Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Hand In Cookie Jar
A closer read of the Utah Supreme Court opinion reveals that the Court adamantly disagreed with the prosecution's theory arguing that Jeffs was guilty of being an accomplice to rape.
From the start of this case, it was evident that Shurtleff, DuPaix, Fischer, Hoole and company were NOT sincerely interested in nailing Allen Steed. They were so driven to target Warren Jeffs, that nothing else mattered. If anyone seriously believed that Allen Steed was a "rapist" for marrying his young cousin, then no one really followed through. To this day, nothing has happened in the Steed rape case (and it probably won't). This was all about twisting, bending, tweaking, torquing, contorting, plying, manipulating and contriving the accomplice liability standard, in order to ensnare Warren Jeffs.
Problem is - they messed up! The Court articulately reprimands the State for contriving a theory of guilt which misinterprets the Utah statute. The State complains that Jeffs held a position of "special" trust in Wall's life. True - no one disagrees. The problem with this reasoning is that, if Steed was the real rapist - the real "actor", then we must ask if Steed was the one who held a position of special trust (and he didn't). The other problem is that, in order for accomplice liability to be met, Jeffs would have had to satisfy ALL of the following three elements:
1. He would have had to have a (mens rea) desire that a "rape" occur.
2. He would have had to exercise that "desire" by acting, coaxing, fomenting, assisting the rape to occur.
3. The actual crime of rape has to have been shown to have been committed (which it wasn't).
The Court observed that the State failed to show that element #1, INTENT, truly occurred. The Court also points out that the State completely BUNGLED its identification of the DEFENDANT (Jeffs) and the [alleged] ACTOR (Steed). The State was so blinded by its thirst to target Jeffs, that it forgot to cleanly distinguish between the two parties - Actor and Defendant, oftentimes treating Jeffs as the Actor, when he plainly was not the Actor (rapist), thus conflating the two.
This is the simplest explanation I can give of some of the legal logic behind the reversal. What is also fascinating is that Shurtleff announced today that he likely will not seek a re-trial, partly because, if the previous contortion of the jury instructions was ineffective (unconstitutional!), then no amount of legal acrobatics will get those jury instructions to work at a new trial. Furthermore, if this witch hunt had not been disingenuous in the first place, wouldn't Shurtleff be racing to the U.S. Supreme Court to get it to overrule this Utah decision which so "disappointed" him?
What I find truly pathetic is Shurtleff's remark that he will perhaps go "back to the legislature" and try to get some legislation that will more successfully focus on this type of crime. Maybe he wants to get the Utah legislature to modify the Constitution so that it can better attack Warren Jeffs. Wasn't Shurtleff satisfied when he rammed through his pet (hugely unConstitutional and NEVER-USED) "Child Bigamy" statute? Wasn't he satisfied when he wooed Texas's legislature into adjusting its laws to directly attack the FLDS? The Court made it perfectly clear that you cannot be classed as an accomplice to crime merely because you did a certain thing - just as a homeowner cannot be charged as an accomplice to burglary simply for forgetting to lock his doors. DUUUUUUHHHHH !!!!!!
Plus, Texas is itching to get its hands on Jeffs. Utah has to hurry up and decide if it wants to waste years and $$$millions on a pointless re-trial, or let Jeffs go home a free man. If justice doesn't always work, karma and poetic irony sure do help out sometimes.
In a further irony, a Texas man was recently convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl whom he also impregnated (when she was 15). The man got a sentence of two years of probation! I have to ask myself if he should not have been subject to Hildy Harferbrain's (79-year) sentencing enhancement by virtue of the fact that the pair were "legally not able to marry".
Perhaps Texas will soon have the "Yellow Egg Of Texas" all over its face, just as Utah got its little red hands caught in the proverbial cookie jar.
Go Christine !!!!! Go Wally !!!!!
VINDICATION !!!!
CONCLUSION
"¶53 Because we hold that the trial court’s instructions to the jury regarding lack of consent were in error, we reverse Jeffs’ two convictions of rape as an accomplice and remand for a new trial."
