Thursday, December 16, 2010
Polygamists Are Human !!!
POLYGAMISTS (AND FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS) ARE HUMAN!!
Today, Judge James Brady (of Utah's Fourth District Court) ruled that polygamists are human after all, and deserve to be treated as such. You may remember my earlier post (Leavitt Alone, You Idiot!) on the custody battle between Joseph Compton (and outgoing first wife). Attorney (and demi-human), Devil Leadvitt, took the side of the exiting wife, arguing that, since Compton resided in an ostensibly "polygamous" town (Rocky Ridge), it would be a "criminal" environment and an unacceptable venue for visitations between Compton and his children. The first judge, Damnable Ire, ruled against Compton, forcing him to visit with his children only at their mother's residence.
Compton (a lifelong monogamist with polygamous DNA) challenged the initial ruling (through his highly-seasoned trial attorney, Grant Morrison) and learned today that Judge Brady has reversed the other judge and awarded Compton all of the reliefs he sought, ordering that he, as the non-custodial parent, must have unrestricted "parent time" with his children.
Despite Leadvitt's craven efforts to relegate Compton to a sub-human status, depriving him of access to his natural children (based only on the religious thoughts in his head and on the location of his residence), the Court saw reason and sanity, and restored Compton to the status of complete human being.
Rumor has it that Leadvitt has fled to Russia, where his disdain for the most basic of human rights is enthusiastically shared by many old-guard, Soviet officials.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Leavitt Alone, You Idiot !!!
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14938288
| ||
Father says his custody rights violated because of Fundamentalist Mormon views | ||
Polygamy » Divorce case limits what he can say, where he can take children. | ||
By Brooke Adams The Salt Lake Tribune Salt Lake Tribune | ||
Updated:04/22/2010 04:50:29 PM MDT | ||
| ||
Rocky Ridge » A Utah father is fighting an order that bars him from sharing his Fundamentalist Mormon views with his children or taking them to this small town he now calls home where most residents hold a religious belief in polygamy that a judge deemed "harmful." Joseph Compton doesn't like the label "Fundamentalist Mormon." Instead, he prefers to describe himself as believing in "the gospel like Joseph Smith originally wrote it," which includes the religious tenet of plural marriage. But that belief has put him outside the law, 4th District Judge Donald J. Eyre said in ruling last fall that gave Kathleen Compton temporary custody of the couple's four minor children, who range in age from 5 to 16. They also have four adult children. Eyre ordered Compton, 49, to not "discuss polygamy or plural marriage with the minor children, allow the children to be in close proximity to those (other than himself) who practice polygamy or plural marriage or who aid or abet those who do." Eyre also barred Compton from taking the children within the incorporated boundaries of Rocky Ridge, a community located in Juab County where the berry farmer and fundamentalists who practice plural marriage live. Allowing the children to associate with residents there would entail "unnecessary and harmful conflict" with the children's non-polygamous upbringing, the judge said in his findings. Compton said he is unwilling to deny his beliefs. But that does not give the state leeway to trample his rights under Utah law or the U.S. Constitution, he said. "I want to be able to speak freely, I want to be able to travel freely, I want to be able to answer my children's questions freely," Compton said. "I have sincerely held religious beliefs that others object to. That's OK. But I can't have my free choice? That is what I object to." *********** Grave threat of harm? » Rocky Ridge, founded in 1972 and incorporated in 1996, has about 800 residents. A majority are members of the Apostolic United Brethren, also known as the Allred Group, which adheres to a fundamentalist version of Mormonism that includes plural marriage -- which the sect only sanctions between consenting adults. The enclave includes homes, a private school, several businesses, an elk farm, a volunteer fire department and a church. **************The constitutional and parental rights issues raised in the Compton divorce case have been the subject of similar legal proceedings in Utah and several other states. A Chicago judge ruled earlier this month that a Catholic father can take his preschool-age daughter to Mass even though the girl's mother is raising her in the Jewish faith, undoing a previous decision that barred him from taking her to any "non-Jewish religious activities." The judge said there was no evidence exposure to other religious practices would harm the child. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned a lower court decision that prohibited a father from sharing his Fundamentalist Mormon belief in polygamy with his minor daughter, finding that "illegality of the proposed conduct on its own is not sufficient to warrant the restriction." Absent a finding that discussing such matters would pose a "grave threat of harm" to a child, there is insufficient basis for the infringing on constitutionally protected right of a parent to "speak to a child about religion as he or she sees fit," the court wrote. And the Utah Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that living in a plural family alone was not reason enough to prohibit a couple from adopting children of one plural wife after she died of cancer. Polygamy may be prohibited, but that does not mean the state must deny any or all civil rights to polygamists, wrote Chief Justice Christine Durham. David O. Leavitt, who is representing Kathleen Compton, said Thursday that the Utah case is "very much going to become a battle over [Joseph Compton's] right to say what he wants and the mother's right and society's right to protect children." **************** "An illegal lifestyle" » The Comptons, married nearly 27 years, built a home in Mona at the edge of Rocky Ridge in 2007 after moving to Utah from Missouri, where Compton's scriptural studies first led him to see things "as they originally were." Yet, like his wife, Compton considered himself -- and still does -- a faithful member