Hissing fit
UPDATE: Yes, I had the wrong day. Thanks Natalie. Can I blame the stomach flu and getting home Monday at midnight? If you want proof I was there, here it is. (That is me in the background listening to Willie.)
During a break in Monday's court hearing at the Schleicher County Courthouse, I was standing in a first-floor hallway talking with Eric Nichols of the Texas Attorney General's Office.
Just as we finished speaking, another familiar face walked through the hallway: Natalie Malonis.
When she saw me, Natalie put her fingers in the shape of a cross and hissed. Loudly.
I laughed, somewhat nervously because I was not sure what might follow the hand gesture but that she had apparently made enough of a point.
We had a friendly conversation.
How are you?
Fine.
You look good.
Thanks.
Why are you here?
Natalie said she had come to the courthouse to serve subpoenas.
The lucky recipients: Merril Jessop and Willie Jessop. They are being called to give depositions in the Teresa Jeffs case. Merril's summons is for Jan. 23 and Willie's is for Jan. 26.
Teresa is one of the 14 children with cases still pending before Judge Barbara Walther.
During a break in Monday's court hearing at the Schleicher County Courthouse, I was standing in a first-floor hallway talking with Eric Nichols of the Texas Attorney General's Office.
Just as we finished speaking, another familiar face walked through the hallway: Natalie Malonis.
When she saw me, Natalie put her fingers in the shape of a cross and hissed. Loudly.
I laughed, somewhat nervously because I was not sure what might follow the hand gesture but that she had apparently made enough of a point.
We had a friendly conversation.
How are you?
Fine.
You look good.
Thanks.
Why are you here?
Natalie said she had come to the courthouse to serve subpoenas.
The lucky recipients: Merril Jessop and Willie Jessop. They are being called to give depositions in the Teresa Jeffs case. Merril's summons is for Jan. 23 and Willie's is for Jan. 26.
Teresa is one of the 14 children with cases still pending before Judge Barbara Walther.
397 Comments:
Well Brooke
Were they there and did she get them served?
So, Brooke,
Did Natalie give you any indication of what she currently thinks is in Teresa's best interests?
For crying out loud, she's 17 1/2. Is Malonis still trying to protect her? From what? She's practically an adult.
Use the kids to get at the adults. That's been the MO from day one.
Wow, Brooke, even if she was joking that was terrible. You have my sympathies.
Rebeckah...
It was probably not awful at all. It was pretty typical of how casual, or sometimes even formal, adversaries treat one another...it is with humor and a sort of silly recognition of past clashes or losses...
Last week I went for lunch in the office of our Dep. Secy for Mental Health...she and I have a long history of lots of respect for one another and some very difficult public battles...
When I got there she quickly ltold me she had burned sage and sprinkled holy water just before my arrival in the small conf. room we were going to be in....
There is a large meeting room at one of PDE's buildings that we use for a large cross-system advisory board...Our facilitator who is a special assistant to the Secy. of Public Welfare once joked, during a somewhat testy exchange, that she was going to hang garlic at all the entrances to the room for future meetings....
It's an ice breaker...it's light...it allows both or all parties to laugh...
Yes, she got them served. And no, I was not offended by the gesture. I thought it was funny and I think Natalie meant it to be, too. Funny, but pointed.
Ahh, okay. Being treated like a witch doesn't seem funny to me, but a lot of the "adversarial" part of our justice system is incomprehensible to me. It seemed like Brooke was being taunted for writing pro or neutral articles and blog entries about the FLDS. But I accept your interpretation as you clearly have lots more experience with the day to day encounters within the legal community. (Now THERE is a mini culture all its own.) lol
I do deal with lawyers alot, but the two instances i told about were actually with appointed bureaucrats...
I don't think it is so much the legal community as it is with some professional women....I hear men making sports jokes and motions...pretending to throw a football, or swing a golf club....or sink a basketball...
Or occasionally shadow box...
I have often done the making of the cross, fingers thing, toward someone approaching me that I know wants to talk about me doing something or has an idea to sell that I'm not interested in...but it's eriendly...if I really didn't want to see, or deal with these people, I'd not bother with the gesture, I'd just tell them I didn't want to deal with "it" right now...
But it's all pretty common....and light....
Guess it's a little like Warren Jeffs Attorney's making a trip all the way to Texas to depose Doran and Texas Ranger and Deputy.
Even though Texas isn't involved in the trial that is going to happen in Arizona. And already said, evidence used in the raid wouldn't be used in that trial.
I would imagine it would be a waste of time to depose Merrill or Wille, they will just take the 5th.
Now Natalie is a process server? That's part of an 'ad litems' job description? In my state, we use sheriff deputies. I am surprised Natalie was that low on the totem pole. But I bet she sure delighted in serving the men. (Tongue in cheek intended.) :D
nice post there brooke ;)
yes the gesture was an attempt at humor, a lighthearted acknowledgement of battles past. (strangely, this whole exchange, including the chat with eric nichols and others,took place in the foyer leading to the women's restroom).
brooke did not mention that annette's children's cases are set for trial in march. an ad litem has a duty to participate in litigation just like a party . that includes conducting discovery. the depositions are just one little piece. written discovery requests are also served on the other parties, including cps, in case anyone thinks merril and willie are being picked on.
the deputy sheriff served the papers.
Counselor Malonis - Very happy to hear that everyone was served their subpoenas, would want to miss anyone.
I believe Teresa is 16 1/2 now not 17 1/2.
What I always come back to in the T. Jeffs and N. Malonis case is when Annette tried to get Ms. Malonis dismissed as T.'s attorney, after speaking alone with young Ms. T. Jeffs for some time, the judge did not remove Ms. Malonis as her attorney. Really makes you wonder what young Ms. T. Jeffs said to the judge when she was all alone with just the judge, no bullying by weewillie or mom, just her and the judge chatting. It is my opinion that young Ms. T. Jeffs really wants Ms. Malonis as her attorney and is praying that Ms. Malonis gets her out of that crazyiness without young Ms. T. Jeffs being blamed for it and being labeled an evil apostate.
Posted Sep 8, 2008, 11:35 am CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A Texas judge has refused a request by the daughter of jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs to oust her court-appointed lawyer.
The teen, 17-year-old Teresa Jeffs, had claimed her lawyer was going against her wishes by preventing her from having contact with her father or visiting the Yearning for Zion Ranch, the Deseret News reports. Judge Barbara Walther refused to order the ouster of lawyer Natalie Malonis last week after hearing arguments or testimony from eight lawyers and questioning the girl in chambers, according to the San Angelo Standard-Times.
link
What will nmalonis do when her ward hits 18? Push to get her committed?
Did ya' hear the one about silly Willie calling in CNN to interview Carolyn's daughter Betty? Gary Tuckman flew out for the scoop and the whole thing backfired... Carolyn's book signing in San Angelo was a huge success.
The interview with Betty should air tonight...and btw, Betty didn't say anything bad about her mother. Also, due to several FLDS shenanigans which I won't post here, security was tightened at Carolyn's book signing which made for great drama. Around 140 people showed up which is amazing for a small town, and many of Carolyn's fans were buying 3 and 4 books for friends and family.
Of course Tuckman interviewed Carolyn as well, so thanks to silly Willie her paperback got national press which means oodles of money for my favorite author.
That's the short version...ya'll don't deserve the real juicy stuff about who attended the big dinner, the latest CASA and CPS news, the lawyer gossip, the inside scoop on Merrill and Barbara, and then there's silly Willie and his tax shenanigans.....hilarious.
Ya gotta love Willie.
'night
FlyingFree said...
I believe Teresa is 16 1/2 now not 17 1/2.
----
You believe wrong. She'll be 18 this July.
I agree with Flying Free. The girl and the Judge had a private converstion in the Judges office. No one else was in that room.
So, the girl still has Ms Malonis as her attorney ad litem. The pressure was taken off the girl by having the private conversation.
ztgstmv said...What will nmalonis do when her ward hits 18? Push to get her committed?
--------
Surely Walther will have some other hatchet job for her.
Laurie said: "Betty didn't say anything bad about her mother."
We wouldn't expect anything less of her, Laurie. Just because Betty is a respectful young woman and appreciates her mother for the good she has done, doesn't mean that every (or any) thing that Carolyn says is factual.
I guess the bad mouthing will have to be left up to you.
You guys don't be too sure:
This article dated June 22, 2008, says:
Teresa Jeffs, 16, is one of hundreds of children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with an attorney appointed by a state judge as part of a child welfare investigation into allegations of abuse.
Somewhere in the progress reports there must be her actual DOB. Anyone?
Yep
She'll be 18 July 26 per this CASA doc
The July 17, 2008 CASA report about substitution of Attorney Ad Litem Natalie Malonis states that Teresa's DOB is 7/26/91.
Her father Warren Jeffs married her off to Raymond Jessop one day after she turned 15 - 7/27/2006.
ztgstmv said...
“For crying out loud, she's 17 1/2. Is Malonis still trying to protect her? From what? She's practically an adult.”
