A sealing in the works?
Attorney Amy Hennington has submitted a motion to seal the deposition records, according to a clerk at the Tom Green County Courthouse.
The clerk told me that the motion is on the judge's desk but Judge Walther has not yet acted on it.
The clerk told me that the motion is on the judge's desk but Judge Walther has not yet acted on it.
265 Comments:
I'd say a little too late....
A defense attorney doing what the attorney for the child should have done. What next?
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
After all, this is all about religion:
In all the legal wranglings and mis-steps upon one another, let us not forget that this blog and these court cases are all about one thing: A CHURCH, and their religion.
That is the paramount issue with them, if not with some of you who may get so caught up in the conflicts of this life that you forget what humanity and the human soul are all about.
Street
A sealing? Whose sealing? Can the FLDS finally start marrying again?
Onthestreet,
You were doing so good . . .
If we take Natalie's word on her denial that she leaked the transcripts - which I will considering the limits she leaked to Kurt - and know the FLDS would not and are showing they do not want it leaked, I'm leaning real hard to assigning blame for the leaks to CPS crew.
They've shown us how well they do at selective leaks throughout all of this mess.
Next problem is whether or not walther will be able to find the motion on her desk. There must be a mountain growing on that desk by now.
kbp said...
If we take Natalie's word on her denial that she leaked the transcripts
------
Did she really? And then she talks with the San Angelo Standard-Times about it? The heavy winking from Walther and the pats on the back from CPS must be wearing her out.
kbp
Why of course it has to be the evil empire of CPS that did the leaking.
Come on now, it could be something as unspectacular as the newspaper reporter knew the court reporter.
This is not exactly the most populous area of Texas.
Isn't that kind of a pointless move considering that the deposition is posted on numerous blogs, has been downloaded and archived for various reasons, etc.?
An old expression comes to mind - something about locking the barn AFTER the horse is stolen.
The 'leaker' accomplished what the whole deposition was supposed to - plant doubts and distribute information, poison a jury pool, etc.
Has ANYTHING about this raid been done properly?
Texas - aren't you tired of looking so...foolish...???
The public infers crime or misdoings when they hear someone invoked the fifth.
CPS has an interest in assuring the jury pool has already condemned these parents before they ever get to trial.
So do alll the other investigative bodies scuttling around.
This has all kinds of layers.
Ms. Malonis is just the pliable icing.
I wish someone could explain to me why the FLDS do not simply say that all followers will only have one legal marriage at a time, but may have one or more additional significant others in their lives, now, and for all eternity.
How long does it take to sign an order to seal a deposition? The only reason Walther would yell and Malonis is the ham handed way it was done.
CPS always wants anything that could be spun to look bad for the FLDS to come out. Look at the media event surrounding the deposition. Was there such a media event and Flora's? Were they all camped out, CNN et al waiting for her to exit hers in Arizona? No, they were fascinated with this one.
It's a good thing we actually have to try people in this country because they've already been lynched.
Walther WANTED this deposition leaked. Face it. She's on a SIDE. Malonis is her puppet. Too bad for Babs, she's such a bad actress.
Oh yes you WANT merril and weewillie's depositions sealed, but let whining begin if Flora's gets sealed!
At this point the reason for sealing the record and consequently the courtroom and all proceedings would be to protect the privacy of the parties, especially the child. Someone everyone seems to have forgotten about.
Apathy about Flora may stem from the feeling of "We've heard it already." from her. She has sung the same tune for years.
Bulloney, Shyster, the only reason they want the depositions sealed is they don't want the general public and the general FLDS members to know the truth about how badly they have screwed the Short Creekers, because then the Short Creekers might stop sending their "tithes" to pay for all the attorney fees.
Shyster said...
I wish someone could explain to me why the FLDS do not simply say that all followers will only have one legal marriage at a time
-------------
The reason is, Shyster, that Hildebran rewrote the law so that the mere appearance of a second marriage is enough to get you on a bigamy charge. As odd as that is, it's even worse with the anti-Mormon laws of Canada, where you can be charged with polygamy if you celebrate a polygamist marriage.
Why would I want anyone's deposition sealed or unsealed? It's all carnival right now. It's just interesting where the focus is, and how it got there.
Walther is clearly conducting a show, Malonis is a paid spokesman for Walther (figuratively speaking) and Piccarreta won't show us his cards.
Isn't anyone interested in the fact that Flora, who was all mouth with a TV Camera Crew the first time around, is all quiet as a mouse this time? She has a book to push too. Fascinating.
