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 !!!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Would You Lie?
Would you lie to your wife about where you were till 1 a.m.? Would you lie to the IRS about how much cash income you received last year?
Would you lie in a court of law?
Would you give false testimony to get a lighter sentence for yourself?
Would you lie about a defendant out of mere spite?
Would you falsify medical records to mislead a jury (see the movie, "The Verdict", [with Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling and James Mason])?
I get the feeling that a decent sized group of people really despises Warren Jeffs - maybe for his religion or maybe for his leadership or personality. Either way, I think certain individuals hate him so much that they have staked their careers and reputations and self-worth on destroying him. They wish him harm. They would dance on his grave. They would relish hurting or annihilating him. They would conspire to cook up an elaborate scheme of lies and deceit if it could bring sorrow and torment upon him. This can perhaps be attributed to their lust for revenge for things they (or their friends) allege he has done to them, or is it simply because they have an uncontrollable hatred for POLYGAMY (the marriage model that gave them life)?
If enough time goes by, even the most stalwart haters will realize they have gone too far. Hopefully, the pangs of conscience have stricken midwife, Jane Blackmore, and, after years of not being able to sleep, she will fess up that she and her posse, the Hooligans and their puppet plaintiffs, cooked up phony miscarriages and a miscarriage of justice.
The A.G.'s Office said it learned of the development from the Arizona county attorney prosecuting Jeffs, noting that according to his report "it is possible that Elissa -- either wittingly or unwittingly -- helped the midwife in re-creating the records." (from a SL Tribune article by Brooke Adams)
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14891690
Now, as I have said before, I am not perfect, and, presumably, neither is Warren Jeffs. However, nobody should lie in a trial to get any person imprisoned for life just to further a campaign of spite or revenge.
I am gratified that Utah A.G., Mark Shurtleff has had the (C.Y.A.) fortitude to come forward and face up to the new developments:
" . . . . given the potential exculpatory—impeachment—nature of the information, if Jeffs requests it, the State would not oppose a stay of the appeal and a remand to the trial court for the purpose of developing a factual record on these allegations, and thereafter to further briefing and argument as warranted."
(from a notice filed by deputy A.G., Laura DuPaix)
http://166.70.44.68/blogs/plurallife/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/JeffsNotice-1.pdf
Oh boy! This house of cards smells like it is about to tumble down spectacularly. Can you say "N-E-W T-R-I-A-L"? I can see it now - ELIESsa Wall on the witness stand - - - -
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Elissa, did you have sex with other boys before your wedding with Allen?
ELISSA: Uh, Um, Uh, I don't remember, I was too innocent to understand what was happening to me.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you claim (to Jane Blackmore) that you had had miscarriages during your marriage to Allen that really did not happen?
ELISSA: Uh, Um, Uh, I don't remember, I'm too innocent to know what a miscarriage is.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you fabricate your story so that you and the Hooles could extort a large amount of money from the FLDS people?
ELISSA: Uh, Um, Uh, I don't remember, I'm too innocent to know what money is.
So here is Renn's prayer:
I pray that all the legal officials, A.G.s, lawyers, attorneys, judges, jurors, witnesses, accusers, clerks, sheriffs, police officers, and everyone who had or has anything to do with Warren Jeffs' court cases will realize that, even though our President and the Congress have in their bag "diverse weights and measures", we should all tell the truth and not distort it, especially when these charges involve lengthy prison terms. I pray that Warren Jeffs will have the opportunity to be vindicated - especially since he had NOTHING WHATSOEVER with arranging Allen Steed's marriage to Elissa Wall.
Pick me, Renn, to be on the jury for the new trial, because I will acquit him faster than you can say "Brute Wisass".
Would you lie?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Harrassment
In the heading of my blog I allude to the concept that there is a rather hysterical, almost supernatural animus against polygamy in this world. Our world is often spoken of as being a "telestial" world - that is - it is distant from God and akin to the lowest of the "three kingdoms". How true!!! Though our God Himself has many wives, His children here on earth harbor a hatred for the marriage pattern that gave them life - no less so in Texas and Utah.
