A Case of Rotten Texas Justice

It's now been over three weeks since the state of Texas, acting on a call allegedly from a 16-year old "abused child bride" inside the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints Compound in Eldorado Texas

The reason for the raid was that children within the FLDS compound where in "immediate danger." Operating on that assumption and motivated by the phone call from the "16-year-old-abused-child-bride" the state of Texas raided the compound, seized over 400 children and has now placed every single one of those children in foster care, without one case of abuse being documented among the children - in many cases breaking up large families of brothers and sisters, most of whom have never been apart before in their entire lives.

In the meantime what's happened to that "16-year-old-child-bride? Answer - nothing, because she didn't exist.

The call that stated this whole thing was a fraud, a lie which was traced to a crazy woman in Colorado who never had anything to do with the FLDS.

THE phone calls that triggered a mass raid on a polygamist compound in west Texas - in which a quavering girl's voice described being forcibly married at 15 - have been linked to a Colorado woman with a history of making false claims of sexual abuse, an affidavit filed in Colorado Springs says.

This is the third time I've written about this case and how disturbing I found it that the government could raid an entire community, trash people's homes, desecrate their temple and then take every single one of these people's kids away without a single damned shred of evidence.

This is disgusting and disturbing and what's worse is the fact that when I first brought it up, days after the initial raid, the reaction from this community was pure and utter outrage - at me for daring to suggest the whole raid was wrong in the first place.

As progressives we should always look extremely sceptically on claims from the government which are not backed up with facts. In this case we failed ourselves and the 400 children from the FLDS whose lives are now irreparably damaged. Every single person who commented initially and applauded the raid should be ashamed.
Reunite the stolen children.

•  I'm sorry...in this case, I agree with

  the government.  The FLDS is not a "church" it's a cult.  People are NOT free to come and go as they please.  Children were, and continue to be, abused and brainwashed by these people.

  by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:11:57 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely amazing

    I can't discuss this with someone who states very clearly that the government's illegal and immoral actions are OK because they disagree with the religious beliefs of those who are being persecuted.

    by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:14:33 PM PDT

    •  Did poloygamy or forced child weddings

      happen here? From what I heard they did. In that case the children were right to be removed. It's not "persecution" when abuse is happening.

      by oceanstar17 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:16:36 PM PDT

      •  Wrong

        Please stop repeating the same comment over and over again. We got you the first time.

        by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:19:48 PM PDT

        •  This isn't a discussion or debate

          if all you're going to do is declare someone else wrong and make a snide comment.

          by watercarrier4diogenes on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:21:10 PM PDT

      •  Just listening to those women talk on CNN...

        it's clear they are suffering from a lifetime of brainwashing.  It's truly sad.

        I think they let the FLDS operate far too long.

        I know no legitimate religion based upon the abuse of women and children.

        by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM PDT

        •  So what about the Mennonites

          or the Amish or hell the Southern Baptists for that matter.

          There are many members of any religion who come across as brainwashed.

          Your opinion of what is a legitimate religion is just as important as our governments, it aint.

          The 1st allows freedom of religion and the 4th protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.

          Since when is one anonymous phone call a valid basis for a search warrant. What the hell has happened to my country.

          by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:36:46 PM PDT

          •  No, I'm sorry....

            The FLDS is not like the Amish or the Mennonites.

            For one, those people are not held in those communites against their will.  They are free to leave the community.  The Amish and Mennonites do not live in "compounds" in the middle of the friggin' desert--they live on farms in the middle of "English" communities.

            I don't think it is about one phone call.  These communites have been under suspicion for a long time.  The Warren Jeffs trial has highlighted that they are a cult and not a religion.

            by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:41:53 PM PDT

            •  Not for you to decide. They are citizens

              with certain inalienable rights whether in a cult or a religion.

              To a lapsed Catholic such as myself some of the wilder fundy "christian" churches are very cult like but I don't get to choose their religion any more than you do.

              If there is evidence for a warrant then serve it and let the chips fall.

              To take all children from every mother in the place based on an anonymous call is outrageous and I can't believe I am reading defenses of it here on kos.

              by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:04:10 PM PDT

              •  Ok...you have slipped the surly bounds of logic..