If you follow the Magician's hands, you'll miss the trick.
First Amendment said:
"The reason is, Shyster, that Hildebran rewrote the law so that the mere appearance of a second marriage is enough to get you on a bigamy charge."
That's not a factual statement. The 1973 Texas Penal Code, Sec. 25.01 read:
"(a) An individual commits an offense if:
(1) he is legally married; and
(A) he purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) he lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance under the appearance of being married, or..."
Rep. Hildebran's bill was not passed (H.B. 3006, 79th Leg, Reg. Sess.) and did not even make it out of the House. The actual bill that was passed was S.B. 6, 79th Reg. Sess., introduced by Sen. Nelson.
The bill changed the punishment for Bigamy back to a felony (it had been a felony until 1993) and provided some additional language on defenses to prosecution and a range of punishment based on the age of the second or subsequent spouse. It did not change the language of the offense itself.
"As odd as that is, it's even worse with the anti-Mormon laws of Canada, where you can be charged with polygamy if you celebrate a polygamist marriage."
Again, not exactly true. If you celebrate a marriage ceremony or 'sealing' in Texas and one of the parties is already married, then that person has committed bigamy.
There is no requirement under Texas law that the parties obtain a marriage license in order to be prosecuted for bigamy - and the ceremony would form the basis for establishing an illegal common-law marriage.
Living with 'a person other than his spouse'. If he continues to live with his spouse, and has concubines also in the household but is not married to them, had only a religious ceremony to seal their souls, and considers them to be significant others, I don't see how that is in violation of anyone's laws.
First Amendment
The 2005 changes to the bigamy statute (Texas Penal Code Sec 25.01) only dealt with subparts (c) which deals with defenses and subpart (e) which deals with penalties.
The "appearance" of being married goes back to the original statute.
Blues beat me to it.
If anyone is curious here's the text of Senate Bill 6.
"Why of course it has to be the evil empire of CPS that did the leaking." Ron
-------
Are you trying to say Amy was responsible for leaking parts of the deposition to post to the public?
Who's side does Molonis represent? It is pretty black and white Ron!
LOL,
Malonis is proof than any IDIOT can be a lawyer.
I'm going to be taking legal opinions I hear with a much larger grain of salt from now on out.
And I thought I had contempt for members of the "profession" before.
Rubytuesday
*shakes head* I'm saying it could have been anybody who leaked the deposition including the court reporter.
Actually the fact that it was available so fast tends to make me wonder if it was the court reporter.
They usually do some cleaning even before giving the raw ascii format.
Ron:
"kbp
Why of course it has to be the evil empire of CPS that did the leaking.
Come on now, it could be something as unspectacular as the newspaper reporter knew the court reporter.
This is not exactly the most populous area of Texas."
The one Malonis found to do the job at "no charge"?
You might be on to something there.
With all the laptops and wireless connections today, it would be easy. Maybe the reporter will consider telling us about the "properties" of the email, if it wouldn't reveal a source he has relied on often.
*************************
Deb:
"Oh yes you WANT merril and weewillie's depositions sealed, but let whining begin if Flora's gets sealed!"
Just FYI, those depositions in AZ are ALL sealed before they happen according to AZ's rules. So, it's pointless for anyone to whine about sealing Flora's.
*************************
Ron:
"First Amendment
The 2005 changes to the bigamy statute (Texas Penal Code Sec 25.01) ONLY dealt with subparts (c) which deals with defenses and subpart (e) which deals with penalties.
The "appearance" of being married goes back to the original statute."
So Ron is telling us sentencing did not change by idenifying the ONLY changes? I must admit I may need to review those changes again to be certain.
It's rather hilarious to me all this arguing. The deposition in question gleened nothing from either Jessop.
Didn't answer any questions worthwhile.
The only question answered for me was Merril only has an 8th grade education and evidently can't see past the nose on his face.
So, as far as leaking,,,it wasn't even worth the trouble.
Again, not exactly true. If you celebrate a marriage ceremony or 'sealing' in Texas and one of the parties is already married, then that person has committed bigamy.
Making ceremonies illegal is a violation of Freedom of Speech. Has the world gone mad?
"As odd as that is, it's even worse with the anti-Mormon laws of Canada, where you can be charged with polygamy if you celebrate a polygamist marriage."
Again, not exactly true. If you celebrate a marriage ceremony or 'sealing' in Texas and one of the parties is already married, then that person has committed bigamy.