Texas (through Hildy Harfabrain) has cooked up this contorted legislative logic that, if a person cannot legally marry his partner, then the sentence for the crime of sex with a minor can be enhanced by an additional 79 years. This statutory language was carefully tailored to target Fundamentalist Mormons. When this nation devolves into complete anarchy, will it be "open season" on us? Will the riot-crazed, looting mob come storming in to snatch our TVs and our lives/wives? God forbid!
Yesterday's invasion is evidence that such behavior is not far off. Mohave County (AZ) law enforcement swooped in on the Fire Department and substations in Colorado City/Hildale and took computers and documents. Can you say "FISHING EXPEDITION"? It must also be no coincidence that yesterday was April 6th (a date significant for many Mormons).
This action is not much different from the recent raid on the school district. Lengthy articles were written about the alleged rampant misuse of school district (public) funds. After years of investigation and oversight, no infractions were discovered, and control was relinquished, but not back to the community.
Bruise Wisass hates the FLDS. He and his feral cronies, Fetcher, Bowser and Fangles, cannot sleep at night for lusting for FLDS blood. This thinly-veiled and likely illegal invasion is another step in an effort to take municipal governance away from the local community.
Come on, folks, can't we see the REALLY BIG picture? Such unbridled oppression of a minority can only go on so long without eternal spiritual implications.
I pray for the conspirators/-trices that they will turn from their evil spite and lust and soften their hearts. No FLDS member is perfect. I am not perfect. That is still no excuse for flagrant persecution, especially the institutional kind (under color of law) perpetrated by this state-sponsored cabal and Brute Winsane.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Healthcare Jihad-Nancy!
What surprises me most is the brazenness of these progressive liberal statists. They must be confident that the masses won't revolt, because they make no effort to hide their wickedness. Pelosi says that we should just pass this health care reform bill so that we can then have a chance to see how good it is. Ten years of taxation for four years of benefits!!! I can't wait . . .
When the jockey is fatter than the horse, you lose the race. Obama is starving the horse and fattening the jockey.
Glenn Beck made a comment recently that struck a nerve with me. He said that this is not Europe. Bishop John Koyle said that, too.
I think that the statists might have read the prophecies in scripture, but I am convinced that they do not believe they will be fulfilled. It makes me look at them with a touch of pathos. George Washington had a vision concerning a war to end all wars. President John Taylor had a vision in which he saw many great eastern cities burning. He saw starving women eating their babies. It is such an amazing blessing to have been born in the latter part of the 20th century and to be alive to witness the tremendous events of our day. It is the titanic clash between the forces of evil and the forces for good. One godless politician pointed out the other day that it will be good to allow federal funds to pay for abortions because that will result in a smaller number of children who need to be supported by a government health care system.
All of the above stuff is sinister and galling, but let's take a look at something a little more disturbing -
In the last few days, the news channels have been crowded with reports about two alleged terrorist women. First it was "Jihad-Jane", a middle-aged woman who has apparently been promoting Islamic Jihad and encouraging others to resist American anti-terrorism efforts. Today, we learned of a second activist woman - "Jihad-Jamie". She went to Ireland to pursue her crazed terrorist aspirations and was arrested. Then she was set free.
http://blogs.cbn.com/stakelbeckonterror/archive/2010/03/15/some-thoughts-on-jihad-jamie-and-jihad-jane.aspx
Both women were taken into police custody. Both are alleged to be "troubled", "mentally-unstable" women who were easily duped and seduced into a radicalized mindset, in hopes that they would become active terrorists. Now, I am a patriotic American citizen, and I have no patience for terrorism, covert warfare and senseless aggression (- which is what makes me so fearful of Nasty Pelosi !!!). Anyway, the scary thing about this Jihad-Jane and Jihad-Jamie situation is that neither of them has physically harmed anyone or committed a palpable crime as far as I can tell. So what will be the charges on which they will be tried? I agree that, if a wacko is making chemical weapons in his basement and makes threats to blow up the houses of parliament, he should be detained, questioned, monitored and even restrained.