                Since when to people in a cult have "inalianable rights?"

                by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM PDT

                •  They remain people

                  and all people have those rights - or so they used to.

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:13:06 PM PDT

                •  since when does membership in a cult void

                  citizenship?

                  And who is the arbiter of cult vs religion.

                  Is Scientology cult or religion?

                  How about Seventh Day Adventist, or the snake handling Christian sects.

                  Where does the Constitution define acceptable religion ?

                  by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:15:11 PM PDT

                •  asdf

                  that is a pretty slippery slope, I wouldn't recommend traveling down it.

                  by mnleger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:18:00 PM PDT

              •  No one here

                would 'support' taking away 400 kids from their parents based solely on a fake phone call.  We all assume the authorities found real evidence of a pattern of sexual abuse of minors that will come out in court in due time, once the logistics of dealing with so many cases are worked out.

                Several folks, such as the diarist, merely posit that no evidence was found, and that the Texas authorities merely wanted to remove all of the children for no particular reason other than 'persecuting' one particular group of people.

                by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM PDT

                •  In what way has our government

                  earned the benefit of the doubt in recent years?

                  I agree with Shane in that with the evidence shown so far, there doesn't look like reasonable cause to search.

                  by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM PDT

                  •  In that

                    the state of Texas is not the Federal government.

                    If this were a BushCo operation, run by Mukasey, then hell yeah I'd be a lot more suspicious.  But I don't conflate all levels of government as one.

                    by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:32:19 PM PDT

                    •  Not in Texas myself

                      but as I understand it Gov. Goodhair and his ilk aren't much better than bushco.

                      After all Texas was where bush got his OJT.

                      by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM PDT

                      •  point taken. n/t

                        by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:45:24 PM PDT

                  •  That's a rationalization ...

                    ... straight from the Republican playbook: government is broken, so we can't trust it to do anything correctly.

                    I don't buy it.  Any compound that 'marries' 14-year-old girls to old men can and should be eliminated.

                    by lemming22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:57:21 PM PDT

                    •  "Eliminated?"

                      How? Like the Nazis eliminated the Jewish population of Europe?

                      by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:01:47 PM PDT

                      •  Godwin's law.

                        Last I checked, breaking up a compound isn't genocide.

                        If people were voluntarily choosing to live a polygamist lifestyle, I wouldn't object.  But most of these children aren't given a choice: the girls are married off, and the boys are kicked out -- often without ever being exposed to the real world.  That's not a choice.

                        by lemming22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:12:56 PM PDT

                        •  No, tearing children away from their families

                          because of a fraudulent call, based on false information and naming the wrong person on the warrant isn't genocide - but it's also not right.

                          by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM PDT

                •  shoot first and ask questions later

                  That's the MO here. Look, they have to come up with something, otherwise the raid looks embarrassing.  CPS never admits it's wrong, even when it is.

                  by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:00:20 PM PDT

          •  Was this the first you've heard of

            this group?

            Just curious that you think 1 phone call was the complete reason behind this.  The group has been under investigation in several states for years for statutory rape.  Warren Jeffs, the leader, was on the FBI Most Wanted list until he was captured and convicted.

            If this were some random suburb of a typical Utah Mormon town, this wouldn't have happened.  The raid may have been started by the phone call, but without the long history of the group, that one phone call would have been written off as a crank call.  It's called probable cause.  If you call up and say somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is raising marijuana, they'll blow you off.  If you call up and say that someone who has a past history of raising marijuana is doing so, they'll get a warrant and come looking for mj.

            by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM PDT

            •  Nope live in Arizona, very familiar with the

              group. I remember the hoopla when they first moved to Texas from here after the Jeffs incident.

              They themselves( State of Texas) have said the raids were based on a single call, that is not probable cause in my book.

              by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:06:59 PM PDT

              •  Thanks for the reply

                Hadn't heard the state said single call.  I had heard children services had said so, because they're required by law to investigate any call.

                And, presumably they feel they found enough evidence to justify their actions.  Once they finally get everyone identified and past all of the lawyer's objections, maybe they'll be able to put some of that evidence out in front of the court.

                by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:15:37 PM PDT

                •  in this case Child Services is

                  the state of Texas.

                  This group has problems I don't think anyone here denies that.