Does pretending that this crime is any less despicable because it happened 3 years ago actually make you feel better? I don’t know how you fix a moral compass, but yours is clearly broken.
HISSING
Sounds like a Madagascar hissing, the battle reward or mating call!
So we have an ad litem looking to save her client from something (?) for the final few months and/or working to create problems for others?
It is hard to find an objective here that would display any ethics one would brag about, but I who would have anticipated such?
*******
For those of you hangin' on to the idea Judge walther heard some different story from Teresa that indicated she wanted to keep Malonis, you sound like Mike Nifong fans.
harley said...
I agree with Flying Free. The girl and the Judge had a private converstion in the Judges office. No one else was in that room.
So, the girl still has Ms Malonis as her attorney ad litem. The pressure was taken off the girl by having the private conversation.
---------
Teresa was obviously pressured by the judge to keep a lawyer who was working against her. Perhaps the judge threatened to arrest Raymond Jessop, or to make public her diary. No telling what that sleazeball duo of Walther and Malonis was up to, but it wasn't taking pressure off Teresa. Quite the opposite. And now Malonis claims she's ad litem for more children? I didn't realize that. What a useful dirk she is for stabbing her clients in the back! Everthing she does, she stinks up the whole ad litem concept.
no malonis is not ad litem for any other children. her other cases were non suited months ago, and rightfully so.
there is nothing sinister or unusual about taking depositions in a case that is going to trial in two months. it's discovery, it happens in every case, and there's nothing punitive about it. there is no reason for outrage.
This post has been removed by the author.
brooke - ibelieve the first sentence of your post should read "monday's court hearing."
So this goes to court in two months, where Malonis hopes to put her client into foster care for the three or four months until she’s eighteen. After that travesty, one hopes that this Nancy Grace wannabe will sink into a much deserved obscurity, and that the book she’s no doubt writing will have as much success as Joe the Plumber’s.
nmalonis:
"there is nothing sinister or unusual about taking depositions in a case that is going to trial in two months. it's discovery, it happens in every case, and there's nothing punitive about it. there is no reason for outrage."
LOL!!
Stated as if the objective is ONLY to secure a safer environment for the LAST 100+ days in which an ad litem can substitute her jedgment for that of 17 1/2 YO Teresa!
Even if we overlook the record of that ad litem, it is impossible to find justification for placing the client, Teresa, in the spotlight, under the stress such a hearing can produce, to achieve an outcome that is so near to being a moot subject with her age.
I'd say the "unusual" fits it quite well, the "sinister" was covered when this ad litem announce to the world inaccurate records as fact, accusations which colored the client's reputation in national headlines as something with a lifestyle near that of a prostitute.
This person has shown all she could not save her own reputation, so as all the records of her own life showed us, she then tarnishes others.
She will be held accountable for her conduct in time.
Perhaps, kpb, some people believe that getting justice for what was done to Ms Jeffs IS in her best interest.
I understand that you don't agree with everyone else in the world. But why do you have to assign evil intentions to those you disagree with? Isn't it possible in your world view for someone to have good intentions and still be wrong?
I'm sure there are other kids. Natalie's client is sort of the side show. If it were only about TJ they probably wouldn't be going to trial.
She's doing her job. Just because you guys don't like it doesn't mean she's doing anything wrong.
last comment -
no, malonis is not hoping to put teresa in foster care. that is absurd! who does it serve to attribute the most malignant (not to mention far fetched) motives to someone. temper the hysteria. it is a deposition, not a beheading. malonis is only one of ten ad litems conducting discovery in annette's case.
and kbp perhaps you have forgotten it's cps' trial, not malonis'. malonis and teresa and nine other children and their attorneys have to be there and participate at trial. you have no idea what teresa's position is. do you even know what cps' position is? or annette's? or any of her other nine children? as much as you would like this to be a malonis issue, it isnt. the name is only mentioned because brooke ran into malonis and exchaged a few words.
i hope you all have a pleasant day.
Betty
For all the anti-government nutters it has to be black and white. Anyone who does or says anything that might go against what was going on at YFZ is evil. They're stooges for the government and, of course, will suffer consequences for their evil behavior.
Yep, their tin foil hat told them so, therefore it must be true.
I am confused. So 10 of the 15 kids still non-suited belong to Annette. They are going to trial in March for what? I mean the kids have been home since June and they might be trying to get custody of the to put them back in foster care in March? Seriously is this how it works or is there some other reason for a trial. Can CPS really be that crazy? Or am I missing something here! LOL
Considering the FLDS financial crisis, the 12 racist FLDS men indicted could end up with public defenders...and odds are that some will be Hispanic or African American.
Ya gotta love it.
Laurie
I doubt a county that small has a public defenders office. They probably rely on using appointed counsel paid for by the county.
Which would mean local lawyers who would most likely be white.
TxMom
CPS could be going for either termination or permanent conservatorship status. Permanent conservatorship would not necessarily mean foster care. It would prevent anyone from marrying the younger girls off which might be where they're headed.
Ron,
Not according to my sources. I have a friend in San Antonio, and her parents live in San Angelo.
Laurie
I believe San Angelo is Tom Green County. How they do things in San Angelo wouldn't be the same as in Schleicher County.
What Ron in Houston says now: "She's doing her job. Just because you guys don't like it doesn't mean she's doing anything wrong."
And what he said in September: "My gripes are first the way Natalie Malonis has handled this case, and second, a professional judgment that she should step aside."
Ron said..."How they do things"?
What are "they" "doing"? Ya lost me.
Betty,
Help me out here by explaining what "justice" you had in mind for the one so near being an adult. Has Malonis' conduct, like telling the world she is an underaged mother hiding a baby, shown you how much she cares for her client?
I did not say "evil intentions", I stated the "unusual" described them well. If her involvement is merely that of a flunky dropping off subpoenas for reputable attorneys or simply hangin' out at the courthouse, she can do no harm.
**********
Ron:
" Natalie's client is sort of the side show. If it were only about TJ they probably wouldn't be going to trial.
She's doing her job. Just because you guys don't like it doesn't mean she's doing anything wrong."
I agree with your first paragraph, and all can thank Malonis for accomplishing that.
I see you followed Betty's lead in transforming this into an "evil" evaluation by those wearing tin hats. Is going after those that comment easier than sticking up for Malonis?
**********
nmalonis:
"no, malonis is not hoping to put Teresa in foster care."
The outcome of a hearing is very limited as far as Teresa is concerned. Having malonis involved solely for some benefit to her client is a waste of time and funds if depositions of Willie & Merril are a part of it.
"kbp perhaps you have forgotten it's cps' trial, not malonis'."
No, merely pointing out what I have not forgotten about the Superstar's part in damaging her clients reputation and how the motives for her involvement most likely will follow the pattern set by her early on in this matter.
Ron:
"I doubt a county that small has a public defenders office. They probably rely on using appointed counsel paid for by the county.
Which would mean local lawyers who would most likely be white."
A question for one that might have an answer handy:
In many cases I have followed in other states, it was common for a person that hired an attorney and then LATER had funding problems, to apply for the state to pay THE attorney they had selected and been working with. Of course I believe the hourly rates were set by the state often, but the state paid the tab.
Is that how it works in Texas?
K,
"Even if we overlook the record of that ad litem, it is impossible to find justification for placing the client, Teresa, in the spotlight, under the stress such a hearing can produce, to achieve an outcome that is so near to being a moot subject with her age."
What record? The one where all her other cases were nonsuited? Wow, you're just desperate for a consiracy, aren't you? lol
nmalonis: no malonis is not ad litem for any other children. her other cases were non suited months ago, and rightfully so.
So what are you after exactly? You want to put TJ in foster care for the final three months of her "childhood"? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you quit wasting tax-payer money, and leave the poor girl and her family alone.
Betty said...
Perhaps, kpb, some people believe that getting justice for what was done to Ms Jeffs IS in her best interest.
Not sure if you are aware, but getting justice is the job of LE. Malonis is an ad litem. On the other hand, if she is indeed working with LE in the capacity of a prosecutor, then she should afford her client the rights of a client in a normal criminal investigation, such as an attorney of her choosing.
Oh nevermind, Malonis isn't a criminal attorney, which means she stepping out of her scope? Is Malonis breaking the law?
Perhaps Malonis can answer the question: are you seeking to protect your client per the responsibility of a child welfare ad litem, or are you seeking justice, as in the role of LE?
I think if you all remember, the call was put out by the court for Ad Litems from all over Texas. They even gave 3hours courses for Attorneys who hadn't been ad litems before. Attorneys came from all over the state, remember? There wasn't even room in Hotels for the attorneys. "Most Ad Litems were working Pro Bono"
1. It wasn't Malonis that was dissatisfied with her client.
2. With all the supposed wisdom in Flds, why didn't the jeffs girl write a letter to the judge FIRST!
3. Instead she called Associated Press and made her name and the matter public between her and Malonis.
4. She took away her own amenemity by doing that.
5. The man she was married to at 15 has been indicted.
6. No, all the children left are not annette jeffs children. Most are Barbara and Merrill Jessops Children. At least 4 or 5 are. We haven't been told which other children or their parents have not been non suited.