Wow !!! Yours truly could not possibly be happier today. I always said that I wished that I could have been on the Warren Jeffs jury, because I would have hung that jury faster than you can say NOT GUILTY. Frankly, I cannot figure out why intelligent, upstanding American jurors like those in Warren's case did not also see the absurdity of the charges. Could it be that people can be swayed by religious prejudice and bigotry?
This morning, the Utah State Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) that Warren Jeffs' conviction as an "accomplice to rape" was BOGUS (in particular because of erroneous jury instructions).
If I am enjoying satisfaction over this, it is because I know that the people who pursued Warren Jeffs did not have clean hands. They had hatred and malice and hubris. They wanted his blood, and they would stop at nothing to inflict harm on him, even though they knew that they were guilty of lying and cheating and distorting. They stretched the statute of limitations; they fabricated evidence; they committed perjury on the witness stand.
I believe our Republic is dead. Just look at ObamaCare and Cap and Trade! Our government is entirely corrupt and headed for the dung-heap of history. However, those conspirators who lusted for Warren's blood will reap the sorrow and despondency that they sowed. Today, they will have some wind knocked out of them, because Utah's justices faced up to the fact that you can't charge someone as an accomplice to rape for performing a void ceremony where the intent to rape was absent.
I rejoice with those members of Warren's family who must now finally be seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. I laugh loudly at the prospect of a re-trial, since JEFFS-TRIAL II would be a bigger circus than the first. Does Utah's Attorney General seriously want to risk his precious reputation by getting that pack of lying jackals back on the stand to perjure and fabricate, when everyone knows they are frauds? I think not.
I think back to August of 2006, when the hysteria was peaking. Warren was on America's Top Ten Most Wanted list with Charles Manson, Theodore Bundy, Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh, Obama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler and the Unabomber. All that fuss!!! Do you think polygamy had anything to do with it?
Warren's jailers have scorned him not a little for fasting and praying for justice and vindication. Arizona has dropped its charges. He is free of Utah's charges. Now, all that is left is for Texas to charge him with having sex with a girl with whom he could not possibly have had sex.
Maybe Texas, Utah and Arizona should arrest him again and charge him with felony unpopularity or something similarly creative and fantasmagorical. I can't count on a momentum shift, but I sure wouldn't mind if the Court were soon to stick it to Lintbag and Wisass, too.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Stupid White People
Own a farm,
Own a company,
Are a Republican,
Are a Libertarian,
Are a conservative,
Believe in the Bible,
Don't live in an inner-city,
Believe in the Constitution,
Resent illegal immigration,
Dread Obama's redistribution agenda,
Talk about "White Power" or "White Pride",
or teach your children against miscegenation.
Truth is - there are evil (and good) people in all the races, and presumably all races want to preserve their heritage (cultural and racial). There is a project underway in Cornwall, England, where a few hundred remaining speakers of the Cornish language are diligently recording mp3 audio files of their fast-dying language. They are sad that the younger generation has not upheld Cornish language traditions, and they want history not to forget them.
If white people cared at all about their heritage and blood lineages and all that, they would do well to make similar attempts to preserve them, like, say, by REPRODUCING !!! (and putting down their guns).
The countries of western Europe (England, Germany, France, Italy, etc.) systematically pay their subjects/citizens to have children (for fear of extinction and other catastrophes). It is not working well. More the half of British households are a single person, and the most common newborn baby boy name in the UK is Mohammed.
I could be wrong, but a cursory glance at the last few centuries of world history would suggest that somebody wants the white race to shrink as a percentage of world population (and shrink it sure will). In ancient history, it was generally different races/nations who went to war against each other. More recent wars, commencing with the American Revolution and the Civil War, seem to have succeeded in pitting white folk against white folk - - the net result being - lots of dead white folk. We saw the same thing with the Great War (WW-I), resulting in the deaths of some 37 million (mostly white) folk.
In Tsarist Russia, there were once approximately 175 million white Christian Russ (the largest Christian population on the planet). Thanks to evil guys like Stalin and his buddies, that number has been cut in half.
