Posted on 09/07/2008 6:49:24 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
ELDORADO, Texas — When a grand jury meets here later this month, criminal indictments could be handed down against more members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
....
Some of that evidence has been used in child-custody cases over the hundreds of FLDS children taken into state protective custody during the raid. Texas Child Protective Services has said it has evidence of at least 10 underage marriages. A CPS caseworker testified during a court hearing last week that an investigation revealed "48 percent of the men at the ranch were involved in underage marriage practices."
.....
"Sheriff Doran advised affiant that Becky Musser has provided him with information regarding the FLDS on more than 100 occasions over the past four years, including as recently as April 8, 2008, and that, on each occasion, that information has proven to be reliable, true and correct," Wilson wrote in the probable cause statement.
Becky Musser is a sister of Elissa Wall, who was the star witness in Utah's case against Jeffs. Musser also testified at the trial and was married to Jeffs' father, Rulon, when she was a teenager.
....
The FLDS Church and some of its members have filed legal challenges to have the search warrants and any evidence tossed. A hearing has been scheduled Oct. 1.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
Thanks for the links.
: )
“Freepers have been pissed that the government focused on the children instead of the male adults.”
This is where you attempt to mislead Freepers.
The CPS focused on the children (it’s their job), and the LE focused on the male adults (it’s their job).
I don’t have a verified count of the actual number of men at the YFZ Ranch, so I can’t say what 48% would be.
But, it is certainly more than 1, or 2, as many would ‘like’ to believe.
“That’s no defense of the FLDS. It’s a defense of due process and Constitutional guarantees, so they are there when you and I need them.”
They are ‘rights’, not guarantees. No one guarantees that someone, somewhere, sometime, even someone in authority, won’t violate your rights. But, you do have the justice system to address those violations.
Other than the 2 women who were taken as ‘minors’, who’s rights were violated?
And this due process, and these rights, are still ‘there’. The raid hasn’t altered the Justice system or Constitution.
Which is why they didn't do the simple obvious thing and give the actual number (Occam's Razor suggests 10 out of 21). The vaguity allows you girls to speculate about the kinky stuff going on at YFZ.
Actually, my comment was in regards to the author's use of the word "approximately". Something like "439 out of 440 children were returned", or "all but 1 child out of the 440 children taken initially" would have been more informative.
I'm saying it's not happening.
No doubt the media picks to write their headlines and articles in a way to mislead, imply, distort, or confuse the reader.
But there is no fun in just giving us the actual straightforward facts. We might not read the rest of the story. Or the other stories, or the next issue.
Just watch the local news, and notice how the weather forecast becomes a big game of tease, to keep you watching through all the other BS just so you can find out if it’s gonna rain or not.
“Which is why they didn’t do the simple obvious thing and give the actual number (Occam’s Razor suggests 10 out of 21).”
Because the process of indictments on this case is not over.
Until the indictments occur, no one can give an accurate count .
And, the count may include all the men who were originally at the ranch, and not just the few who stayed when the raid happened.
We do agree on the count of 10 men indicted. That is what I predicted from the beginning.
The fact is that they didn’t just “hit and run.” The men and women systemically groom the girls for early “marriage” and breeding with men who already have “wives.
Every so often, they’d get together and swap daughters.
Nearly every “household” or sub-group in the commune was affected.
Why?
The girls' ages here are immaterial from a legal standpoint. Just because they're 16 doesn't mean much.
Legally the question is: When were they married, and what was the age of consent at that time?
If they're 16 now and they were married 2 years ago when the age of consent was 14, then there's not much of a case here.
I also notice that there's not much mention here of the 12 year old's that were bandied about in these threads.
“Raymond Jessop, Leroy Jessop, Michael George Emack, Nathan Jessop and Jackson Jessop”
“We didn’t join this religion as a fashion statement.”
They weren’t “married”, so the legal age of marriage isn’t the pertinent information. And Jeffs IS being prosecuted for raping a 12 year old, who is back in CPS custody.
Or not...
It's early yet...
That's because the gummint LIKEs the NBA type of voters: NOT the FLDS kind!
WHICH guys?
They are churned out (kids) big time in Indianapolis!
So, do you suggest they shouldn't prosecute?
susie
Actually, even if they were married at say 14, and that was the age of consent (with a parent’s consent) if the man was married to someone else, then the marriage was illegal and then he’s just having sex with a minor (which no one can consent to).
susie
I’m puzzled as to what you’re suggesting, so maybe you can clarify. Are you saying that because every case of a minor getting pregnant isn’t pursued, none of them should be?
susie
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.