---------
By celebrating a marriage in Canada, it's meant that you attended the service, not that you were getting married. That way they can round up the entire family, everyone who was invited and showed up. Even the wedding singer. It's a religious law stricter than those you find in the Middle East.
I went to the Ipercive blog and went back through the aritcles written by kurt.
This is what Natalie Malonis told Kurt about Merrill Jessops deposition..
"All the attorneys told the judge [they] would not distribute the deposition to the media. That was at the request of one of the attorneys. The judge did not seal it and did not order that it not be disclosed and recognized that some folks who had copies had already left the courtroom and could not be bound. . . . Merril’s was filed in toto in the records of the court, and anyone can purchase a transcript from the court reporter"
Since there were others who left the courtroom before this agreement was taken place, I agree with Ron, any one of those people could have sent the new media a copy of the depositions.
Harley:
"...So, as far as leaking,,,it wasn't even worth the trouble."
...other than to possibly create prejudice in the minds of potential jurors for any facing charges to overcome.
Might open to door to allowing the defense attorneys of criminal cases to publicly address it at some point (balance the scales), IF Texas is like most other states. It's hard to blame the prosecutor[s], but that is who sorta faces the payback should it happen.
wish someone could explain to me why the FLDS do not simply say that all followers will only have one legal marriage at a time, but may have one or more additional significant others in their lives, now, and for all eternity.
-------
That is how it is now. In order to be "legally" married you must purchase a license from the state. A person can be be issued one license.
In Texas it is illegal for a church to seal people's spirits together for all eternity.
Kbp
The depositions can be used in court, am I correct? And if so, then jurors would see the depositions.
This post has been removed by the author.
The ceremony "purports" a "legal" marriage. In my mind this is a pretty slippery slope. I don't know if it would be considered unconstitutional but then again Texas has it's own Constitution and marriage laws.
www.sltrib.com said (10:07 PM)
Onthestreet, You were doing so good . . .
REPLY: Why, thank you dear. You do priddygood too (at deleting absolutely descent posts that is). You go girl. As for “Sealings In The Works”, the books will NOT be sealed. They are being unsealed. Look! See for yourselves:
BOOKS
There was a thread recently about Flora’s book “Church Of Lies”. I can’t judge Flora too harshly (any woman for that matter), seeing that her perspective stems not from being mad at the whole church, or the whole world, but from the stem of a father within the church or within the world, who raped her. Such women write books from that perspective. She’s still a creation of God (a floral arrangement, though withered). But of the many books that people write, here is what God says about it:
“Of the making of many BOOKS, there is no end…Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man (this is the whole united effort of the church). For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccles.12:12-14).
“For many shall come in my name (Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, and Christian), saying: I am Christ (or Christ is in this church), and shall deceive many…Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you, and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake” (Matt.24:5-9).
What is “Name”? The Hebrew word is “Shem”, which means “Conspicuous position and Memorial”. Google it, and see for yourselves. All will agree that the FLDS Church is in a very conspicuous position. Do the “Christian” and “LDS” churches memorialize or remember the fundamentals of Christ, from cover to cover, including marriage at 12 (Exodus 22:29, Luke 2:49). We all know that they do not, for they have in fact slain the apostles after the crucifixion and many FLDS-UEP raids, and then claimed them as their own: “Roman” Catholic, or LDS-UEP overseer, and write many BOOKS and articles to seek popularity for their assaults.
“The judgment was set, and the BOOKS were opened…and I beheld even till the beast was slain” (Daniel 7:10-11). The beast is this last world empire now being instituted by the trashing of the United States, the Obamanation of desolation (Matt.24:15). The crafty arts of many writers are exposed, to wit: “And many that believed came and confessed, and showed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their BOOKS together and burned them before all men, and they counted the price” (the financial loss): Acts 19:18.
“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God, and the BOOKS were opened, and another book was opened, the Book of Life (to compare and to see which works were according to the Word). And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the BOOKS…And they were judged according to their works, and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second (eternal) death. And whoso was not found written in the Book of Life (having promoted death, abortion, deception, anti-marriage, vs life), was cast into the lake of fire (Rev.20:12-15).
“When ye therefore see the (Obamanation) of desolation…spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, stand in the holy place (Matt.24:5-15). The holy place is the dedicated and consecrated YFZ homes, what you call a “Church of Lies, while ye are they who LIE about the goodness of marriage and the Word (Exodus 22:29, Luke 2:49).
“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to Him: For the MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB is come, and His wife (Church) hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, (sexually) clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints” (Rev.19:7-8).
harley said...I went to the Ipercive blog and went back through the aritcles written by kurt.