                  The problem in my eyes is the bogus method used to gain access, then the removal of all the children.

                  by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:19:21 PM PDT

                  •  So do you

                    believe the authorities knew or believed the call was fake at the time, and went in despite such?

                    by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM PDT

                    •  No opinion on that though

                      it wouldn't particularly surprise me.

                      That would make the authorities actions felonious as well as unconstitutional.

                      My problem is with using an anonymous call as probable cause to search and seize.

                      What is next?

                      The guy down the street who still has the Bush/Cheney bumperstickers decides he doesn't like your Obama sticker so he drops a dime.

                      On the basis of that they raid your home and take your children............

                      by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:34:45 PM PDT

                      •  I'm not to that level

                        of paranoia yet, but then I don't have children or any desire to have any.  This isn't a world I'd want to raise kids in anymore.

                        by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:40:30 PM PDT

                        •  Have you seen the billboards for the

                          feds terrorism TIPS line?

                          Neighbor vs neighbor, thats where they want us. We are much easier to control that way.

                          by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:43:19 PM PDT

                          •  If I thought any of my neighbors

                            actually was a terrorist, I would have mentioned it to the authorities without a tip line needed.  Ditto any crime with a victim.  I'm not gonna go out of my way to turn in any victimless crimes I might spot.

                            by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM PDT

                          •  That's very true

                            and in this case you don't even need to be a neighbor. You can be a crazy woman from 800 miles away - and that's word enough for the State of Texas.

                            by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:47:59 PM PDT

                    •  possibly

                      they've been after this group for a long time. They changed the statutory age for marriage with parental consent in 2005 from 14 to 16 to target this group specifically. Now, I don't have any objection to that change in law, myself. I think no 16 year old should be getting married, even with parental consent.

                      by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:03:44 PM PDT

                  •  The fact that the initial call may have been

                    "bogus" does not mean the state did not have probable cause to investigate a possible case of child abuse. They are required to investigate based on any reasonable suspicion. They take actions based on what's found during that investigation. Finding in retrospect that the original report was specious does not negate what was found during that investigation. What we know so far about what's been found during that investigation includes a number of very young pregnant girls, which constitutes evidence of abuse in and of itself.

                    We are men of action; lies do not become us.

                    by ER Doc on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:47:11 PM PDT

                    •  how does a phone call from an anonymous source

                      constitute

                      "reasonable suspicion."

                      As that is the reason given.......

                      by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:51:57 PM PDT

                      •  Depends on your prior history.

                        per one of my other comments, if you're the preznit and somebody narcs on your pot plants, you're not going to get raided.  If you're a known grower, you likely will be, because the judge issuing the warrant will take that into account.

                        by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:00:02 PM PDT

                    •  well it might be evidence of abuse

                      or strongly suggestive, given what is known about this group. However, there are pregnant girls in junior high schools all around Texas without CPS descending on their homes and taking custody of these girls and every sibling, including infants.

                      What makes no sense to me is to take every child in the group, sort of like it's a class action. Each child is supposed to be treated as an individual, and that's not happening.

                      In the confusion, the state has apparently lost track of an 11 year old and his baby brother, too.

                      by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:07:26 PM PDT

            •  except

              was Jeffs at the compound in Texas? Um, no.

              by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:01:31 PM PDT

          •  When suspected child abuse is going on

            the standard is lower. The authorities have to investigate because of potential imminent danger to children.

            by oceanstar17 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:50:20 PM PDT

            •  You seem to have a

              peculiar interest and obsession with polygamy (just read your other diary). Why is that?

              by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:53:41 PM PDT

              •  Funny.

                This is at least your second diary on this subject.  Why is that?

                by lemming22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:59:14 PM PDT

                •  it's all explained in the comments

                  if you'd care to read further.

                  And I think it's my third ;-)

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM PDT

                  •  *How* much further? :P

                    This diary is monstrously large, and my browser is complaining to begin with.

                    by lemming22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:06:56 PM PDT

                    •  Towards the bottom

                      My aunt is a member of the FLDS and has been since I was 8 years old. I have spent time, as a child, in Hilldale, UT - I have nothing but pleasant memories of those weekends and I know that her children decided not to stay there after they were of age. There was never any pressure on them or her to change that decision. I've not spoken to her for more than 20 years.