of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite being excommunicated after his fundamentalist views were outed last summer in court proceedings. ************ In her divorce petition, Kathleen Compton, 47, said she gave her husband an ultimatum after he sought her consent last year to take a second wife: He could choose his family or the new woman and polygamy. Compton refused to abandon his beliefs, though he has not gone ahead with that spiritual marriage, he says. In initial proceedings, Compton represented himself. He has now hired Salt Lake Attorney Daniel Irvin, who represented polygamist John Daniel Kingston in a child welfare case. Leavitt, who, as Juab County Attorney, prosecuted polygamist Tom Green in 2000, argued in a hearing last summer that Compton's beliefs were "an inappropriate and illegal lifestyle" and asked Eyre to prevent him from taking the children into the "geographic boundaries" of Rocky Ridge. Leavitt also asked that Compton be barred from leaving the children "in the custody or in the presence of anyone other than [himself] who espouses religious beliefs regarding polygamy," according to a hearing transcript. Leavitt said it would be inappropriate to expose the children to a felonious lifestyle. And in Rocky Ridge, "a very high percentage of that community is violating that law," Leavitt said as he urged Eyre to draw a line around the town. "It seems to me that we defeat every purpose if we don't keep those children outside the geographic boundaries of a place that is a known haven for polygamy," Leavitt said during the hearing. "We wouldn't let a child go into a known drug house for the same reason. They're both felonies." In a telephone interview, Leavitt said he has a "difficult time with the argument that something that is a felony is not going to be found inherently dangerous to children. "You first have to come at this with the understanding that bigamy is a felony, and if you know anything about Rocky Ridge you'll understand that it is a well-known haven for bigamists," he said. "Polygamy is a felony and it is in the best interest of children to keep them away from that kind of conduct." ************** "A good father" » During the hearing, Compton told Eyre he had no intention of pressuring his children to adopt his beliefs. "I just want to be a good father and have the opportunity to be with them and associate with them," he said, adding that, "there is nothing to show that teaching children the importance of plural celestial marriage is damaging." But Eyre adopted the restrictions proposed by Leavitt, saying they were in keeping with Kathleen Compton's desire to "maintain a certain religious background." The judge also included a requirement that visits with the children take place at his wife's apartment in Utah County -- something Compton argued would be a hardship. "It's not convenient for her or me," said Compton, who has rented the couple's home and is living with a monogamous couple and their children in Rocky Ridge. "[My children] ask me every time how much longer before they can come stay at my house. I want my visitation in my home. " ***********But Leavitt said Kathleen Compton believes her husband "very much" wants to indoctrinate his children in the fundamentalist version of Mormonism, which violates the family's religious traditions. "This woman wants her children protected from the influence of polygamists," he said. "We should not get hung up on what a parent's right of expression is and forget what the children's right to safety is." |
So, why do I say 'idiot'? First, Utah has NO POLYGAMY STATUTES !!!!!!!!! Secondly, if the residents of Rocky Ridge are living in a "felonious lifestyle", then Leavitt should get his prosecutor buddies to go in and ARREST THE FELONS. You and I both know he won't, and they won't. Why not? Because, even if Leavitt may not have read Lawrence v. Texas (June 2003), he knows that, since that decision, there is NO SUCH THING AS AN "illegal lifestyle".
Sorry, but it just chaps me that he swaggers around chanting this hot-air B***S*** about people living an illegal lifestyle in an illegal place, teaching illegal ideas and raising their children in an illegal atmosphere. This was the substance of the issue in -
Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95 (1948)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/333/95/case.html
in that opinion see also -
"But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on."
Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, at 274 U. S. 376.
Utah wanted to punish Joseph Musser because, at the time, polygamy was seen as illegal and a threat to "public morals", and Musser was seen as a criminal because he taught the principle of plural marriage in a religious context. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Musser's favor because, inter alia, he was not inciting his listeners to go out and instantly commit crimes, and he had every right to complain about what he saw to be "bad laws" in an effort to seek justifiable redress of a valid grievance.
I invite Leavitt to read Lawrence and Musser. Either way, Davey, you are an idiot!
The pretty, stupid state of Utah really makes me sick sometimes. What a charade! What a farce! If you law enforcement tyrants really truly view the ten or more thousand polygamists in this state as FELONS, then why in the Dickens don't you put your testes where your mouth is and go and arrest them? While you're at it, show me where in Utah statutes the words "polygamy" or "plural marriage" are found.
Otherwise, SHUT UP and go back into your pathetic little anti-Mormon hole.
Leavitt alone, Davey !!!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Supreme Questions
I don't really like Shaquille O'Neal. I don't know him at all, although I saw him in a bad movie once. Truth is - I dislike him because he never played for my favorite team. I think that a lot of Americans can build up a similar, simmering hatred for people on the opposing team, or for people who are different. I think that we Americans like to be polarized, and to see things as black-or-white. There is no gray. It is this social phenomenon that makes it easier for us to throw our consciences out of the window and let the end justify the means. We violate our own principles due to our desperate need for victory. It is the necessary drawback of the Jeffersonian polemic model.
