Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[AmazingGrace]

Originally Posted by CareyM

AG...I would not be surprised if these ladies were instructed what to say/what not to say by one of their leaders, thus the robotics. I had a pastor who would do this, in fact, I can almost hear the instructions he might give.

Yea I know it happens... doesnt surprise me at all but still sad...

[LaVonne]

Originally Posted by AmazingGrace

Yea I know it happens... doesnt surprise me at all but still sad...

Yes, it is!

[Nina]

Originally Posted by CareyM

AG...I would not be surprised if these ladies were instructed what to say/what not to say by one of their leaders, thus the robotics. I had a pastor who would do this, in fact, I can almost hear the instructions he might give.

Here's an interesting account of women convicted of accessories to s*x crimes against children

http://utahbooks.com/Polygamy_Rape_o...ael_Strong.htm

From this site a definition of duress:

Duress: Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. Duress also encompasses the same harm, threats, or restraint exercised upon the affected individual's spouse, child, or parent. Duress is distinguishable from undue influence, a concept employed in the law of wills, in that the latter term (duress) involves a wrongdoer who is a fiduciary, one who occupies a position of trust and confidence. Duress also exists where a person is coerced by the wrongful conduct or threat of another to enter into a contract under circumstances that deprive the individual of his or her volition. (Italics added) West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc.

[Kae]

Some of the underage girls are from Canada. Two of which were married to Warren Jeffs.

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blog...tate-care.html


Some reasons why the children were taken.

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blog...to-senate.html

[Newman]

OK Back to take a look at the article cited above....

1. Two boys turned 18 and chose to stay at the ranch with the younger children. What would you do? Walk away from those scared kids that were looking up to you? Probably at least one of them being a younger sibling?

2. Good faith to enter the ranch with 700 agents armed and dangerous? If we are to believe that there really was concern for an alleged 16 year old girl who had an 8 month child and was pregnant again and had been beaten in the past to the point of needing medical care at the hospital; why did it take five days to go in and attempt to rescue her?

3. Why wasn't the phone call traced given the time frame they were working with? Why didn't authorities find out what info they could on their known perpetrator? Or had they and they went in anyway? Btw- How did the woman making the hoax phone call get the back room phone without caller id on it? Hmm...

4. What right did authorities have to go into ranch and ask questions about girls beliefs? Wasn't the relevant pretext supposed to be finding Sarah? 700 agents on the ranch and girls are being shuffled around by those tricky FLDS members? Sounds doubtful....

5. Btw- Does it matter to anyone if you found out that they came at 9pm and were waking the children up? Or that they were there throughout the night? (Remember this is a working ranch where people go to bed early and rise early).

6. Would it be ok with you to have your children removed from your care for investigative purposes not because they were all in iminent danger?

7. If you were a young mother about to be separated from your 13 month old infant would you agree with CPS when they said they thought you looked like a minor? Is it to be expected that CPS throws out the fact that 31 "girls" are pregnant or mothers already without mentioning that about 25 of them came on board as minors when they otherwise would have been separated from their children?

8. Btw- Is it really that surprising that very young children might get confused about who there mother is given the chaos going on in addition to the fact that all the women dress the same and wear their hair the same?

9. 41 broken bones [out of 463 children] Love those sensational head line grabbing sound bites.

10. Possible sex abuse of some boys based on interviews and journal entries... Did CPS forget to mention that neither the interviews nor journal entries point to adults but rather perhaps an older boy(s)? As reported in a Texas Newspaper.

Not a good thing for sure. But something that sadly happens all over America (I see it in court enough not to be surprised) and unless the parents had knowledge of it which CPS hasn't even alluded to so far; not something that the parents can be held accountable for. And again, this could be just another over the top assertion without any reality in substance by CPS as it pertains to journal entries and interviews.

11. If a 17 year old has 3 children.... Indeed. But what if she is 23? Remember these young women aren't wearing make up, high heels, fashionable clothing and they don't cut their hair. They are going to look younger then they are in their 20's...

12. Finally, where are all those pubescent brides and pregnant 13 year olds? Where are the girls that were forced into marriage? Where is the informant of four years who coincidently didn't mention underage sex until the raid already happened? Where indeed?