Why, then, do I say "stupid white people"? Well, because it seems to me that white people: Shemitic, Hebraic, descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Reuben, Judah, Gad, Zebulun, Asher, Benjamin, Levi, Simeon, Issachar, Naphtali, Ephraim, Joseph and Manasseh, should figure out how to stop warring against each other, their own kinfolk. But no, they are stupid, or somebody tricks them into going to war against each other (see brothers Max and Paul Warburg who financed each side of World War One).
This takes me to the vicissitudes stirring in the twin towns of Hildale and Colorado City. Paternalistic interference in the community's local governance has caused more trouble than it initially proposed to prevent. A handful of stupid white people (names mentioned in earlier posts) have taken it upon themselves to stir up more trouble. Frivolous law-suits, trumped up allegations, conspiracies with lawyers, courts, law-enforcement and fiduciaries, have all combined to bring about the desired effect - to bring destruction upon an unpopular minority. And this is no ethnic conflict. The players are generally white folk, and some very stupid.
I call upon all stupid white folk to stop being stupid and remember the lessons of history.
Fox Guarding Hen House II
I watched the news this morning and learned that Senate Minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), is asking for the new Financial Reform Bill (passed yesterday in the Senate) to be swiftly repealed (partly because it does nothing to address the huge abuses perpetrated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Boehner's critics are accusing him of "siding with the banks". Ostensibly, the purpose of this (Obama's) bill is to shield the nation against another meltdown like that of 2008 and place many more checks on American financial institutions. That all sounds well and good. Who among us has read and understood this 2,300 page bill? Did you know that the bill already has so many problems and loopholes that Congress is frantically working to pass a second bill to fix the problems in the first one?
Okay - so what is the big IRONY, you ask? Well, the entity which has been tasked to oversee the regulation of our nation's private financial institutions is the Federal Reserve. That would be just fine if the Federal Reserve really were "federal". In truth, the "Federal Reserve Act" was passed in 1913 after efforts to pass it the year before had failed. It had first been called the "Aldrich Plan", and the People had rejected it, knowing it was meant to concentrate the power to issue money into the hands of a private, central bank. Slyly, the name was changed to "Federal Reserve" (eventually to be set up as 12 regional, member banks). This was sufficient to hoodwink the people, and the bill passed. Do not have any illusions that this private "system" of banks is in any way "FEDERAL"! For a simple explanation, see the following two links:
The Truth of the Federal Reserve System
The Secrets of the Federal Reserve
So, now that the bill has passed, the (ever-private) Federal Reserve will perform all of the regulation of private financial institutions, deciding which ones will succeed and which will fail. The federal government has let the fox into the hen house. Methinks that the exquisite irony is that it is Obama, Pelosi and Reid who are "siding with the banks"!
Don't say I didn't warn you (and watch out for that Berwick creep whom Obama just [recess-]appointed to run ObamaCare [Medicare/Medicaid] and the end-of-life, care-rationing death-panel).
It's "sigh and cry" time.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Performing An Illegal Ceremony
" . . . Four more trials are scheduled for the end of the year, with charges including bigamy, performing an illegal ceremony and sexual assault of a child. - - - - "
FLDS trial jury pools dry up
GOSANANGELO - Saturday, June 26, 2010
I confess I did not know that Texas was going to pull this "performing an illegal ceremony" B.S. !!! I know that Utah played that game over a hundred years ago, charging LDS clerics with a crime for solemnizing plural marriages. In Utah, at least such crimes are now misdemeanors and are NEVER prosecuted. I really sincerely thought that our modern, diverse, politically-correct society had abandoned such insanity. Does Texas seriously think it can get a conviction to stick for the crime of performing a ceremony?
Next they will be incarcerating people for celebrating the Holy Eucharist or performing baptisms. What is a religious ceremony to government? Didn't that question get put to rest in the Lukumi case? ( . . you can't punish someone for sacrificing a chicken in a Santeria church ritual). Doesn't the First Amendment say that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (like ecclesiastical CEREMONIES !!!)?