Malonis is a Family Attorney. She has been an ad litem before.
kbp
It will vary by county since the county has to pick up the tab. In Harris County you can't have the county pick up the tab for the lawyer you already have.
hawly said...
"3. Instead she called Associated Press and made her name and the matter public between her and Malonis.
4. She took away her own amenemity by doing that.
Just for the record, I mean the real one,
THIS and THIS might help you remember why she did THIS
First THIS didn't work.
Pliggy,
Teresa terms of being allowed to stay with her mother, was she was not to go to YFZ ranch at all.
Teresa Jeffs called the associated press herself and gave a phone interview AFTER the restraining order of Willie Jessop.
At the time of the call, she was 16yrs old. She was going to be a witness in a Grand Jury hearing, even though she evaded being served.
Her biggest problem it seemed was that she wasn't allowed back on the ranch.
SALT LAKE CITY — A daughter of convicted polygamist leader Warren Jeffs doesn't need protection from church leaders and says she wants her court-appointed attorney to step down for asking for it.
She most certainly did need protection from Church leaders, like her Willie Jessop and Raymond Jessop whom her Mother and Father married her off to underage.
Perhaps, kpb, some people believe that getting justice for what was done to Ms Jeffs IS in her best interest.
What justice? Will they annul the marriage? Make them get a divorce? Charge TJ? What exactly?
When will Texas, CPS, and Natalie Malonis get it right? Marriage is a PROTECTION not abuse.
It is the marriage system of the Saints against which the cry is now raised, though it has not always been so, for they were persecuted as bitterly before such a practice existed among them as they have been since. The Saints believe in marrying more wives than one, and in maintaining them and their children. Is this contrary to the laws of nature? We answer, no! For wherever a man is found in his natural state he is a pluralist. From this practice no evil can result; it promotes life and does not destroy it. No loathsome disease follows legitimate marriage. The world confounds promiscuity and plural marriage, and speak of them as being the same: but not so! Promiscuity, being opposed to natural laws, curtails offspring, brings diseases of the most loathsome kind; blights, destroys, and drags down to an untimely death its votaries. Visit the anatomical museums, and see there evidences of the fulfillment of God’s words: “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” Upon every hand we can see the frightful effects of man’s perverse course in breaking nature’s laws. From legitimate marriage, whether to one or more wives, none of the frightful evils resulting from promiscuity have ever been manifested in any degree. Blessings have followed marriage, cursings promiscuity. Deity has written upon plural marriage, honor, power and glory, in the coming forth of His Son Jesus through the lineage of David.
Txblogger, I don't see Teresa as being prosecuted, she was underage.
Legally, there was no legal marriage according to the state, although they have the marriage certificate made by FLDS.
However, Raymond Jessop can be prosecuted because he was living with more than one wife illegally, Bigamy.
ME, I have ONE word for your rant!
Bologna!
It will vary by county since the county has to pick up the tab. In Harris County you can't have the county pick up the tab for the lawyer you already have.
Why? That doesn't make any sense, particularly if the new attorney is willing to work for what the CA Att was paid. That could put the defendent in a compromised position?
Txblogger
Why would a county pick up attorneys fee's of someone who was paying for the attorney?
If you can't afford an attorney, then one will be appointed for you.
But if your already paying an attorney, its nuts to think a county will pay for another attorney, when you have hired the attorney yourself.
Me,
Marriage is not a sacred protection from anything. People in marriages get sick, get STDS, get hurt, sometimes hurt each other, and many other sad things. Just because you believe it is "natural" or "Godly" doesn't make it so. Open your mind a little. You find monogamy all over the place in "natural" situations.
However, Raymond Jessop can be prosecuted because he was living with more than one wife illegally, Bigamy.
There's nothing in the law that says the female is any less guilty; nor does it mention any age restriction.
If Raymond can be charged with bigamy than Teresa can be charged with bigamy. In fact if they don't charge Teresa with bigamy, Raymond can make the case for selective prosecution.
Z,
The age restrictions of criminal charges are inherent in the whole "too young to give consent" laws. Theresa is not guilty of a crime, she is a victim of a crime. Now, if she were emancipated from her parents or something there just *might* be something she could be charged with.
hawly...
"Teresa Jeffs called the associated press herself and gave a phone interview AFTER the restraining order of Willie Jessop."
Just one word... DUH!
Her call was the RESULT of Malonis' "representation" garbage that she "shared" with Terri. Notice the headling "Sect leaders daughter accuses..." Which was a stinking lie.
And yes, marriage is a PROTECTION from solitude. MOST women want that. To the FLDS it is a CONTRACT of responsibility. It is not unconditional if the contract is not fulfilled (ie Abuse etc)
First Amendment
My opinions haven't changed, but for better or worse she decided to stay on the case. There was no legal requirement that she get off the case, I just thought she should. Right now, she's just doing her job.
The real question is what they're trying to do with Annette's other kids.
Natalie and TJ are pretty much just a side show.
The age restrictions of criminal charges are inherent in the whole "too young to give consent" laws.
Again Rebekah, I hate to repeat myself, but if you read the plain wording of the law there's no age delineation for bigamy, just as there is no age delineation for rape or murder. If Teresa can be charged with rape or murder -- and many many 15-17 year olds have -- than she can be charged with bigamy. It's that simple.
Ztg,
ummm, no I dont think so, since Teresa was married off by her parents underage, she had no Legal right to consent. So she wouldn't be prosecuted for bigamy.
Z,
Everytime you post here you reinforce my view of you as an adolescent. The fact that you can't tell the difference between a teen choosing to commit a violent crime against another and a teen being coerced into breaking the law by her family and religion shows your general lack of critical thinking skills. Don't feel bad, though, in another 10 or 13 years I'm sure you'll have caught up with everyone else.
Txblogger said:
Why? That doesn't make any sense, particularly if the new attorney is willing to work for what the CA Att was paid. That could put the defendent in a compromised position?
Why? Well politics plays a role for certain. Appointment are a form of political capital that judges can utilize.
It may or may not compromise the defendant depending on how far along the case is. Besides, who said life is fair?
Laurie
Let me rephrase:
I believe San Angelo is Tom Green County. How indigent criminal defendants are handled in San Angelo wouldn't be the same as in Schleicher County.
It may or may not compromise the defendant depending on how far along the case is. Besides, who said life is fair?-Ron the Attorney
Life isn't fair, Justice is supposed to be?
Txblogger said:
Life isn't fair, Justice is supposed to be?
Yeah, in some mythical ideal world. It's something that we should ascribe to and try to make a reality, but we're far from that goal.
I appreciate your honesty, Ron.
It's amazing that you thinks TJ was "coerced"... having read what she actually had to say about the whole affair, it's hard for me to call her "coerced" in any way. What makes you think she was "coerced"?
Lucille,
A parent has enormous influence over their children. When Mom and Dad tell you for your entire life that the only really good thing you can do in life is to marry and have babies then saying "yes" at the tender age of 15 when they ask you if you will do what they have always said was right, proper, and "good" is not a choice. How often do children choose to deliberately hurt those they love and trust? Critical thinking skills are still lacking at the age of 15 for MOST 15 year olds. Coercion does not require a gun to the head.
Yes, the "evidence" if it is valid, does not point to a coerced marriage. As to the matter of "consent," clearly if a 15 year old can "consent" to taking part in a beating and kidnapping of a fellow student (and face being charged as an adult), then a 15 year old can also "consent" to marrying (in fact this is legal, absent prior marriage of either party, in Texas if she and her spouse get a court order).
The fact of the matter is, TJ was permitted to take a criminal attorney as well as take the fifth. The reason for these provisions is simple, she is in the same boat as Raymond. Under the law there's no distinction for age, "coersion," or sex. Bigamy is an equal opportunity offense.
The Texans codified their prejudices, now they'll have to find a way out.
Hmm... so all her downright horny comments about Raymond Jessop... were nothing more than mom and dad's influence?
Lucille,
Her belief that the only answer for that "horniness" is immediate marriage can be laid at Mom and Dad's door.
Plus, from what I read, she was talking herself into fulfilling what her father told her when he said for her to "get close to her husband quickly, and not through her sister wives".
Rebecka,
"Critical thinking skills are still lacking at the age of 15 for MOST 15 year olds."
There you have some wisdom. You said MOST 15 year olds, which says you admit that SOME do have critical thinking skills, or in other words maturity. Yes, there are a few among the FLDS who do have that maturity, and those who don't have the choice to wait as MOST do. There is no force in the FLDS religion. Some feel they are ready at a younger age and I say heaven bless them in their choice. That is what America is all about. Why would Texas think to break up a happy marriage, and say it is abuse when no such thing as abuse exists?
Ron:
"kbp
It will vary by county since the county has to pick up the tab. In Harris County you can't have the county pick up the tab for the lawyer you already have."