The frightening part is what happens when someone in government decides that she doesn't like you and decides that your conservative mindset is dangerous or "radicalized". Then you might be detained and charged with heresy, blasphemy, sedition, treason, conspiratorialism, white supremacy or religious fanaticism. Then you will be dubbed "Jihad-Steve". You will be the first resident of your local FEMA camp. Who is "the government" anyway? Isn't it just other Americans who have seized power over the rest of us? Or has some nefarious entity seized power over the government representatives? Or, are they in it together (see Gadianton robbers)?
Read the book of Job. Remember that God and Satan are not just competing for Job's soul. They are competing for yours. I just don't get why so many of the ones who are working for Satan's side can be so oblivious of the nature and eternal impact of what they are doing. I think, if you leave out any discussion of the pre-existence, none of it will ever make any sense. Solutions are coming, but I suspect they will all be divine, and we will be forced to simply observe. Meanwhile, I pray that we will root for the right team (not the team with Geithner, Bernanke, Soros, Axelrod, Pelosi and Emanuel !!!).
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Lost Boys
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Bill Medvecky makes some good points
http://www.flds.ws/2010/02/17/when-is-a-co-operative-not-a-co-operative/
I have noticed that the Utah Supreme Court has a handful of FLDS cases in its lap, and much of Christendom waits with bated breath (or is it baited hook ???) for the decisions.
I know it's cheap, but I am tickled to watch what this august panel will do. I read with great gusto the language of the majority in the Rodney Holm (State v. Holm) case. One of the justices (I can't remember if it was Wilkins or Nehring) launched into a bizarre diatribe about how he would never want to be seen to be worrying about public backlash, but he didn't dare be the first judge to legitimize fundamentalist Mormon polygamy when so many people cringe and shudder at the practice.
In my experience (and I don't know which ones of the Justices are card-carrying LDS) the anti-polygamy sentiment in the mother Church is institutional and hard-coded in the DNA. The message to Latter-day Saints, whether overt or subliminal, is - "We hate polygamy/ists so deeply, that, if you get a chance to do some harm to one of them - get him or her fired, get them out of the neighborhood, avoid associating with them, etc., - then do it, and all will be well with you at the last day."
So, back to the Utah supremes - how should they rule? In the Warren Jeffs "rape-as-an-accomplice" appeal, Wally Bugden made enough brilliant arguments (about the absurdity of the conviction), that any self-respecting Constitutionalist would acquit Warren. However, there is the sticky part. If you vote for Jeffs, you are voting against Monson, irrespective of the Constitution and good legal principles.
In the question of whether District Court Judge Disease Lintbag did the right thing when she corrupted the 1998 UEP trust intents and installed Bruise (LDS) Weaselin to plunder the trust and besiege the beneficiaries, - again, it is sticky. Some would say that the beneficiaries are foreclosed from protesting because they did not do it soon enough. That is kind of like a passport for Shurtless and Weasan to trample on the FLDS ad libitum/ad infinitum. When the A.G. alleges abuse on the part of the UEP trustee, he can do whatever and whenever. When the FLDS people point out the hubris and barbarism of the "S.O.B." Fiduciary, they are told they are out of time and out of luck.
The third of these cases to be adjudicated involves whether an attorney for the earlier incarnation of the UEP trust may maintain his attorney/client confidentiality privilege in the face of Weaselin's demand to invade it after it has been reworked beyond recognition.