                      I am not defending the FLDS's religious beliefs but I am defending their right to due process and equal protection, just like every progressive should be doing.

                      by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:12:10 PM PDT

                      •  I've seen references --

                        -- in other discussions, suggesting that things have gotten progressively worse and more cult-like among most of the communities.  Your memories may be accurate, but that doesn't mean that they reflect the present reality.

                        by lemming22 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:15:34 PM PDT

                        •  Indeed

                          I am speaking from my perspective and that only.

                          by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM PDT

            •  where in our constitution does it say

              thew standards are lowered when it comes to children. Sounds like the same excuse currently in vogue for further intrusion into our web habits.

              When do the door to doors start or is that only ok in a community of oddballs.

              by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:58:16 PM PDT

              •  It doesn't.

                However, under Texas law, when abuse of a child is involved, they err on the side of caution.

                by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:02:21 PM PDT

                •  Taking over 400 kids from the very sheltered

                  only life they knew and throwing them into the nightmare of any states child welfare service is the side of caution?

                  Sounds like a pretty traumatic event for those kids to me.

                  Child abusers should go down. This was a absolute mockery of the "welfare of the child".

                  by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:10:52 PM PDT

                  •  I disagree.

                    Being a boy and being tossed out of my "family" because I endanger the older men from having sex with the young women or being a woman who never has the opportunity to live a life outside of her kitchen sounds more traumatic to me.

                    to each his/her own, I guess.

                    peace.

                    by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:25:46 PM PDT

              •  No generally the law recognizes that

                when suspected abuse of children is going on, the state has to be involved. It is the principle of "mandated reporting". Doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, child care workers, and other employees who are "mandated reporters" must notify the authorities of suspected abuse.

                by oceanstar17 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:05:08 PM PDT

                •  This issue doesn't involve "mandated

                  reporting." It involves an investigation and raid founded and conducted on fraudulent evidence.

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM PDT

              •  Not in constitution. in various states' laws.

                Likewise, here in Ohio, all medical personnel are required to report to the police any suspicion of abuse when they treat anyone under 18 or over 65.  (child and elder abuse)

                So if you want to get 'Constitutional' then it's in the part that says any power not restricted to the federal government is vested in the states.

                by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:18:41 PM PDT

                •  As long as those rules

                  don't violate federal laws.

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:20:16 PM PDT

                •  by extending the

                  Constitutions protections to all states, this would not fall under the 10th but the 4th.

                  We are protected from unreasonable search and imho an unsourced phone call is not enough to breach our 4th amendment protections. Though nowadays those protections seem more fragile by the hour.

                  by buddabelly on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:24:56 PM PDT

                  •  You must have missed

                    The Roberts decisions on 4th amendment rights from a couple years back.  SCOTUS in its current incarnation said that good faith was all that was needed.

                    Now personally I don't agree with Roberts' interpretation, but I also am fairly pragmatic.  I don't believe in whining about laws being unfair.  You want a law changed, you get your legislature to change it.  (Which is why I have no sympathy for the guy in jail for decades for trafficing TONS of marijuana.)

                    I look forward to getting a real SCOTUS again in future, but under current interpretations, I think Texas is going to be able to use any evidence they found as long as no one can prove they weren't acting in good faith about the phone call.

                    by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:30:01 PM PDT

                    •  You are exactly right.

                      Of course, I am not exactly sure how you could ever show bad faith, so it basically means there are no longer any protections associated with the amendment. The ironic thing is what happens when you try to get anyone, I mean anyone, interested in changing the law.  While we claim to be a progressive movement  concerned about civil rights and protections, most progressives really aren't. These central and pivotal issues are the last things on the progressive list. For some reason, if they can hang on to the idea that the people doing the illegal searches and seizures are police officers (and not George Bush or Blackwater), then it is mysteriously all sort of OK. The only threats to due process which progressives are concerned about are the relatively rare things that are part of the warone terra. Ordinary law enforcement is still considered solid gold and infinitely trustworthy, so there seems to be no reason for concern. That is the legacy of the conservative movement, and it doesn't look like it's going to change. Since even our liberals are conservative, I think we may be cooked.

                      by phaktor on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:07:30 PM PDT

                      •  Personally

                        I'm hoping like hell that the next dem potus immediately adds two more liberal justices to scotus right after getting in office.  11 SCJ's is fine with me.  Just too bad we're stuck with Roberts as the CJ for as long as he's around.  I still can't believe Dems wimped so badly on him and and Alito both.  Infuriating.