Just to be clear, if a defendant were to qualify at some point in the middle of the process to having the state/county pay for their defense, they can only be assigned a new attorney from the public defenders?
Rebeckah,
"What record? The one where all her other cases were nonsuited? Wow, you're just desperate for a consiracy, aren't you? lol"
This reads like you have missed out on quite a bit.
Of the 469 original suits, 454 were non-suited, so if you wish to attribute the fact that about NINETY SEVEN PERCENT were dropped due to the masterful skills of the ad litems, and include malonis in that group to be praised, have at it.
Even if you do wish to pat her on the back for any other cases she would hope to brag about, the record of her ethics in Teresa's case still exists.
Me,
"There is no force in the FLDS religion."
Pedophiles claim the same thing about the children they sexually abuse. Coercion is easier the younger a person is. Just because you can coerce an acceptance, whether it be from indoctrination, from fear of losing your "sealing" to your family or just fear of disappointing Mom and Dad it doesn't mean that there is no force.
"Some feel they are ready at a younger age and I say heaven bless them in their choice."
Yay for you -- it's still illegal.
"That is what America is all about."
Umm, no, it isn't what America is all about.
"Why would Texas think to break up a happy marriage, and say it is abuse when no such thing as abuse exists?"
Wow, you know it's really funny because pedophiles say that what they do isn't abuse either. Am I saying that marrying a 15 year old is pedophilia? Not unless she is prebusecent. Yes, abuse exists. It happens all over the place and every day. It happens in the LDS church, and the FLDS church and in the Roman Catholic Church. It is to protect the vulnerable that a great many laws were created -- so they wouldn't be abused until they were at least 18 and could choose it for themselves.
"...It is to protect the vulnerable that a great many laws were created -- so they wouldn't be abused until they were at least 18 and could choose it for themselves."
A rather odd point to make when debating on "being forced", for if Teresa did choose to consummate her marriage now, or within the past 6+/- months, the act itself would be legal.
"A rather odd point to make when debating on "being forced", for if Teresa did choose to consummate her marriage now, or within the past 6+/- months, the act itself would be legal."
And? What's your point?
Rebekah, a product of the foster care system, an abusive husband, her own kids taken from her and put in foster care once, and she's hear preaching against the FLDS and their ways.
My advice to you Rebekah, is to go spend a few years on the prairie with your children. Raise them to do hard work all day, caring for and teaching their younger siblings, and see how fast they grow up.
Until you see the world through their eyes, and speak with some understanding, you will continue to sound like the myopic, rambling fool that you are.
Z,
Please feel free to try ad hominum attacks to your heart's content. I shared my story so that others might just be able to take heart from it and see the positive that can be found. That you would try and use it as an attack merely demonstrates your tiny capacity for human feeling.
My children, by the way, are grown. They are both hard working, loving parents who are doing well in this world. Being raised in a single parent household made them both more mature than most of their peers growing up, but rather than abuse that maturity, I simply used it as a springboard to encourage their physical, emotional and intellectual growth. Hopefully by the time you grow up and have a family you will understand putting their needs before your own ego.
Rebeckah:
"...It is to protect the vulnerable that a great many laws were created -- so they wouldn't be abused until they were at least 18 and could choose it for themselves."
kbp:
"A rather odd point to make when debating on "being forced", for if Teresa did choose to consummate her marriage now, or within the past 6+/- months, the act itself would be legal."
Rebeckah:
"And? What's your point?"
I thought it was obvious. You are arguing about various things that "force" some act upon the "vulnerable" victims, then say "laws were created" to protect some until they are 18, but the age of consent in Texas is 17, where the suit is which initiated your debate.
While marriage was a part of the discussion, YOU transformed it into something about "pedophiles" and the "vulnerable", then added some claim about law that would not apply to any over the age of 17.
That is what's "odd". You are tossing everything on the wall, and I am pointing out just a portion of what did not stick.
harley said...
ME, I have ONE word for your rant!
Bologna!
harley, I'll match your bologna and raise you a slice of CHEESE!
No, K, I didn't just toss things off the wall. The fact is that the "they are mature" and the "they can consent" and the "we're talking about THEIR rights" are all arguments used by pedophiles as well as religious adherents. I guess I have to wonder where the line is drawn that says "this" is wrong but "that" is "free" choice.
My children, by the way, are grown. They are both hard working, loving parents who are doing well in this world.
How do I know? Maybe they're just brainwashed? Like the FLDS, who are also hard working, loving parents?
I guess I have to wonder where the line is drawn that says "this" is wrong but "that" is "free" choice.
No you don't have to wonder. That's the job of the parents, and the parents alone. This is America, Rebekah, not socialist England. Parents in this country have a right to raise their kids at home without outside interference.
Lucille said...
It's amazing that you thinks TJ was "coerced"... having read what she actually had to say about the whole affair, it's hard for me to call her "coerced" in any way. What makes you think she was "coerced"?
Why Lucille, haven't you heard Laurie attest to as much. I mean after all Laurie (who has met and talked to maybe 1/4 of one percent of the FLDS people) knows more about TJ whom she has never met than even TJ knows about herself! C'mon Lucille are you just brain dead or what?
kbp said:
Just to be clear, if a defendant were to qualify at some point in the middle of the process to having the state/county pay for their defense, they can only be assigned a new attorney from the public defenders?
Yes, or in Harris County, an appointed lawyer.
I like bologna and cheese sandwiches.
"kbp said:
Just to be clear, if a defendant were to qualify at some point in the middle of the process to having the state/county pay for their defense, they can only be assigned a new attorney from the public defenders?
Ron said:
Yes, or in Harris County, an appointed lawyer."
Skipping past many of the problems I see in that process, especially if it were a capital crime, it would not be very cost effective if the present attorney was paid the same hourly rate as the new one appointed.
It could also lead to problems on how speedy the case was held, should there be delays for the appointed attorney to get themselves up to date on the case.
kbp
Most criminal lawyers don't charge by the hour - they typically charge a flat fee.
A lot of high caliber criminal lawyers won't do court appointed work since it doesn't pay as much.
I'm not saying it's the most logical system, but it's the system in place right now. (Harris County is looking at establishing a PD office.)
"Why Lucille, haven't you heard Laurie attest to as much. I mean after all Laurie (who has met and talked to maybe 1/4 of one percent of the FLDS people) knows more about TJ whom she has never met than even TJ knows about herself! C'mon Lucille are you just brain dead or what?"
Nope, no coercion in this religion...
Verse 64:
"And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things (plural wives), then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."
Verse 65:
"Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife."
Rebeckah, the problem with your posts is that pointing to conditions that exist in which coercion may theoretically occur is not the same as showing that Teresa Jeffs was coerced; you've done an OK job with the former but you have barely even approached the latter.
Lucille,
Given that the foundation of this faith was created by the man who wrote my last post directly at the woman that he contracted a MONOGAMOUS relationship with to justify his ongoing infidelities with a religious mantle, it is quite reasonable to presume the same pressures are brought to bear on the women today. They have two choices:
You can obey God (and the men) and "choose" to embrace the dictate that your worth hinges on the approval of a "priesthood" man and childbearing, (and in the process completely subliminate any desires for yourself and what you might feel is best for your)
Or you can be "selfish", "worldly", and "apostate" and reject those precepts, (making you the enemy like Flora, Carolyn, Becky Musser, et al, and rejected by all that has ever claimed to love you).
Coercion is pretty much a given when the premise of the faith is that you cannot make decisions for yourself, the Prophet or your father or your husband must do it for you. Only when you ignore your own desires, or better yet, convince yourself that your desires are the same as theirs, are you truly "good", "worthy" or "righteous". Given that mindset which is quite easily shown to exist in any Mormon faction, there is no way I can believe that any of their children are capable of making a "free choice" to do anything, from tying their shoes in the morning up to and including marrying. In fact, I don't honestly believe the make free choices at 18, but the law says that age is "adulthood" and I believe in respecting the law.
All religion is coercive. It asks that you accept certain tenets as an act of faith. In other words, we can't prove X, but you should believe it anyway. Why?? Because we told you you should, that's why.
Ron said,
"we can't prove X, but you should believe it anyway. Why?? Because we told you you should, that's why."
Oh, Ron, that's not true. Religion can be very personal and self-fulfilling. It is like a "mustard seed". Maybe you start with some "coercion" or what others say is true and you take that and build on it with your own experiences until it makes sense and keep building until one day you realize that there is a God, and keep going from there.
WC
Spirituality is fulfilling. Religion is not. Religion is about dogma. It is about enforced beliefs. It makes you evil if you don't believe what the religion believes.
The love of all beings preached by Christian religions is beautiful. The belief in hell or being excluded in some afterlife is ugly.
Truth is a Pathless Land by J. Krishnamurti
I am a little confused Rebeckah, are you stating these people should not be allowed their religion? I believe that might be just a tad......unconstitutional.
Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to practice any religion until one becomes of legal age? What?
Ron,
I agree. It took me a long time to get there, though. ;)
Z,
"No you don't have to wonder. That's the job of the parents, and the parents alone. This is America, Rebekah, not socialist England. Parents in this country have a right to raise their kids at home without outside interference."
