED underage girls. The exceptions to the statutory rape laws for married persons are probably irrelevant to whatever might be found within the FLDS.
The marriage records that have been seized would mainly be useful for establishing which adult men, if any, had sex with which underage girls, if any. The DNA might establish the same thing if a pregnancy had resulted.
I haven't read the record of Jeff's conviction for being an accomplice to rape. But the conviction probably rests on the fact that his overt action of performing a sham marriage encouraged the illegal act of raping an underage girl.
Most of the FLDS members did not officiate at a sham marriage and therefor would not be legally guilty of anything, unless some other legal duty existed to protect the underage girl being raped. Such a duty would exist, I think, for the parents of that girl and they face legal jeopardy if the case can be proved.
This type of case is probably a prime candidate for a grand jury. People have a DUTY to respond to a grand jury subpoena. They have a duty to answer questions truthfully subject to their fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination and subject to some other privileges.
If they claim fifth-amendment privilege, a judge can order them to testify subject to an immunity agreement. Failure to then testify can draw a jail sentence for contempt. Tesifying untruthfully, like Bill Clinton did, can subject them to charges of perjury, if a jury can be convinced of the false testimony.
There are plenty of tools available to law enforcement to get this job done. But the authorities have to have the guts to jail people for non-cooperation and the authorities have to be able to sustain the public furor if they appear to be abusing their power.
You ever wonder why FLDS doesn’t just move to CA ?
They’d fit right in.
Until then, let them go.
Until then, let them be raped....noooo problem
You posted your other response after that and yes I agree courts can make mistakes. Completely disregarding, and continuing to do so, the LAW that says each case shall be handled individually is a bit more than a mistake.
If the crime of "polygamy" requires that multiple licenses be issued, and if the members of the FLDS do not request the issuance of multiple licenses, then I most assuredly DO believe that the crime of polygamy has not occurred.
If, for example, the crime of bank robbery requires a bank, then holding up a liquor store does not make one guilty of bank robbery. It is really no more complicated than that.
Jeffs has been convicted of being an accomplice to rape. The law probably found that his officiating at a sham marriage constituted an aiding of the rapist in committing the crime. But I don't believe that Jeffs was convicted of polygamy nor do I know that the rapist was convicted of polygamy.
But, but....ooops.
The FLDS and Gavin Newsom. What a team!
They can and do however this is actually not that dramatic a decision. It is fairly consistent with other similar rulings across the nation.
Judges have to hear the evidence. In this case there was no such hearing just a blanket off with their heads type of ruling. Also do not confuse de novo with abuse of discretion.
In order to have overturned this judges decision, the judge really really really had to screw up. abuse of discretion is a VERY high hurdle to overcome for an appellant.
Unfortunatly McCain thinks Alito and Roberts were “too conservative” and he offers us promises of another occonor and souter. (Hard to be hopeful with three democrats running for the Presidency.)
If we don’t fight fair, it will open the door for convictions in the criminal case to be overturned, or worse hand children back to abusers in the CPS case. Remember this appeal is not about the conduct of the accused, it is about the conduct of the government’s CPS. Right now the trial judge thinks she can do not wrong. that is not a strong position.
don’t forget texas allows for “informal marriage” aka common law marriage.
It specifically forbits informal marriage to anyone under 18.
The law also specifically forbids informal marriage for those who are married formally.
In a non-common law state your position would be legally accurate but in a common law state it would hinge on intent and proof of intent.
I suppose the State could return the children to the parents...as soon as they found out who the parents are.
Have you ever been at dinner, in a really nice place, sort of formal, when some unknown person lets loose a really stinky one?
You cough, you hold your breath, you feel embarassed, you look away, you hope the stench will dissapate quickly...
That is exactly how the TX SC reacted to the CPS “we need the DNA” argument.
Here is an odd aside - it used to be in TX, that if you intrroduced yourself as husband and wife some number of times, you were.
A long, long, time ago.
It “used” to be living as man and wife and presenting yourself as such in public, but I’ve been married to the same woman for 33 years, so I have no clue anymore.
What?
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.