Posted on 07/29/2008 6:44:21 AM PDT by ricks_place
Five indicted members of a West Texas polygamist sect turned themselves in to authorities Monday to face charges related to allegations of child sexual abuse.
The five men were indicted last week with Warren Jeffs, the already-jailed leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The charges stem from a state investigation into allegations that the sect forced underage girls into marriage and motherhood with much older men.
State authorities raided the FLDS's Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado on April 3, eventually sweeping more than 400 children into foster care until the state Supreme Court said officials had overreached and sent the children home.
Raymond Merrill Jessop, 36, Allan Eugene Keate, 56, Michael George Emack, 57, and Merrill Leroy Jessop, 33, were charged with one count each of sexual assault of a child, a felony punishable by a sentence ranging from five to 99 years or life in prison. Their bond was set at $100,000 each.
Merrill Leroy Jessop also was charged with bigamy, a felony with the same potential penalties as the sexual assault charge.
Lloyd Hammon Barlow, 38, the ranch's onsite physician, was charged with three counts of failure to report child abuse, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison. His bond was set at $5,000.
Attorney General Greg Abbott on Monday declined to provide details of what the men were accused of doing.
Efforts to find the men's attorneys were not immediately successful. A message left for FLDS attorney Rod Parker was not immediately returned.
Abbott said the state would try to have Jeffs extradited to Texas to face a charge of sexual assault of a child.
Last week's charges were the first since the April raid.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Gee, I am so relieved to hear that! (sarc)
You just lost all your credibility with that comment. You haven't a "leg to stand on" in calling anyone else ignorant.
You assume that anyone who believes this cult is criminal condones every action of child protective agencies and "big brother" control of citizens. That's a false assumption. Strange as it may be to you, many of us have the common sense to discern when we believe the government is overstepping it's bounds and when it must act.
I’m much more concerned about Jehovah’s Witnesses coming to my door, than CPS.
Since I don’t practice inbreeding, nor polygamy, nor sex with minors, I don’t think CPS will even bother to knock on my door.
“There are leaders among the women who have the responsibility of keeping the young girls in line and covering up the problems.”
When a minor male is banished from the community—thrown out, I would say the adult mothers should be charged with abandonment, endangerment.
When the adult female assists with arranged statutory rape of a minor female, they should be held accountable.
The parents in Denver didn't do any of those things either.
Oh, that's right CPS didn't come to their door, they just stole the kid right from the front yard.
Don't tell you kids what you are cheering on, or they will curse your name some day.
Would you see if you could find this link? I searched CPS, Coloado and Homeschool. I didn’t pull up anything on FR. There are a bunch of unfamilar links on the webb (as expected) and I don’t want to just start opening up trouble. Thanks.
I know it sounds harsh but maybe all the adults involved ...male and female should be charged. The ones trying to change could get probation with guidance.
“Switched name brands?”
It would appear, that with all your overemotional hyperventilation, that you simply can’t read.
Here is what I said, and if you aren’t aware of this happening, then you are the one who is being stupid.
“(or who purposely switched name bands)”
Here’s a website you might want to post on, instead of FR.
http://www.fightcps.com/2001_10_28_archive.html
You are conveniently leaving out the details in the Denver case.
Either that, or you don’t know the details.
“Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true : ) It just makes you a serial reprobate.”
Then that would make you the KING of serial reprobates.
“CPS heard through the grapevine that the parents were teaching the kid things CPS didn’t approve of so they snatched him.”
That is not why CPS removed the boy.
It would if it was the truth. Sadly it is just another of your lies. I try very hard to be accurate and not lie. Can you point out a single lie that I have made?
“(or who purposely switched name bands)”
What does that mean? You seem to be writing gibberish.
You haven't been following the conversation. The other person has been saying that once the children reach puberty they are safe. Please try to keep up : )
You assume that anyone who believes this cult is criminal condones every action of child protective agencies and "big brother" control of citizens. That's a false assumption. Strange as it may be to you, many of us have the common sense to discern when we believe the government is overstepping it's bounds and when it must act.
Can you point to anyone from your cabal who condemned the CPS's actions prior to the Supreme Courts decision. As far as I saw all of you unanimously supported the CPS's illegal actions.
Now you are pretending that you agreed with the rest of us when we were complaining of the governments "overstepping it's bounds". Some of us can remember what happened a month ago. : )
Well lets see what you said.
"And finally, girls who reach puberty are in much less danger of being traded off to men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers, although the danger isn’t over.
83 posted on Thu Jul 31 11:23:26 2008 by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))"
You have directly contradicted yourself,and you have the audacity to call me irrational?
I don’t recall saying that the children were in imminent physical danger. Do you have a reference?
Are you now claiming that you didn't support the CPS taking all of the women and children? That was their only justification in taking them.
However, since you bring it up, the danger is teaching the children to lie about their ages, mothers and fathers, the risk to all the children that the elders will decide to rip their families apart to give them to another man, and the further risk that some decree will come from Merrill or Willie that the next set of daughter exchanges. While possibly imminent, it’s not “physical.”
Does that justify taking all the women and children? If it does why aren't you screaming that they be removed now?
Are you familiar with either of these sites?
Kidjack.com
Fightcps.com
As I said, you are irrational.
Noting that “the creepy cultists only rape post-pubescent but under age girls” and that these girls are in “much less danger. . . although the danger isn’t over.” is not contradictory.
You stated that I said something. The burden of proof is on you.
"girls who reach puberty are in much less danger of being traded off to men old enough to be their fathers"
Then you said
The fact seems to be that the creepy cultists only rape post-pubescent but under age girls.
Your second statement is more accurate and contradicts your first statement.
Once a child “reaches puberty” - first menses for a girl - she can be said to be “post-pubescent.”
The statements are clear. They are not contradictory.
The statements are clear. They are not contradictory.
So then you believe that "girls who reach puberty are in much less danger" of being raped than pre pubescent girls?
That is what you stated.
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.