So incest is okay, since that's totally "inside the home" and pedophilia is fine as long as Mom and/or Dad agree. Heck, they can even swap their children with the children of other pedophiles. Whew, what a relief.
No man from outside can make you free; nor can organised worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you free; nor can forming yourselves into an organisation, nor throwing yourselves into work, make you free.
Ron suddenly feels like onthestreet...?????
Oh, Ron, that's not true. Religion can be very personal and self-fulfilling. It is like a "mustard seed". Maybe you start with some "coercion" or what others say is true and you take that and build on it with your own experiences until it makes sense and keep building until one day you realize that there is a God, and keep going from there.
-------
Is it the only way?
Ron,
Maybe I've gotten it wrong...
Howere', Pliggy broke it down into it's simplest for for me, once...
If yyou are a really wretched human being, and know so...then when your body dies, you cease to exist. That's the worst.
If you're trying to do right, but screw up, pretty frequently, you've got a lot of work to do, so when you die, you go to the telestial state.
If you've been doing the very best that you can, but you've fallen short in some ways, you go to the teresrial state..
But if you've really done a superb job....then you go to the celestial kingdom....
But to get to the point of being a God in your own right...everyone has work to do....
But it's really the lowest of the low, the real monsters who cease to exist....otherwise, there is room in heaven for all....and eventually, room in the highest kingdom....and we're all somewhere along that path....
So, to me,anyway, it sounds like a much more reasonable way of looking at things than most of the Christian religions with their varying concepts of eternal damnation....
And the reality is, none of us will KNOW until we die....so if we each try to be decent human beings, based on our individual knowledge and belief of what that means, we'll be okay....we'll just end up on different points of the contiuum...So, various doctrine aside, the Mormon concept of judgment is fairer than most....
Now If I've gotten this all wrong, someone please correct me....
"I am a little confused Rebeckah, are you stating these people should not be allowed their religion? I believe that might be just a tad......unconstitutional."
No, I don't believe a stated anything of the sort.
"Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to practice any religion until one becomes of legal age? What?"
Saying CHILDREN shouldn't be allowed to practice parts of their religion which involve breaking the law until they are adults -- then they can CHOOSE if they're willing to face the consequences of breaking those laws themselves. I'm saying parents do NOT have a right to allow, encourange or facilitate their children breaking the law -- not even for religious reasons.
I believe that when I die, I have a pack of my dogs from over the years, waiting for me...and when I get there, we're going to continue our journey, together....
The love of all beings preached by Christian religions is beautiful. The belief in hell or being excluded in some afterlife is ugly.
-------
That is my problem with basically all religions, in order to love God you need to fear God, hence: "God fearing American citizens". It actually makes me cringe when I hear it.
Sometimes, we can choose to be very rigid in how we raise our children, and the standards and rules we impose on ourselves for so doing are very severe. Howere', none of us have the right to impose those same standards and rules on others, for raising their children.
If I want to encourage my children to be bankrobbers, even teaching them how, that is my right. Now if one of them goes out and robs a bank, and they are significantly underage, we both might have some problems with various authorities,.....and I have made the choice in how to raise them, knowing that could occur.
On the other hand, if my child is close to the age of majority, and gets caught, the problem belongs to that child. The court isn't going to want to hear about "my mother taught me to be a bank robber, your honor, it isn't my fault."....
In fact, we have seen relatively young children prosecuted as aduts, in this country for serious crimes. Now I happen to think that is wrong....there really is a point below which a person's ability to truly understand the future ramifications of an action and make a choice, despite the knowledge, is not as young as prosecutors want to believe....
And there is the issue of brain development....at what point is the amygdala no longer in control...when does an individual brain become mature enough to produce the adequate neurotransmitters to get input into cognition before action?
I agree with those who say each individual is different...that there is a range when that happens, but individual experience varies widely within that range....
Anyway...how one parents, is highly personal...and I would no more want to tell someone else what their parenting obligations and standards should be than I would want them telling me....
I never said to my children, "Do not smoke pot." What I said to all of them is, "If you choose to smoke pot, control your surrondings, and don't let it interfere in your life, or in getting things done. It is against the law. If you get caught, you were being stupid. Don't call me, I won't help you." Well, to this day, none of my children have been arrested or charged with any drug related charges.
Well, that's almost true. One was pulled over for anunrelated traffic violation and had a bit of pot in his pocket, so when the officer had moved away to call for support, he bent over the car where the "evidence" was and ate it...needless to say, the officer was somewhat distraught and my son ended up with all sorts of charges, but none of them were drug charges.....
Now I know that there are many parents who do not agree with how I handled the use of drugs thing with my children. So what? My choice. No one elses.
Ruby,
"That is my problem with basically all religions, in order to love God you need to fear God, hence: "God fearing American citizens". It actually makes me cringe when I hear it."
I have to agree. Why should you "fear" a "loving" God? I would feel horrible if my children were afraid of me.
Regina,
That's funny, I told my children the same thing -- You get picked up for breaking the law; stealing, drugs, etc, don't call me because I won't bail you out. Neither of them have been in trouble with the law -- and my son has been "profiled" several times because he's clearly hispanic.
This post has been removed by the author.
Regina
Where did you get the belief that you are not perfect? That is a Christian belief. Why would God create such an imperfect being?
The ethos is so widespread in our culture that we're born so imperfect. That we need something or someone to complete ourselves.
That is what is taught by those who would "complete" you. You need me, you imperfect being, because without me and my teachings you are eternally and totally screwed.
True freedom is freedom from accepting limiting beliefs. If God is beyond our understanding, then any attempt by our limited feeble human minds to define God is pointless.
Anyone who tells you, I know God and what God wants is trying to enslave you.
"Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity...."
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Saying CHILDREN shouldn't be allowed to practice parts of their religion which involve breaking the law until they are adults -- then they can CHOOSE if they're willing to face the consequences of breaking those laws themselves. I'm saying parents do NOT have a right to allow, encourange or facilitate their children breaking the law -- not even for religious reasons.
------
You are going to show me evidence that any marriage performed by this church or any church is recognized by the Federal Government as legitimte.
"You are going to show me evidence that any marriage performed by this church is recognized by the Federal Government as legitiamte."
First you show me evidence that an "illegitimate" marriage to a child is legal. If it were there'd be a lot of "married" pedophiles running around.
Hmmm...
I think I wasn't clear in making my point...
There are several things I tried to teach each of my boys....mostly around things about moral existance and being decent and kind and loyal and not hurting others.
I never said to them, "Don't break the law." I often said to them, "there are some stupid laws, but, they are the laws. If you choose to break them, don't get caught, becaue if you do, you own it."
If I had a female child, I most likely would have siad to her, "You legally cannot consent to having sexual relations with anyone, until you are seventeen. If you choose to do so anyway, be smart about it." And I would have gone on to tell her what being "smart" meant to me....
I think if I were an FLDS woman, involved in a marriage where I was not "legally" married, and someone asked me if I were married, and I knew they were referring to the secular definition of marriage, and not the religious, I would look them squarely in the eye and say, "No, I am not married." I would always keep in ind the language difference. And if I wasn't sure which meaning another person was applying to the word, I would ask them to define the word. And I would answer honestly based on the definition they gave me. If mine was a spiritual marriage, I might use words other than 'married' or 'marriage', I might talk about 'spiritual union', or 'spiritual relationship', or 'a covenant bless by God'...but I would not give them any amunition to hurt me or my family based on them using the language differently than I do....
And at the same time, I would be lobbying like all get out to get the law cleaned up to be unambiguos....
Ron, where did you get the idea that anything I wrote had anything to do with anything I believe? Except about joining my dogs?
Oh, by the by...I don't think anyone is "perfect"...I think we all screw up from time to time...I think it's part of the human condition to make mistakes....and I rarly hold someone's 'mistakes' against them for too long....
Regina
Are you not perfect in your imperfection? Who is to say what is perfect and what is not?
"You are going to show me evidence that any marriage performed by this church is recognized by the Federal Government as legitiamte."
First you show me evidence that an "illegitimate" marriage to a child is legal. If it were there'd be a lot of "married" pedophiles running around.- Rebecka
Whether you like it or not there is seperation between church and state. If the state can not prove sexual relations between and adult and child the state doesn't have a case. A piece of church paper means absolutely nothing.
Well, Ron, I can tell you why I wasn't a philosophy major...*smile*
I'm pretty grounded. Pretty concrete. And I have a prettyconcrete definition of perfection. and, obviously, it has nothing to do with secular laws.
It's things like I think it is wrong to hurt another person, knowingly. So part of perfection, to me, would be one who NEVER knowingly, hurts another person.
Since I think we all, at one time or another, and some of us, more than one time, knowingly cause hurt to another, we are all less than perfect.
And I am 'okay' with defining perfection and it's absense, that way. I don't need to delve into any other deeper levels....