                        But you never know.  A lot of stuff is logged or scribbled down that you'd think wouldn't be.  It's entirely possible that there's some email or im memo floating around that says 'hey, we got a fake call on the FLDS, let's go nail them.'  So maybe bad faith could be proved, if such exists.

                        by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:13:00 PM PDT

                        •  I have mentioned this

                          several times and I am always told it is impossible, usually citing the FDR effort. I guess the idea is that if anyone could do, he could. It would seem if we ever got solid control of Congress, the case could be made that the court was stacked illegally, and the measure is necessary to balance the playing field. The fact that the court itself installed the administration which irreversibly altered the court's composition seems to me to be a good argument. There is no way to get away form this glaring conflict of interest.

                          by phaktor on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:19:51 PM PDT

                •  The law in Alabama is similar to Ohio

                  Except that it doesn't apply just to medical personnel, but also to teachers and others who have the care of children. If such a person sees evidence of abuse, they are required to report it.

                  by LynneK on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 05:25:30 AM PDT

              •  Well for one thing

                child abuse/neglect proceedings are civil rather than criminal in nature - although there may be collateral criminal proceedings as well.

                by marykk on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:07:47 PM PDT

          •  It wasn't one anonymous call.

            They had been investigating for years, and the one call was the final straw.  

            Child Protective Services has been investigating them for a LONG time.

            by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM PDT

            •  Investigations aren't courts of justice

              but then when it comes to Texas I'm realizing that normal rules of jurisprudence seem not to apply.

              by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:04:42 PM PDT

              •  Investigations lead to charges, Shane.

                After which they go to court and justice will be served, either way, for or against the FLDS.  I don't personally have an issue with the FLDS, but if they're committing statutory rape then they're breaking the law, simple as that.

                I don't think that they're abusing 5 year olds and forcing them to marry, but if a 50 year old man is having sex with a 15 year old girl, then that is a crime.  And yes, there are young pregnant girls at the ranch/compound, and yes there are girls with young babies.  

                Let's give both sides of the stories. The girls will lie for their men, as would most women.  They've given false names multiple times.  The whole case is a cluster, and both the state and the FLDS are to blame.

                I completely respect your history with them, and I don't want to get involved in an angry debate with you, but it's only fair to discuss why you are so tied to this story.  It colors your perspective, as it would anyone.

                peace.

                by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:19:45 PM PDT

                •  In Texas CPS Does Not Make Their ...

                  cases public.  So any information is being filtered by the media.  The same media that apparently isn't very truthful about the politicians they cover!

                  Any interviews of church members will support the person giving the interview and will also be filtered.

                  We, the public really can't have an opinion based on facts that are not public.

                  The thing that bothers me, is that ALL 400 children have been taken by the State of Texas.  Typically, in Texas if you have more than one child in a home and an adult is accused, the family has two options.  

                  1)The accused adult is removed from the home and has no contact with the children.

                  2)The chldren are removed from the home.

                  I have never heard of a case where all the kids on the "block" are removed.

                  It appears that the State of Texas is digging it's hole deeper and deeper.

                  by in the Trees on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:47:47 PM PDT

                  •  If the whole block were part of a

                    religious sect that was kept on a ranch/compound had a decades-long history of statutory rape, then you would see it more often.  

                    It's not the same situation.

                    by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:53:30 PM PDT

                    •  I agree

                      If they took all the men away, how would the rest be supported?  The women didn't appear to work outside the home.  

                      by not this time on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM PDT

                      •  They don't take all the men away.

                        Sorry if I didn't explain it better.  Only a certain number of boys are allowed to stay.  

                        Google FLDS "lost boys".

                        There are several charity groups who deal with them and help them make their way into society.  My understanding is that any member is supposed to give all their earnings to the group.  They're a wealthy group, as evidenced by their purchase of the property.  