[Newman]

I am not a fan of the ACLU. In fact, I mostly don't like them. But at least they are taking a stand in this Texas Travesty. Finally...

"Based upon news reports and other available information, the ACLU has serious concerns that the state’s actions so far have not adequately protected the fundamental rights at stake. Specifically, the ACLU is concerned that:

1. The initial raid at YFZ was prompted by a single allegation of abuse now reported most likely to have been made by someone who never resided at YFZ. Law enforcement officials have since removed every child who was living at the ranch, regardless of age or sex, and the state has justified that decision, in part, by explaining that all children at the ranch were at risk because they were exposed to FLDS beliefs regarding underage marriage. Religion is never an excuse for abuse. But, exposure to a religion’s beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse.

2. Parents have been separated from their children without individual, adversarial hearings and without particularized evidence that they ever engaged in abuse or were likely to engage in abuse. Children from YFZ have since been dispersed around the state, compounding the harm of forced separation of children – particularly infants – and their parents.

3. Court-ordered DNA testing has been ordered for all children without having any specific evidence that the parentage of all children was actually in dispute. Parents have been pressured to consent to DNA testing if they wish to be reunited with their children who were forcibly separated from them.

4. State officials have an important obligation to protect children against abuse. However, such actions should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole – particularly when the group is perceived as being different or unusual. Actions should be based on concrete evidence of harm and not based upon prejudice against religious or other communities."

From the Texas ACLU website May 2, 2008

[Cindy]

Well, I hope you find the answers to all of your questions. It is what it is. I just hope the judge can somehow keep this from being any harder on the kids than it already is.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Well, I hope you find the answers to all of your questions. It is what it is. I just hope the judge can somehow keep this from being any harder on the kids than it already is.

cneasttx- The power to take away chldren and give them to strangers to raise is arguably mightier than the power to imprison adults or even execute them.

If this travesty were to end tomorrow it is doubtful the mothers and fathers in Texas will get back the same innocent children that were forcefully removed from them.

When the state can take your children away to be raised by stangers because your beliefs aren't politically correct; then there is no genuine freedom of religion, association, or speech.

And for the record; beliefs were the issue stated on the record that resulted in ALL of the children being removed. There was no actual finding of specific acts of physical or sexual abuse regarding individual children.

[Nina]

Originally Posted by Newman

I am not a fan of the ACLU. In fact, I mostly don't like them. But at least they are taking a stand in this Texas Travesty. Finally...

"Based upon news reports and other available information, the ACLU has serious concerns that the state’s actions so far have not adequately protected the fundamental rights at stake. Specifically, the ACLU is concerned that:

1. The initial raid at YFZ was prompted by a single allegation of abuse now reported most likely to have been made by someone who never resided at YFZ. Law enforcement officials have since removed every child who was living at the ranch, regardless of age or sex, and the state has justified that decision, in part, by explaining that all children at the ranch were at risk because they were exposed to FLDS beliefs regarding underage marriage. Religion is never an excuse for abuse. But, exposure to a religion’s beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse.

2. Parents have been separated from their children without individual, adversarial hearings and without particularized evidence that they ever engaged in abuse or were likely to engage in abuse. Children from YFZ have since been dispersed around the state, compounding the harm of forced separation of children – particularly infants – and their parents.

3. Court-ordered DNA testing has been ordered for all children without having any specific evidence that the parentage of all children was actually in dispute. Parents have been pressured to consent to DNA testing if they wish to be reunited with their children who were forcibly separated from them.

4. State officials have an important obligation to protect children against abuse. However, such actions should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole – particularly when the group is perceived as being different or unusual. Actions should be based on concrete evidence of harm and not based upon prejudice against religious or other communities."

From the Texas ACLU website May 2, 2008

Sister

If it MAY NOT Constitutionally be labeled abuse

does this mean that it MAY?

Or does it mean that it MUST NOT be labeled abuse?


Maybe the authorities read some of YFZ's leader Jeffs sermons.


In the sermon that sent him to prison for accomplice to rape he said to a 14 year old girl:

"You belong to him. You are to obey him."

Nina

[Sister Alvear]

Sometimes we underestimate the power of brainwashing...I do not think the case was handled right however someone needs to make sure these kids are not being raped.

I see grave danger in what the state did for if they did it once they can do it again...