Let's look at this in the sober light of my brain. If I get three gay guys over to my house, and I position them in my living room, and I wave my hands in the air, and I pronounce some kind of abracadabra incantation over their heads (in order to imaginarily "marry" them into a three-way, polygamous, homosexual union), have I arrogated to myself a power normally reserved only to the state? Is my fantasy performance viewed as sufficiently impactful that it rises to the standard of an illegal ceremony? Have I usurped the marriage traditions of the pretty, great state in which I live? Are fantasy, void, informal rituals conducted in the privacy of my home now subject to state scrutiny and prosecution? I fear I could soon do five years for having married my dog to my cat last week in a beautifully touching, backyard ceremony.
I am DYING to watch that trial. If any prosecutor in this case has half a brain, he or she will wake up, smell some coffee and call up the FLDS and beg them to agree to the charges being dropped. Wait, no, I just remembered that Barbie Wartthug will find a way to guarantee a conviction regardless. Perhaps, when she gets roundly overturned again by a sane appeals court, she can be burned at the stake for heresy against the Lord's only true religion.
GO FIGURE, GOSANANGELO
Saturday, June 26, 2010
What's In A Name?
I am reminded of the events of a few years ago, when Philistine University of Utah president, Bernie (Hitler) Machen announced that he didn't want anyone whose last name was "Kingston" to attend the U of U.
I recently re-watched the rather didactic movie, District 9. As gruesome and downright offensive as this movie was, it really is one of the most brilliantly presented stories since The Matrix. In District 9, the recently arrived aliens are relegated to a reservation or ghetto. They are universally misunderstood, despised and mistreated. The show's leading character, Vikus Van Der Moewe, regularly refers to the aliens as "Prawns" (due to their unmistakably crustacean appearance). He willfully mocks and destroys their incubating offspring. In the end, he actually becomes one of the aliens, and we learn that the aliens are infinitely more technologically advanced than the humans who are abusing them. One message of the show is that the good white folk of South Africa have been unbelievably brutal toward a minority within their midst.
I am genuinely disgusted with the residents and public officials of Tom Green and Schleicher Counties of Texas. The frenzied hysteria of vilification and bullying has driven ordinarily-sane Americans to inflict vicious and spiteful prison terms on perfectly innocent neighbors and their young families. A single juror could have nullified these sentences - could have bridled the frenzied mob and stood up to Barbie and her SturmTruppen.
I have decided that we Americans are good at developing what I call "Weapon Words". If we dislike a person or a community, we say they live in a "compound"; that their religion is a "cult". These words are not inherently pejorative, but they become so through their use. "Nazi" (from national) and "Nigger" (from black) are good examples.
So now the word "Jeffs" has become a curse word. If you are a Jeffs, you had better change your name to something more tasteful, like "Jeffries". (George Burns changed his name from Birnbaum). Merely being a "Jeffs" could easily add a ten-year enhancement to your sentence (as it may well have done just this week).
The Bible speaks of a day when " . . the love of men shall wax cold" for each other. I think we are in that day now, if we can hand out 17 and 75 year sentences to people because we despise their religion - the religion of our recent, and not-so-recent, forefathers.
I pray that the illegal invasion of the YFZ Ranch and the unlawful search and seizure of FLDS property will soon be indicted in a court of appeal saner than Barbie's.
The World is Broke ???
Not two weeks ago, another Fox News commentator remarked that the "world is broke". Now, I am NOT an economist. I barely understand daily compounded interest. That makes me no different from the vast majority of the world's population. However, it should strike the the average lay-person that the suggestion that the "world" could be "broke" is patently absurd. . . . . . .
UNLESS - - -
Somebody has taken the world's money.
How could that happen, you ask. Well, if all currency created today is "loaned" into circulation, interest must be paid on every dollar spent. If you borrow ten dollars and promise to pay back eleven, you have to hunt for the eleventh dollar somewhere. Then, if you borrow ALL of the money that is nationally available, it gets harder and harder to find that "eleventh" dollar. . . .
UNLESS - - -
- - you print more paper dollars. Magic, right? Problem is - the more you print phony paper currency, the more you inflate/deflate the currency - causing INFLATION. Then, the only way to protect against RUNAWAY INFLATION and the crashing of the currency is to tax a good portion of those extra paper dollars out of circulation through national taxation (IRS).