                        by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:30:44 PM PDT

                    •  this decades long history of statutory rape

                      is established...how? By hearsay, right? Do you think it's appropriate to take a young child out of her mother's arms and force her to go to strangers on the basis of hearsay? Hearsay about what might happen to this girl a decade or so in the future?

                      by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:12:18 PM PDT

                      •  If you're unwilling to read the history of the

                        FLDS regarding the "spiritual marriage" of underage girls to adult men, then there's no reason to have a discussion with you.

                        It's not hearsay.

                        http://www.fbi.gov/...

                        Per Wikipedia - I don't have time this late to find more sources, sorry..

                        Jeffs gained international notoriety in May 2006 when he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution on Utah state charges related to his alleged arrangement of extralegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls.

                        This group broke from the LDS BECAUSE OF the fact that they didn't want to give up polygamy.  I've no problem with that.  The problem comes from adults sleeping with underage girls.  Read the history.  Wait for the DNA tests.  

                        by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:27:55 PM PDT

                        •  ok, let's step back

                          You do understand how the justice system works, right?

                          There is a process by which allegations are proven by the use of evidence. The parent and the child's advocate, too, get to cross examine witnesses and present their own evidence. Then a judge decides based on this process.

                          Allegations aren't evidence. Evidence is sworn testimony (based on personal observation, usually), forensic evidence, such as DNA, etc. Evidence with respect to one person (Jeffs) isn't admissible as proof of guilt of another person.

                          A Wikipedia entry about FDLS isn't evidence that warrants taking away someone's child, nor is a book about FDLS in general, nor is a newspaper article, nor is something someone said on a blog. That's actually a good thing, you know.

                          by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:02 PM PDT

                          •  I've been involved in it, and seen it firsthand,

                            so yes, I do understand it.

                            Do you work in the justice system?  Are you a lawyer involved in the case who has information I don't?  If not, then you know what I do about the case.

                            The state isn't sharing evidence.  It's an open case, and it involves children.  You don't know that they don't have evidence, but based upon the fact that the state is pursuing the cases, I presume they have evidence.

                            They may not, and in that case the children will be returned.

                            Also, I'm pretty sure the state didn't use my Wikipedia reference, and I'm not the county prosecutor, so it's not a problem.  

                            Since you can't seem to make a comment towards me without snark and sarcasm, even though I've done nothing but be respectful to you and all the other people I've spoken with in this thread, let's just call this conversation over.

                            Thanks

                            by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:48 PM PDT

                            •  I apologize for offending you

                              That was not my intention.

                              I do feel very exasperated at the way the state has summarily concluded, on the basis of just such flimsy rumor and hearsay, that every one of these more than four hundred children are in "imminent danger" just because of the reputation of this group. It is, sadly, a case of shooting first and asking questions later. Returning young children to their mothers after a few weeks or months will not spare them the emotional trauma of being, essentially, kidnapped by the state. I only hope that this is the only terrible thing that happens to these young children during their stay in the foster care system of Texas.

                              I'm very much afraid they are being taken out of the frying pan and put in the fire. It's very sad.

                              by elmo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM PDT

                      •  There was a years long investigation

                        This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction based on one phone call.  

                        by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:31:42 PM PDT

                        •  Are you LDS? n/t

                          by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM PDT

                          •  I am not LDS, no. I'm not religious at all.

                            by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:38:31 PM PDT

                      •  Also, if you can find a copy of this, it's a good

                        read and would give you a lot more background on the group.  Thanks.

                        "The 1948 Secret Marriage of Louis J. Barlow: Origins of FLDS Placement Marriage, by Marianne T. Watson

                        by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:57 PM PDT

                        •  I could care less about

                          the FLDS practicing the principle of plural marriage. What I DO care about is conducting a raid on flimsy, no false evidence, stealing people's kids away, some as young a 9 years old and putting them into foster care.

                          by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM PDT

                          •  Have you read the book?

                            It details the practice of marrying younger, underage women to older men.  As we've already gone over, when an adult man has sex with an underage woman, it's a crime.

                            And again, they didn't act on one phone call.  The phone call was the final impetus, but the investigation was years old.

                            by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM PDT

                            •  Why are you so

                              obsessed with the FLDS? What about the other polygamists in Utah, like the ones in Centennial Park - do they bother you as much as the FLDS?

