The women produced documentation proving that they were not minors. The appeals court so stated. That is not just 'improperly classified'.
And yes, the CPS argued that it was a ‘system of belief’ which contributed to the ‘dangerous environment’ that the children were in.
That is scary, scary, scary to me. Luckily the appeals court rejected that argument.
Now, the indictments are another matter, and are for actual ‘acts’.
You keep mixing the two, and that is a big mistake.
When have I ever mixed the two, or said that the perps shouldn't be arrested and tried? Maybe you should try and think a little before posting?
Good Evening to all.
I’ve caught up on all the threads , and the latest posts on here.
And, I posted a new thread you all may be interested in.
(Swinton may testify against FLDS)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066514/posts
So....off we go.
Thank you , LeGrande, for responding in kind. By that I mean addressing my comments, point by point, sentence by sentence.
I am looking forward the the civil case where we will find out the circumstances that led to this. IIRC, there were two females who had questionable ID, and it was decided to be safe, take them as children, and let the court rule on the ID.
Yes. They rejected that it was a dangerous environment to ALL the children. They admitted it was dangerous for ‘some’.
“When have I ever mixed the two, or said that the perps shouldn’t be arrested and tried?”
You were mixing persecution and prosecution, or were trying to substitute persecution in the discussion of the ongoing prosecution.
And others are mixing the CPS case with the LE case, and others are mixing.... , and I’ve done it myself, so....
I must have gotten off the track, If I led you to think I meant you were a ‘blind defender’ of the perpetrators in the case.
Your position has always been ‘get the perps, but do it right’, and so... I reiterate your position here for everyone to see, instead of letting my comment mislead someone.