Tom Green's unlawful-sex-with-a-minor trial was a media circus. His "wife", Linda (of 17 years), had borne him seven children, and is presumably happily still with him to this day. The complexity of Tom's case was that Linda was "married" to him and impregnated with her first child when she was 13 1/2 years old. Now, back then (circa 1986), marriage in several states was perfectly tolerated at 13, so the question of propriety depends on how you view things and on local history and traditions.
The prosecutors (David Leavitt and Monte Stewart) faced the challenge that so many years had passed since the time of the alleged offense that the statute of limitations had already run. In 1986, the statute was 'eight years from the date of the offense'. At the time of the trial the statute had already been changed to 'four years from the date the offense was reported to law enforcement'. Neither provision could catch Tom, but, since the prosecution was hell-bent on a conviction, it brought in a string of witnesses to testify that they "didn't report the crime" (so that Tom couldn't claim that the statute of limitations clock had already started to run in 1986). The judge cooperated, and, through an amazingly creative contortion of the statutes, Tom was convicted and incarcerated. Today, he his back with his family, even perhaps continuing to do some of the things that got him arrested in the first place. So why won't the prosecutors arrest him again? You already know the answer - POLITICS.
So Wally Bugden argued yesterday that Warren Jeffs was charged with the wrong crime. Instead of arresting him for solemnizing the (void) marriage of a minor to a young man, they arrested him for aiding and abetting a rapist and for abusing his special position of trust as a minister. Bugden made the interesting point that the prosecution had completely omitted at trial to introduce any evidence that Jeffs had coaxed Allen Steed to have non-consensual sex with Elissa Wall. He only encouraged the alleged "victim" to follow through consensually with her marital duties. Based on this, Jeffs cannot be charged either as the rape's actor or as the aider and abettor. Further, Bugden argued that, since no rape conviction was achieved for Steed, the presumed 'rapist', it is absurd to convict Jeffs for having been an accomplice to a rape that has not legally been shown to have occurred.
Now, if it is true that Elissa was coerced against her will at the tender age of fourteen into a monogamous (and non-legal) "marriage" with a young man she did not love, then that is sad. Whoever did the coercing should acknowledge his or her error and make amends. This is one of the many accusations leveled at Warren Jeffs. Bugden apparently also asked if Elissa's family was not eminently more implicated in choreographing the wedding - and why are they not in prison instead?
My point is this - Utah politicians have made great publicity out of demonizing Warren Jeffs and painting him as a perverse, megalomaniacal despot. This was enough to get him on the FBI's 10-most-wanted list. Mormon politicians = good; Polygamists = evil. I wonder if it is that simple. Even if Warren Jeffs is different or eccentric, or even an iron-fisted leader, why does that excuse society in locking him in the stocks and throwing rotten vegetables at him for days? Why is it okay to charge him with a laundry-list of crimes that do not fit his actions? Is he so vile that we must throw truth and justice to the wind and punish him by any means available to us?

Addam Swapp blew up an LDS chapel in 1987. 22 years later, he still sits in a prison with no hope of a parole date. Ironic, wouldn't you say, when the average murderer serves nine years? This all stems from Utah's intense animus against Fundamentalist Mormons and polygamists. Why does the legal system tolerate such barbarism? You already know the answer - POLITICS. I am reminded of the state-sponsored raids and massacres of the early Mormons.
In yesterday's hearing, Chief Justice Christine Durham asked deputy A.G. Laura DuPaix if a Baptist minister should be incarcerated for counseling a member of his congregation to stay with her husband after complaining that she doesn't love or desire him anymore. Bugden wondered if parents who take their 15-year-old daughter in for contraceptives should not also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting non-consensual sex for a minor who legally cannot consent to it.
I pray that the Utah Supremes will see the State's naked malice and bad faith inherent in the Jeffs prosecutions and overturn them. If he really did commit a crime, then charge him with the crimes he truly committed - not some craftily twisted contortion of a wildly inapplicable statute because you hate him. This nation is fixing to undergo a dramatic metamorphosis (see Isaiah's "marvelous work and a wonder"), and such heavy-handed abuses of power might just bite some of the rest of us if we don't look out.
I am sickened when I think back to the remarks of Justice Nehring when he concurred in the Rodney Holm decision. In one of the most pathetic, milque-toast utterances I have ever read, he wrote:
I also suspect that I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be, were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection. . . . . .
It would be a violation of my oath of office to permit my apprehensions about the public reaction to any ruling of this court to participate in my decision-making effort or to influence in any way my vote on a case. Moreover, I do not intend to suggest that the majority opinion is in any way shaped by fears of a public backlash against sanctioning polygamy.
If this kind of waffling is indicative of how Nehring will rule in Jeffs' case, I fear the worst. I fear also that, if Warren is forced to take his case to the next higher Court, it won't be around by the time he gets there.