Ruby,
"Whether you like it or not there is seperation between church and state. If the state can not prove sexual relations between and adult and child the state doesn't have a case. A piece of church paper means absolutely nothing."
Whether you like it or not that is your opinion of how things should be and not necessarily a fact. The courts will decide.
Unless Molonis has supporting evidence of Teresa being sexually assaulted she has absolutely nothing.
Unless Molonis can prove that Teresa's marriage is legal, there can not be bigamy charges.
Whether you like it or not that is your opinion of how things should be and not necessarily a fact. The courts will decide.
-------
I can certainly provide documentation if need be. These proceedings are Unconstitutional.
In a secular marriage there are legal obligations and benefits that swing both ways. In a "joining of two individuals' in a spiritual/religious ceremony, none of those secular benefits or obligations are applicable. This will be a real test of how far the government can make incursions into a person or family or community's religious beliefs. Even if the word is the same, the meaning is not. So at what point does the law have to recognize the line drawn between the two.
There is no proof, what so ever, that any law was broken, except to use the same word....
Do we know that the child was not told she was not allowed to have "marital relations" until she was seventeen????
Perhaps this is exactly what she was told.
I do so hope that the attys construct very careful questions.......
Ruby said...If the state can not prove sexual relations between and adult and child the state doesn't have a case. A piece of church paper means absolutely nothing.
----------
Actually, the religious ceremony itself is against the law, and can get you several years in Texas. But without witnesses, and without authentication of the documents or DNA from the offspring of the union, then you're right, there is no case.
The only way for Texas to charge FLSD is to prove men had sexual relations is through DNA. That would be considered sexual assault, other than that they have nothing and they know it.
If a person testifies that they have not had sexual relations or takes the 5th amenment there is not a damn thing the state can do legally.
They can always appeal the lower courts decision.
If religious ceremonies are illegal in Texas then they will charge those who performed them. I believe most of those ceremonies were performed by Warren Jeffs and he is currently serving time in jail.
In my mind all the state is doing is draining FLDS and tax payers resources.
Regina
At the risk of "beating the dead horse...."
Where did those concepts of perfection come from? It is human nature to disappoint people. It is human nature to sometimes cause people harm.
Is it truly wrong to "hurt" you? Isn't the concept of hurt something that ultimately you create in yourself?
Obviously me terminating your life is abusive. However, anything after that does tend to be relative.
So do I believe CPS was pressuring those girls to confess while they were confiscated without their lawyers present........oh yes I do!
Rebekah blabs out of her nether orifices: Coercion is pretty much a given when the premise of the faith is that you cannot make decisions for yourself, the Prophet or your father or your husband must do it for you. Only when you ignore your own desires, or better yet, convince yourself that your desires are the same as theirs, are you truly "good", "worthy" or "righteous". Given that mindset which is quite easily shown to exist in any Mormon faction, there is no way I can believe that any of their children are capable of making a "free choice" to do anything, from tying their shoes in the morning up to and including marrying.
Opinions, opinions, opinions, yours, not backed up by any semblance of scientific evidence. Indeed there's no legal and very little scientific evidence for the notion of brainwashing or mind control. Every thing you say is plausible but specious. Go get an education.
Ron,
I would argue that the term "abusive" as relates to the termination of another's life is a subjective and relative term.
Also, defining parameters of the human condition, to wit, talking about what is 'human nature' is unrelated to concepts of perfection. Perfection, conceptually, is individually defined, ergo itself subjective.
Ron naively spouts: Spirituality is fulfilling. Religion is not. Religion is about dogma. It is about enforced beliefs. It makes you evil if you don't believe what the religion believes.
Obviously Ron, you are not nor have never been spiritually religious.
I can tell you right now, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Like WC said, religion is personal and evident to the believer. Fake religion, of which there is too much these days, is, on the other hand, as you say just an "enforced belief." Obviously the people who feel "forced" in the situation they are in (religious or non-religious) don't or shouldn't last long (hence Carolyn's need to "escape").
One point of confusion here is that fearing God or belief in damnation or hell is bad. It is not bad, because it is only for our own good, to motivate us to not sin. Sin brings bondage, not freedom, as the world would teach. One of the moms a couple of days after the raid told the media that the FLDS were the free-est people on earth. The world interpreted that as the Ranch being a hippie-colony of sort. But what it means is that sin is bondage---for example the sin of adultery. When someone commits adultery, they have to remember the lies told to the spouse, they have to hide and sneek around, and when they are caught they have to deal with all the repercusions, they lose their children, their trust, and sometimes their property. If they had only not commited adultery, they would be free to do other good things. The sin of telling a lie- you are bound because you have to remember the lie all the time so you don't contadict yourself, and so on and so on. See? The world says "be free, say what you want, sleep with whomever you want" which is from the devil himself.
gotta go......
So incest is okay, since that's totally "inside the home" and pedophilia is fine as long as Mom and/or Dad agree. Heck, they can even swap their children with the children of other pedophiles. Whew, what a relief.
Your facetiousness aside, technically yes -- until probable cause surfaces to make an arrest. I wonder what makes you so cynical that you are so anxious to know what goes on in private communities like the YFZ, and what makes you so suspicious? People like you are what makes a celebrity out of a nobody like Carolyn Jessop. Without the over-ly-curious crowds, Carolyn wouldn't have been a dime hawking her fictional tell-alls.
Perhaps the mob of onlookers is projecting their own innermost sinful desires.
wow Reric, I didn't know that about the "ceasing to exist" part. Damn, I should have been born a mormon. Instead I've got this mixed Christian Missionary Alliance/Fundamentalist this and that in my background, and although I don't "believe" anymore, there's still a part of me that's afraid of hell.
Damn, if I were born a mormon, there'd be no fear, for the worse that could happen is I cease to exist! What bliss!
Ron pontificates True freedom is ...
Oh wise one, what is "truth?" Enlighten me.
WC people have to discern the difference between causing harm or good.
I don't believe the devil is responsible for the harm that is being caused in this world. In fact I don't believe that there is such thing as a devil at all. Evil, yes, devil, no.
Fear to me is the lowest emotion on to totem pole. It is when one is out of sync with one's higher good.
Emotions are our compass, they don't come from some evil entity.
I agree, the proceedings are unconstitutional because they are based on unconstitutional and untested Texan statutes, namely the one regarding prohibition of performing certain ceremonies or "purporting" to be married. These are things that belong in the arena of free speech and religion. There shouldn't be any laws forbidding speech or expression, ever. With a good lawyer and a good argument, I definitely see the US Supreme Court or Federal appeals court agreeing with me.
The state should stick to proving physical abuse, not spiritual abuse, as if the state governs the spiritual realm.
So do I believe CPS was pressuring those girls to confess while they were confiscated without their lawyers present........oh yes I do!
Yes and as Judge Napolitano said, given the illegality of the state custody and interrogations, nothing said by the children can ever be used against their parents, since it could have been coerced.
I was sealed to adults (God-parents) when I was just merely older than an infant.
I was underage when my parents chose these adults to care for me if indeed something had happened to them. They shouldn't make those choices for me! I should make those choices when I was at legal age!
Abuse......abuse!
How dare my parents and church force me to live with someone that would brainwash me with their religion!!!!!!!!
ABUSE!
Matthew 10:
26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows."
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
-John Adams
"Where there is reverence there is fear, but there is not reverence everywhere that there is fear, because fear presumably has a wider extension than reverence."
-Socrates
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness."
-Aristotle
Pliggy...did I re-explain the options that can occur at death the way you explained it to me? Or did I screw it up?
Only pedofiles would put other adults of the same religion in charge of infants to brainwash them! They should wait until boys and girls are at least legal age. How dare this religion force parents to this to their innocent children!
This religion should be outlawed!
WC said,
"One point of confusion here is that fearing God or belief in damnation or hell is bad. It is not bad, because it is only for our own good, to motivate us to not sin. Sin brings bondage, not freedom, as the world would teach."
I can't be as blunt as I would like to here, but when the prophet makes an issue out of something( that he himself does in prison) and makes it a sin when most people either do it or lie (and are still doing it), instead of making people better, it sends them on guilt-trips and gives hypocrites power over them. (Since under-ages people obviously post here, I can't say what I mean)
As far as freedom, don't think that everyone that leaves the FLDS has terminated their freedom by sin and are leading a life of guilt. I will say, I was allowed my freedom to leave, but there was pressure by people to break up a family over it. "We are the freest people on earth, but if you exercise your freedom, we will try to destroy the only thing that makes life worth living." Freedom indeed!
Because I am free, unconditioned, whole, not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal, I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free, not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears - from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself. As an artist paints a picture because he takes delight in that painting, because it is his self-expression, his glory, his well-being, so I do this and not because I want any thing from anyone. You are accustomed to authority, or to the atmosphere of authority which you think will lead you to spirituality. You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers - a miracle - transport you to this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on that authority.
Ain't Google wonderful? You forgot to say that J. Krishnamurti was the one who said that, and because of Google, I could find the original quote.
Furnace -
The beauty is to substitute and say -
Don't understand me - Don't follow me - Just be free from all your fears....