How the majority will rule and write may hinge on their fealty to the Mother-Ship or on their allegiance to to the God-given principles of the Constitution, but the beautiful thing is that they have to SAY SOMETHING. They have to come up with some kind of rationale (however contorted) to explain why they are ruling against the FLDS (if they do). They cannot simply parrot the words of Justice Morrison Waite, who wrote that "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe . . " http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html
Sincerely, I wish that these decisions were not so fraught with political and ecclesiastical implications, but I do pray that common sense will prevail (as it clearly did in Justice Durham's stinging rebuke of the majority in Holm) - - GO CHRISTINE !!!!!, (and GO Mike Z. !!!). Plus, I pray that, despite the individual failings and imperfections of FLDS members, the people and courts of the state of Utah will realize that bullying defenseless citizens will not accelerate their journey towards glory in this life or the next.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Don't Be FLDS !!!!!!
If you are FLDS, you will not be entitled to:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Association
Freedom from unlawful searches and seizures
You will not be entitled to:
Believe what you want
Follow the guidance of a Prophet (like LDS people can)
Own a business
Relocate to a different state
Raise your children according to your religion
Love several partners
Wear your favorite clothes without getting laughed at
Enjoy attorney-client privilege
Get your stuff back after the government steals it
Use a cell-phone
Have your day in court
Own a trust
Hold public office
Be a judge or a police officer
Adopt children
Build a temple and protect it
Have "all things in common"
Home-school your children
Keep to yourself
It's a good thing there were no FLDS at the time the Constitution was framed - or else there would have been a phrase in it such as, "This Constitution affords limitations on government powers and assures God-given protections to all except FLDS members."
Now you know why you wouldn't want to be FLDS. Just be glad you are an American and you live in a country that promises "Liberty and Justice for most".
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The Wall Is Cracking
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/02/az-judge-suppresses-evidence-from.html
Bottom line: the mountain of evidence submitted by Michael Piccarreta alleging that the YFZ Ranch raid court orders and evidence seizures were illegal has gotten the attention of at least one judge. One would think that many humans in public service have an instinctive animus towards the practitioners of plural marriage. Look at the Rozita Swinton prosecution. In a multitude of states, the prosecution and law enforcement community is collaborating to build a wall of silence and obfuscation. A vast array of polygamy-haters is doing its best to keep the wall from cracking.
"The FLDS are grooming young boys to become sex abusers"
"The babies (male and female) are at risk of imminent physical harm"
"FLDS leaders systematically fracture the bones of all the children"
"At least 25 girls under the age of 15 were pregnant"
"All YFZ Ranch residents were residents of a single family dwelling"
"The FLDS religion (Mormonism) constitutes a culture of abuse"
"Pubic hairs were discovered in FLDS beds"
"The FLDS plan to take over the political machinery in Texas"
"FLDS marriage ceremonies are inherently criminal"
"Dale Evans Barlow can be in Arizona and Texas at the same time"
Come on, people! If you embrace this hysteria, you are like the Judeans of 33 A.D. who lusted for the crucifixion of the Nazarene for performing too many miracles and for catching the Pharisees in their false doctrines. As one blogger put it, Warren Jeffs was probably the real culprit in the Kennedy assassination.
I admit, there are a few people I passionately dislike. However, it is entirely beneath me to stoop to using legal machinations unjustly to make their lives miserable and confiscate their children.
So, here's what I think: the wall is cracking. Barbarous Wart-hog can't go on forever punishing the FLDS at the expense of justice. Judge Steven Conn has seen the light. The Texas Appeals courts can see the light. The raid was a shameless cabal. The conspirators/(-trices) muddied the evidence and lied about their collusion. You simply cannot cover up this much dirtyness forever. This is the stuff of a good Eastwood movie. How many movies have you seen where the corrupt government official commits evil and fraud, and the poor protagonist(s) struggles for 95 minutes to expose the dastardly deceit? It's formulaic. The tide is turning (just like the support for Obaminacare). Pretty soon, the perpetrators will be running for deeper cover and pointing fingers at each other.
I'm not calling for my gracious readers to revere me or Warren Jeffs (or any mortal man, for that matter), I'm simply saying that we should esteem justice, not lies. The Constitution was set aside in the 1860's, but that is no excuse for us to trample on its precepts.