So, if all of the (non-rogue) "western"-style nations are playing the same game, the result is that they all end up spending more than they produce (to support entitlement programs and wars) and they all run up heavy debts to PRIVATE banks like the "FEDERAL" Reserve and the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, and they face mushrooming interest burdens as the debt grows (see Greece).
Simply put, each participating nation owes more than its annual profits in debts to a private (money-changer) bank. Each nation is beholden to that private bank to periodically "bail it out" to keep government offices functioning. So if virtually all of the world's nation-corporations are insolvent and in receivership, everybody is strapped with debt, impoverished and enslaved . . . . . . . . but TO WHOM ?????
Governments pay farmers to NOT GROW certain crops. WHY ?? - in order to keep crop prices artificially propped up. Does this cause food shortages?
People complain that the world is "over-populated" - - SIX BILLION people. With six billion acres of land in Montana, that is enough for each person to have an acre.
If there are "shortages" in the world, I suspect they are contrived and manipulated. There is NO shortage of farmland (although we insult it by not practicing the land sabbath). There is no shortage of man-labor hours (especially in this period of mass unemployment). There should be no shortage of money (gold, silver, paper currency) unless someone has confiscated it. Our systems of distribution are more efficient than they have EVER been.
Besides, the law of the jubilee requires that ALL debts be forgiven every 50 years and all "corporations" be dissolved every 50 years. That way, private banks cannot exact ever-escalating usury payments from nations and bring ordinarily-free citizens to their knees.
So, here is the big question - who are these "private banks" to whom the nations owe so much money? Where do they reside? Where have they stashed all the gold and silver they have plundered from the nations? Why have all the nations simply not balked and repudiated all that debt and interest so that they can be free and prosperous again? Why have we abandoned the jubilee?
If America owes $13 trillion in debt and approximately $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, we can NEVER get caught up. Besides, those banks will never accept the (bankrupt, worthless) Federal Reserve Notes in payment of the debt anyway. Don't think that banks don't repossess (like cars) or foreclose on (like homes) countries that get too far in debt. Foreclosing on countries always entails a regime change (see [Communist] Bolshevik Revolution, 1917). In Russia it involved regicide (killing the king [Czar Nicholas II]). You can't let the king's family rise up later and repudiate the debt!
America was once a (complex) Republic, but today it is a (simple) democracy (since the 17th Amendment). Americans often don't realize what DEMOCRACY is. It is a Greek word for "mob rule". A perfect example of a democracy is - three wolves and a pig arguing over what to eat for lunch. Either way, if "We The People" were supposed to be the sovereigns in this land, we must be deposed/overthrown for the foreclosure to be complete. The Constitution has to be completely discarded so that the new owners can reign.
The pilgrims dedicated/consecrated this land to our Savior, Jesus Christ, for His footstool. We are just stewards - "guests" on this land at His pleasure. Do Geithner, Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke (and their handlers) think they can eventually seize this continent away from Jesus with impunity?
I think not. Keep your lamps fueled and trimmed.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Thought and Deed - Belief vs. Practice
Leavitt Alone, You Idiot!
If nothing else, it stimulated some good dialogue. One commenter reminded us that Utah's state constitution has an anti-plural marriage clause in it. Accordingly, I remind the commenter that this clause has been found unconstitutional (see Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 [1911]).
Today's sermon is on the topic of thoughts and deeds. I trust that my readers are all endowed with a sufficiently robust I.Q. and have no difficulty understanding the distinction between thought and deed. The (despicable) Reynolds Court had no difficulty drawing a distinction between thought (belief and opinions) and deed (practices) when it (Justice Morrison Waite) wrote:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."
Americans have had this concept pummeled into their heads for so many years that they can all recite it very capably - government may not punish bad thoughts, yet it may absolutely punish bad acts.
Why, then, do Canada, Utah and Texas punish the thinking of some and not the acting of others?
I have vigorously decried the insane Canadian anti-polygamy law in previous posts. Please indulge me as I attack it again. Canada is investing millions of calories and lawyer-hours in wringing its hands over what to do about the handful of Fundamentalist Mormon polygamists in Creston/Bountiful (B.C).
Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Gay thought is protected; gay copulation is protected. Homosexuality is FIRST an abstract concept, existing only as an urge or inclination in the mind of the gay human. Only SECONDLY is homosexuality a deed or act, manifested when gay partners engage in the physical act of sexual contact and intercourse. When gayness was still a crime on this continent, NOBODY was ever prosecuted for gay thoughts, just gay deeds (just as the Reynolds belief/exercise doctrine decreed).
With polygamy, this all gets turned on its head. No doubt, millions of right-thinking Canadians regularly "sleep around" (fornicate, shack-up, cheat, etc.). Like homosexuality, fornication and adultery are legally protected in Canada (as in the U.S.). Smart Canadians understand that polygamy (or "plural marriage") is a cultural or religious CONCEPT. It is abstract. It is merely a notion in the mind of the observer or practitioner. When I say I "embrace" polygamy, I simply reveal that, in my mind, I don't reject the concept or lifestyle. I don't literally become a polygamist (culturally or religiously) until I do the tangible matrimonial things (ceremony, sexual acts, cohabiting, etc.).
In Texas and Utah, at least a dozen noble citizens sleep around recreationally. It is almost the State sport. These lusty folks commit the physical acts of adultery and fornication (unenforced crimes). They often satisfy the standard of bigamous/polygamous conduct, but they do not cross the dread felony threshold until they have BAD THOUGHTS. I don't mean bad thoughts like the ones involving nudity, erotica, genitalia, sex, disrobing, foreplay, arousal, toys, lingerie, talking dirty, etc. - NO !!!!!!!!! --- I mean bad thoughts like the ones about Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, fundamntalism, D&C 132 and the like.
You see, in Texas, Canada and Utah, the sex acts will get you NO prison time. The palpable deeds will NEVER make you a criminal - it's the thoughts that get ya'!!!!
We all know that incest is a crime, right? I mean, if you have sex with your minor (or even adult) daughter, you go to prison, right? Well, . . . . what if you went to bed with a girl you met at bar, and you tell your friend that, while you were engaged in sexual acts with her you fantasized that she was your daughter? Can your friend then go to the police and accuse you of committing incest (in your mind)? The sex acts were legal, but the thoughts were incestuous, right? Absurd, right? It would never hold up in a court of law, because you cannot be convicted for having bad, abstract fantasies in your head, right? . . . . UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN POLYGAMY (religious or cultural)!!!!!!!!!!.
You see, pretty soon, Wendell Nielsen will go on trial in Texas for having one legal wife and some other women whom he thinks of as "wives" (not "daughters"). He is not being charged with incest. He is being charged with "bigamy". In Texas' view, his crime is that he has one legal wife, a handful of other (always adult) partners with whom he has allegedly shared a dwelling or a bed but, WORST OF ALL, he believes in the biblical doctrine of plural marriage as restored through Joseph Smith. That's the kicker - that's what makes him a felon - not the women, the sex, the children, the cohabiting (all protected acts throughout Texas, Canada and the U.S.) - NO, it's the thoughts in his head, the abstract notions of theology and religious doctrine shared by at least 13 million Latter-day Saints.
So, as Canada prepares to revisit its ridiculous anti-polygamy law, I remind the honorable court and distinguished Canadian subjects that what the law tries to do is criminalize thought, not deeds, just like Utah's laughable bigamy statute (not to mention that no witnesses or evidence are needed to secure a conviction !!!!!).
A few hundred years back, America (see Salem, Mass.) hanged witches. What is a witch? Is it a lady with a black hat, a broomstick, and a face like Glenn Close? Or is a witch a woman who concocts mysterious potions and puts hexes on her enemies? Eventually, America decided that executing purported witches was unacceptable because their crimes were largely of a religious/ecclesiastical nature, and we no longer wanted to criminalize blasphemy, heresy, and even "witchcraft".
So, recreational copulators go unpunished while the religious ones go to prison. To me, that is punishing the thoughts and not the deeds, which is precisely the opposite of what the Reynolds Court so hypocritically strove to codify.
Have, fun, Canada !!!! - - (and Barbie, too).
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 !!!