Sorry, just got back..
Regina, you did it almost just right.
"If you are a really wretched human being, and know so...then when your body dies, you cease to exist. That's the worst."
No one ceases to exist after their body dies, we are still beings of Spirit. But on judgment day after the Resurrection (where our bodies are restored to our spirit as Jesus was on the Third day) then is where they cease to exist in body AND Spirit. That is the Second Death, reserved for the Priests who turn traitor. Vessels of wrath.
"If you're trying to do right, but screw up, pretty frequently, you've got a lot of work to do, so when you die, you go to the telestial state.
That is correct, but I would argue with the "trying" part. We are forgiven for every sin we will never do again.
"If you've been doing the very best that you can, but you've fallen short in some ways, you go to the teresrial state..
This is for those who have not done the best that you can, but haven't willfully sinned.
"But if you've really done a superb job....then you go to the celestial kingdom....
But to get to the point of being a God in your own right...everyone has work to do...."
The Celestial Kingdom is for those who have overcome all their sins, but do not have the capabilities to become as God is. That kingdom is for learning how.
"But it's really the lowest of the low, the real monsters who cease to exist....otherwise, there is room in heaven for all....and eventually, room in the highest kingdom....and we're all somewhere along that path...."
Like ztg says, there will be those who will look forward to the second death after they dwell in the kingdom they go to. A desire to not exist and start over rather than go up the long path.
The overriding idea is that we were created as Spirits from the Intelligence of the Universe, formed into individuals by our God and Goddess father and mothers. The second death we cease to exist as intelligences, or spirits, and go back into native element. Someday to be formed again as spirit children to try again in another existence.
Furnace
If you really want to find dirt on Krisnamurti - you can. However, he was the "leader" of a group that believed he was some "messiah" or "savior." He wouldn't accept that. He disbanded the group that would turn him into that.
Imagine you have come group that calls itself the Funaceites. They are willing to bow at your feet. They are willing to hang on every word that you say. It takes a certain individual to say - What??? I'm full of crap - just follow yourselves.
When I first left the religion, I tried to lean on another "apostate", and he basically told me the same thing; it's my life, not his. It takes time to start realizing that we make our own choices and take responsibility for our own actions; we want our Warrens, our Hinkleys (now Monson), our Dear Abby's, our Dr. Lauras, etc.
"Where there is reverence there is fear, but there is not reverence everywhere that there is fear, because fear presumably has a wider extension than reverence."
-Socrates
Damn Socrates! You the first great philosopher and starter of our academic institution. You say that fear is an important part of reverence?? But but but, didn't rebekah just say that people who fear are brainwashed?? Please tell me great Socrates, are we all "brainwashed?"
Pliggy...'kay....I'm learning....I don't think you filled in quite so many details the first time...but then I was just trying to understand the basics...so this is good...it fills itout a little more...wait a few weeks and then teach me more....I'll get it...eventually....it's a lot to absorb and make sense of...and weigh how it fits in my more common vernacular...what already has an "equivelent" in my thinking and what is a new idea, or what doesn't fit at all.....
But even with fleshing it out, it seems a more reasonable aproach that the whole hellfire and brimstone thinking...
Pliggy is interesting....
He has been raised with the iron hand of authority for so long that he knows nothing else.
Go away from you own child Pliggy...
We tell you that you must abandon the one that you helped bring into this world.....
We tell you that you must repent from afar....
Why?? Because we told you so, that's why....
Good luck Pliggy. Maybe those that create your artificial reality will (maybe, someday) let you back.
In the meantime, when did you last touch your daughter? When did you last give her a hug?
Ron..................
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Regina
Sometimes reality bites. The truth of reality is painful, but it still bites.
Regina
The paradox is that you growl at me for pointing out reality.
Nothing I spoke about Pliggy is a lie. It is the truth. However, for you, it is an inconvenient truth.
You want to ignore the inconvenient truth that Pliggy has been sent away from his daughter and wife. He was sent away solely because some folks decided he needed repenting.
If you don't think he needs to repent then you should stop coddling him and tell him to assert his authority and go back with his wife and daughter.
Ron,
It is strange that a divorce lawyer would be telling someone to go back force his ex-wife to live with him.
Have you been on here all this time trying to sell me on your services?
No thanks buddy.
Saying CHILDREN shouldn't be allowed to practice parts of their religion which involve breaking the law until they are adults -- then they can CHOOSE if they're willing to face the consequences of breaking those laws themselves. I'm saying parents do NOT have a right to allow, encourange or facilitate their children breaking the law -- not even for religious reasons.
So they must forsake their religion, their god, for man-made laws.
Wonder how any devoutly religious person (other than FLDS) might feel about that, if put to the challenge? For Christians, might that be akin to taking the mark of the best, or some such?
Ron- The love of all beings preached by Christian religions is beautiful. The belief in hell or being excluded in some afterlife is ugly.
-------
RT- That is my problem with basically all religions, in order to love God you need to fear God, hence: "God fearing American citizens". It actually makes me cringe when I hear it.
Same, same. Who would want to worship a sadistic god?
And that guy is watching too.
They said there wasn't anything about you he didn't know. Could count the number of hairs on your head. I felt pretty certain I was hell bound before age 10.
Ron,
Pliggy didn't have to 'fess' up. He did it because he had evididently passed the line of what he knew was acceptable to his own conscience.
Us women hold our men to very high standards as much as anyone else here. I love Pliggy and hope the very best for him. I know that if he were still here trying to get by with something nagging his conscience, he wouldn't be a happy man, even holding his daughter.
Stence
I know you hold Pliggy to high standards....
My philosophy is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone...."
As much as Pliggy gives me a hard time, I'd love to say, "ha ha, look at Pliggy...." However, I know that for as much as I'd like to focus on his behavior, I'm really not any better.
Z,
"Opinions, opinions, opinions, yours, not backed up by any semblance of scientific evidence. Indeed there's no legal and very little scientific evidence for the notion of brainwashing or mind control. Every thing you say is plausible but specious. Go get an education."
You're the one claiming brainwashing or mind control -- the word I used was "coercion". Look it up sometime. And yes, they are my opinion which I backed up with doctrine from the church in question.
Furnace,
"When I first left the religion, I tried to lean on another "apostate", and he basically told me the same thing; it's my life, not his. It takes time to start realizing that we make our own choices and take responsibility for our own actions; we want our Warrens, our Hinkleys (now Monson), our Dear Abby's, our Dr. Lauras, etc."
It is very hard, when leaving an authoritarian religion, to learn to think for yourself. You have my respect for not taking the easy path in finding another authoritarian religion but rather in taking time to figure out what you truly believe is right. You might want to check this out -- it is a very good look at patterns within authoritarian cultures.
http://www.exmormon.org/pattern/index.htm
She does use examples from Mormanism (which she left) as well as from the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Reading it made me really think. (Not that I think you haven't thought things through, I just liked it and thought you might too.) ;D
"One point of confusion here is that fearing God or belief in damnation or hell is bad. It is not bad, because it is only for our own good, to motivate us to not sin. Sin brings bondage, not freedom, as the world would teach."
Stage 7: Black is White - Killing What One Professes to Love - Doubly Punished
"Don't see this as Bad, see it as Good" - Punishment in order to "save."
The Double-Standard
The standard for adultery in theocracy was set in a double- standard that existed for the husband before marriage.
The Double-Standard for pre-marital Sex
"Yes ..." Black was Black ... for a woman.
The Seventh Commandment regarding adultery "said nothing about sex relations before marriage, but other regulations laid upon the bride the obligation, under pain of death by stoning, to prove her virginity on the day of her marriage." Durant, Ibid, p. 335; Deut: 22:20-21.
"But, no" ... Black was "White" for the man.
There were no such regulations for the "virginity" of the groom, in fact, fornication (prostitution) was common and even allowed at the doors of the tabernacle. (1 Sam. 2:22) For men, fornication and prostitution were lesser "venial" offenses. "As the law did not seem to prohibit relations with foreign harlots, Syrian, Moabite, Midianite and other "strange women" flourished along the highways, where they lived in booths and tents, and combined the trades of peddler and prostitute. Solomon, who had no violent prejudices in these matters, relaxed the laws that had kept such women out of Jerusalem; in time they multiplied so rapidly there that in the days of the Maccabees the Temple itself was described by an indignant reformer as full of fornication and harlotry." (Durant, Ibid, p. 335; refs. 181-3, p. 972)
Wow, I'm reading along, starting to see the inherently human side of you Ron, actually feeling some affinity, and then BOOM, you drop a bomb, and I'm back to, "What is this guys deal"?
How can you hold the spiritual values you profess and carry so much venim for these people?
You said to me earlier, Life isn't fair. The justice system isn't fair. Yet you work in that system. A system that does far worse things to families than what you are brow beating Pliggy about.
Is it that you can't tolerate people having any authority in their lives other than secular law and so-called justice? The god you apparently bow to?
What is religion but a bunch of laws, which you love and cherish.