                              by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:18 PM PDT

                              •  I'm not obsessed with polygamists, or the FLDS.

                                I'm commenting in a diary that interests me.

                                I couldn't care less about polygamy.  Marry who you want, however many you want, whatever gender you want.  Consenting adults can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of children or other members of society.  Let them marry whomever they choose.

                                I do however, feel that it's unfair of you to post a library blasting the state of TX and telling others that we don't know what we're talking about when you are getting the same information as we are.  Unless you work for Child Protective Services, then we share the same information.

                                Any information you get from a member of the FLDS is going to be tainted by their personal relation to the group, as are you.  

                                Again, I don't care about polygamy.  It just so happens that this diary interests me.  

                                by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:05:25 PM PDT

                                •  Fair enough

                                  I appreciate the response.

                                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:25 PM PDT

                                  •  Let me ask you...

                                    In your experience in Hilldale, have you seen women under the age of 18 married to, or impregnated by men above the age of 18?  Of course, you may have been so young that you didn't notice, and it may have been normal, so you might not even know.

                                    by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:09:45 PM PDT

                                    •  No, never

                                      but you have to remember that things there were a lot different under Rulon Jeffs than they are currently under Warren Jeffs. Things were quite relaxed during that time compared to now.

                                      by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:16:49 PM PDT

                                      •  I've read all sorts of things about Rulon.

                                        For me, it's hard to figure out the real truth of this matter, because when people who've left write about it they could be angry and just trying to exact some revenge.  However, it's been widely reported that many of the women and children have given multiple names and are lying for their prophet, so any info coming from them is just as tainted.

                                        That's why the only way to find out at least a little truth is to wait for the DNA tests.

                                        Until then it's ALL hearsay.

                                        by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:29:30 PM PDT

                                      •  Why did things go awry with Warren

                                        but not Rulon?

                                        by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM PDT

                                        •  Rulon was a kind

                                          gentle man. His son, in my eyes, is not. He's extremely capricious and arbitrary.

                                          by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:38:54 PM PDT

                                          •  Again, where I feel that your

                                            personal experience is important.  Most reports about Rulon are that he was a vicious man who ruled with an iron fist.

                                            by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:40:17 PM PDT

                              •  Plus, I'm really over the candidate diaries. n/t

                                by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM PDT

                                •  Oh I agree 100%

                                  I'm actually sick of the election. I'm an Obama supporter and have given him more than $1100. I'm just worn out and want this to be over soon.

                                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM PDT

                                  •  I like John Edwards, but am happy to vote

                                    for Obama.  I've even got a yard sign.  :)

                                    It's late.  I'm done for the night.  Thanks for the conversation.

                                    by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:47:32 PM PDT

                            •  You should read this site

                              www.captiveFLDSchildren.org.

                              by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM PDT

                              •  thanks for the link

                                by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:17:42 PM PDT

        •  Same here

          if that is what happened.

          by oceanstar17 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:48:39 PM PDT

        •  Do you think it's fine for you

          to decide what life is appropriate for these women? How are you any different, then, from the leader of this cult?

          by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:57:56 PM PDT

      •  ok, shouldn't there be some kind of hearing

        with procedural safeguards with respect to evidence (hearsay rules, etc.) to establish whether any child was abused in this compound before all the children are removed?

        There's no suggestion that the young children were in any immediate danger, and that's supposed to be the standard for removal. I can understand why the state would want to remove teenage or even preteen girls, but nursing babies? Toddlers? Preschoolers?

        You have no idea how traumatic this is for those young children to be yanked away from their mothers and forced to go with strangers. You have no idea how difficult it is going to be for breastfed babies to suddenly switch to bottle feeding, or how difficult it is going to be for the mothers to suddenly not able to breastfeed their babies.