Yet, in the next breath you propose that others "Lead themselves". Is your spirtuality a work in progress?
Seems to me the FLDS honor their authority, just as you honor yours-the same authority you admitted is not fair, therefore not Perfect. The same authority that hurts families. That separates families over minor issues.
No different than a man in secular society going through a divorce and not being given visitation privleges because he looks at porn. Or smokes in his home, or has a girlfriend the deciders feel is a bit 'seedy'.
You also brought up what I believe to be generally true, that "perfection" is relative. Yet you can't entertain
that the FLDS hold their religion and values as perfect. By who's authority do you judge their perception and choice to be wrong?
The Religion of Secular Law?
Is your disdain for Pliggy due to frustration that he (apparently) won't fight to get his family back or kidnap them? Somewhere under that disdain is there actually a feeling of pain for his loss? One that you can't accept because it was metted out by some authority other than secular law.
If he were a secular man in the same situation due to a court ruling, would you feel differently?
This post has been removed by the author.
furnace said...
"When I first left the religion, I tried to lean on another "apostate", and he basically told me the same thing; it's my life, not his. It takes time to start realizing that we make our own choices and take responsibility for our own actions; we want our Warrens, our Hinkleys (now Monson), our Dear Abby's, our Dr. Lauras, etc."
Or our Laurie's, our Dan Fischer's, our Carolyn's etc.etc...
Txblogger
If I had to describe my life philosophy, it would be Zen Buddhism.
Zen is ultimately an affirmation that tensions exists in life. I have compassion for Pliggy. He has bought what he has been taught from childhood. He exists in this middle world between "a part of us" and "an apostate."
To an extent this is not his fault. He has been culturally conditioned to accept this reality.
However, ultimately he is to blame. There is no requirement that we accept our "cultural conditioning." We are free to say, "holy crap, this is screwed up."
Pliggy doesn't do that. He exists in the Netherworld between the reality of his ostracism and vain hope of some reunificiation.
The paradox for me is that on one had I have compassion for him. However, on the other hand, he has very much chosen his poison and is solely responsible for his current condition.
So, I find him a figure both worthy of sympathy but also a figure worthy of scorn and derision.
That is the ultimate Zen paradox.
Rubytuesday said...
"Only pedofiles would put other adults of the same religion in charge of infants to brainwash them! They should wait until boys and girls are at least legal age. How dare this religion force parents to this to their innocent children!
This religion should be outlawed!"
Are you talking about 'global warming', or the public school system? You're just beginning to make a little sense!
Ron said: "Zen is ultimately an affirmation that tensions exists in life. I have compassion for Pliggy. He has bought what he has been taught from childhood."
Who hasn't Ron? Including you!
Same, same. Who would want to worship a sadistic god?
And that guy is watching too.
They said there wasn't anything about you he didn't know. Could count the number of hairs on your head. I felt pretty certain I was hell bound before age 10.-Txblogger
---------
Awful feeling isn't it. I too felt hell bound.
It feels good when you set yourself "free" with I refer to as .....love!
Cheese said:
Ron said: "Zen is ultimately an affirmation that tensions exists in life. I have compassion for Pliggy. He has bought what he has been taught from childhood."
Who hasn't Ron? Including you!
No Cheese not true at all. I was taught that if you were good, that some "reward" existed in some other universe.
I've since realized that this "carrot" is nothing more than a stick.
If you believe in this "afterlife" then you will be rewarded with rewards greater than anything in this life. However, if you reject what is being proposed, they you are eternally screwed with a life of misery.
The belief in an afterlife is the source of much human misery. It is what causes people to fly airplanes into skycrapers. It is also what causes 52 year old men to knock up 14 year old girls to guarantee their exultation in some fictional afterlife.
I don't see much difference between belief 1 which is a terrorist belief and belief #2, which is a FLDS belief.
Ron said: "It is also what causes 52 year old men to knock up 14 year old girls....."
Name one.
Cheese
Warren Steed Jeffs, your sodomizer prophet.
Ron said: "Zen is ultimately an affirmation that tensions exists in life. I have compassion for Pliggy. He has bought what he has been taught from childhood."
Who hasn't Ron? Including you!-Cheese
-------
Ron never paddles upstream only rides downstream.
Cheese
Do you want to understand paradox?
1. I don't need to accuse Warren Steed Jeffs of being a sodomizer. His own relative have done that.
2. I don't have to accuse Nathaniel Allred of being a homosexual whore. His own words do that.
I can just sit back, point out the relevant facts and have you guys try to come up with some logical explanation.
Rubytuesday paddles off into some netherworld that has no significance.
The belief that someone is somehow not worthy of their God given rights simply because of (1)their ethnicity or skin color or (2) their religious conviction is the source of much human misery. It is what causes people to treat others poorly and abuse their family by robbing them of the right to free association.
I don't see much difference between belief #1 which is a bigoted belief and belief #2, which is Ron's belief.
The sign that cheese is losing:
He claims bigotry.
Except for the rights in the bill of rights and any constitutional amendments, you're screwed. There is no "right" to polygamy. There is no right to polygamist marriage.
Rubytuesday paddles off into some netherworld that has no significance.
--------
I would rather be in the netherworld than to live in your world! :)
Tx.....I couldn't had said it better myself! If Pliggy had a warrant from secular society Ron wouldn't be encouraging him to force himself on his x-wife and family.
Ron said: "It is also what causes 52 year old men to knock up 14 year old girls....."
Like I said Ron, name one! You can go off on your rant if you want but why don't you actually show your objectivity and name one. I'm talking specifically about your quote above. Even IIIIFFFFF what you said was true,(which it isn't), it has nothing to do with your comment above. I don't know if your aware but Nathaniel is a boy name. And he isn't 14. So why don't you stop your BS and lay out the evidence of what you said above. Or are you just Laurie in a pair of cutoffs?
Rubytuesday
I always knew that you didn't exist in the reality of what is commonly known as human existence.
The sign that Ron is losing is he can't substantiate what he says. He's just quoting the haters!
The sign that cheese is losing:
He claims bigotry.
Except for the rights in the bill of rights and any constitutional amendments, you're screwed. There is no "right" to polygamy. There is no right to polygamist marriage.
----------
There is no right for bi-racial couples to marry.....
Rubytuesday
I always knew that you didn't exist in the reality of what is commonly known as human existence.
---------
No I don't, I live in between the worlds. You have a problem with that too?
I find mere human existance b-o-r-i-n-g!
The belief in an afterlife is the source of much human misery. It is what causes people to fly airplanes into skycrapers. It is also what causes 52 year old men to knock up 14 year old girls to guarantee their exultation in some fictional afterlife.
I know this will fall on deaf, or defensive ears, but...
You have no proof of who flew those planes into the towers. Or what the motive behind it was. I would be far more willing to forgive someone for attemtping to protect themselves and their country, than someone who would kill those who are supposed to be 'their own' for greed/control, and deceive the public.
Don't get your hackles up and start screaming Tin Foil Hat. The relatives of the victims put together legitimate, rational, reasonable questions they wanted answers to. Why weren't they answered?
No reasonable or rational conclusion can be drawn until those questions are answered honestly. Yeh, it'll be a cold day in hell. Until then, I remain highly skeptical.
You're worried (obsessed actually) about the sexual practices of the FLDS yet can't entertain the (almost) certain "reality" that Your Own Father (government) would f*** you.
Unless you are a vistor from the other side, you don't have any proof either, that what the FLDS believe about the afterlife is false. That is your desire. You really think some men folk sat around and said, "hey let's create a religion that condones "knocking up" 14 year old girls"?
I've known a few ZBs. I can't remember them being so harsh, judgmental, and dogmatic. They were 'live and let live' sorts. Are you new to the path?
Ron sez:
There is no "right" to polygamy. There is no right to polygamist marriage.
Maybe we can have a Contest. Who Can come up with the best synonym for "spiritual wife" so the felony act of "polygamy" is not being committed? How about "spiritual honey mama"? As long as you don't refer to your women as "wives" in your speech to other folks, you aren't breaking the law.
Instead of getting married, just announce that you are getting "spiritually hooked-up for eternity", or refer to your "marriages" as "bonding celebrations" in order to keep it legal.
Rights such as "Freedom of Speech" are rather quaint nowadays
This post has been removed by the author.
http://mysite.verizon.net/ress3yvb/endtimeswatchermedia/id86.html
http://www.rense.com/general14/brother.htm
Why should you have any suspicions at all Txblogger? Terrorists....I tell you terrorists!
There is no proof, what so ever, that any law was broken, except to use the same word....
Do we know that the child was not told she was not allowed to have "marital relations" until she was seventeen????
Perhaps this is exactly what she was told.
I do so hope that the attys construct very careful questions.......-Rericson
--------
I wouldn't exactly call living (without a man residing in a home) with your mother, a legal marriage. Spiritual perhaps but not a legal marriage.
There are a great deal of legally married adults who are not FLDS that are "spiritually" married to someone else.
Who are you going to call? Ghost Busters!
12:05 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home