        There is no need to do this. They aren't going to be able to "interview" a 13 month old to find out anything about conditions inside the compound. This is just pointless cruelty towards the babies and their mothers.

        by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:56:27 PM PDT

        •  all nursing babies stayed with their mothers

          by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM PDT

          •  under 12 months only

            as noted elsewhere. Many mothers breastfeed past this age, and it's really best for them to do so.

            by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM PDT

            •  My sister is breastfeeding my nephew,

              well past 12 months.  I know all about attachment parenting, etc.  Like I said, if I'm mistaken on that, I stand corrected.  Thanks.

              by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:06:28 PM PDT

              •  did you read what the judge in the case

                said about this? She said, basically, that women who go back to work have to pump breastmilk for their babies, so the FDLS mothers would just have to do the same. The problem, of course, is that these mothers aren't being allowed to even visit their babies. Many of them don't even know where their children even are. The state apparently has lost track of two children! Ghastly. It's just ghastly.

                by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:13:47 PM PDT

                •  Hadn't read that. Got a link? n/t

                  by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM PDT

                  •  here

                    http://www.sltrib.com/...

                    This judge is a pretty hard ass Republican.

                    by elmo on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:22:05 AM PDT

                •  I got this info from

                  captivefldschildren.org

                  Devastated and confused by CPS
                  04/24/2008 11:00 AM
                  Mothers who have been separated from their children, (all those with children two years and older) are loaded on buses.

                  I made an assumption that children under two were being allowed to stay with their mothers.  If your article states otherwise, I stand corrected.  

                  Thanks.

                  by balancedscales on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:36:24 PM PDT

    •  While your premise that the raid shouldn't have

      happened is valid, at least on its face, what they discovered once the raid was carried out, clearly indicates that someone in authority SHOULD have been keeping tabs on this erstwhile 'community'.  Underaged girls who are pregnant or recent mothers have been abused, Shane.  What do you say to them when you have the authorities drop everything and let their leaders go back to 'business as usual'?

      by watercarrier4diogenes on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM PDT

      •  no, take the preteen and teenage girls

        and put them in foster care pending resolution of the custody cases, certainly. At this age, these children will be better able to cope with being put into foster care.

        The babies and young children are in no immediate harm, though. They should have been allowed to stay with their mothers pending resolution of their custody cases.

        by elmo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:14:17 PM PDT

    •  Shane, there's no religious-freedom defense...

      ...against things that are otherwise against the law.  I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about this out there.  Sikhs can't carry knives on planes; Native Americans who don't live in treaty territories can't smoke peyote; and people whose religious beliefs permit or even command polygamy or child marriage can't do those things.

      by Rich in PA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:20:19 PM PDT

      •  Yes, I agree

        Religious beliefs don't apply here.

        But that supposes there were crimes involved to begin with. There were not, at least as far as has been proven. Of course it seems when it comes to polygamous people the Napoleonic code applies - guilty until proven innocent. I find that a real shame.

        by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:37:01 PM PDT

        •  Polygomy is against US law.

          by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:44:28 PM PDT

          •  You may legally only have 1 Gomer. n.t.

            by drbloodaxe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:46:05 PM PDT

          •  Polygamy is marrying more than one

            person in a civil court. The FLDS don't marry in civil court, other than their first husband/wife.

            by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM PDT

            •  At this point, I'm pretty much convinced...

              that your reason for writing diaries about this case has something to do with a personal connection with these people.

              I'm outta here.  This gives me the willies.

              by David Kroning on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:52:45 PM PDT

              •  (eye roll)

                Good riddance

                by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:55:28 PM PDT

              •  Just so you know...

                ...I've been a big supporter of Shane's posts on this subject, and I have no connection with these people or the LDS at all.

                Everyone has rights, no matter how awful their faith is.  The number of rights being seemingly abrogated here ought to concern all Americans.

                by Jay Elias on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:00:53 PM PDT

                •  People seem to feel that because it's

                  the FLDS the rules should be suspended. The list of whom "the rules" don't apply to anymore is becoming worryingly long in this country - suspected-terrorists, Muslims and not the FLDS.

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:06:38 PM PDT

                  •  It has sadly been my experience...

                    ...that far too few people on the left have respect for the full spectrum of American rights.  Sure, we like parts of the Bill of Rights, but when you come to the issue of freedom of religion, the 2nd Amendment, property rights, and others, our concern for people seems to disappear.

                    That's a pity.

                    by Jay Elias on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:08:45 PM PDT

                •  The rights end where the law dictates.

                  Texas law says that you can't have sex with or marry a girl under the age of 18.  If a religious sect has a history of statutory rape, ie the