This is what Natalie Malonis told Kurt about Merrill Jessops deposition..
"All the attorneys told the judge [they] would not distribute the deposition to the media. That was at the request of one of the attorneys. The judge did not seal it and did not order that it not be disclosed and recognized that some folks who had copies had already left the courtroom and could not be bound. . . . Merril’s was filed in toto in the records of the court, and anyone can purchase a transcript from the court reporter"
------
This is what Kurt also said: "Natalie Malonis is the source. I got the transcript excerpt from her. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. By the way, just to allay [any] conspiracy theories before they fester, yesterday, Natalie had only an uncertified, ASCII version of the transcript. She was expecting to receive a certified copy today sometime. I expect that she will provide access to the entire thing perhaps later today or tomorrow after today's hearing. My sense is that she is willing to share anything that is not privileged or sealed by the court."
So evidently she rushed him a partial transcript even before she had the final version (and presumably before all those other lawyers had a copy too). Same thing for the San Angelo paper. Whoever sent them the material had access to a rough draft. Find out who had access to that draft, and we can narrow it down. But obviously is was Malonis or someone in the court. Perhaps the judge herself.
Rubytuesday
*shakes head* I'm saying it could have been anybody who leaked the deposition including the court reporter.
Actually the fact that it was available so fast tends to make me wonder if it was the court reporter.
They usually do some cleaning even before giving the raw ascii format.- Ron
--------
So what are you saying here Ron, Molonis had nothing to do with the partial deposition leaked out to the public? Are you saying that it was court reporter that leaked it?
First Amendment,
First of all, I figure you are throwing stones at people who you have NO proof they did anything like that.
In kurt's blog, there was a couple of lines Malonis sent Kurt, a couple of lines a deposition does not make.
Im sure if you request the deposition on Flora Jessop in her hearing, if the Judge in that case hasn't sealed it, you could order it.
Shyster- the FLDS do not, so far as I know, have duplicate civil ceremonies. And while you may not see how cohabitating with more than one person could be breaking any laws, it does break the law in Texas and Utah.
Telling somebody 'this is my wife' when you are married to another person is committing bigamy in Texas. You don't even have to use the 'wife' word. You can just 'give the appearance' of being married, and you're guilty of a felony in Texas.
This kind of asinine law simply begs for the law to be held in contempt.
Blues has tried to defend it before, but the more he explains it, the more contemptible the law appears to be.
According to the Plural Wife's blog, in UTah:
"A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."
This post has been removed by the author.
Headmistress,
So, if A man legally married no one, and lived with several, but called none wife, they would be okay?
shyster
Im not sure about that. But FLDS have a marriage certificate for every woman they marry. Even though it is printed up by Flds, it's still evidence of the marriage.
Since there were others who left the courtroom before this agreement was taken place, I agree with Ron, any one of those people could have sent the new media a copy of the depositions.- Harley
---------
This is what Kurt also said: "Natalie Malonis is the source. I got the transcript excerpt from her.- First Amendment
----------
I have absolutely no respect for people who will lie and deny and what is written in black and white.
How can anyone "trust" anyone who would lie and deny something that is written in black and white? Sorry it reflects very poorly,in my eyes.
Headmistress,
So, if A man legally married no one, and lived with several, but called none wife, they would be okay?
--------
No, they will not be ok..
The excerpt that Natalie Malonis sent to Kurt was of merril's deposition not willie's. It was willie's deposition that the attorneys made the agreement about not merril's. merril's had already been filed, the deposition they were talking about regarding people already having left the court with copies was willie's deposition.
Natalie Malonis did not send Kurt excerpts of willie's deposition.
People need to work on their reading comprehension.
Thank you Deb, I thought that was what I wrote?
Malonis didn't send Kurt any deposition criteria on Willie's deposition.
And the "excerpt" she sent kurt was from Merrils deposition.
No, Shyster. I'm not a lawyer, but several pro CPS lawyers have taken great pains to make it clear to me that if the government wanted to charge you with polygamy, in both Texas and Utah even though you do not have a certificate and do not claim to be married (but give only the 'appearance' of being married), they could. and in Texas, at least, that would be a felony.
See, one mistake I see people making on a lot of issues is assuming that there wouldn't be a contemptible, unreasonable, idiotic law.
Did you know that there were only three federal crimes up until the mid to late 1800s? And now there are well over 4,000.
We have a legal code run completely amuck, and assuming that the law is reasonable is probably a false assumption more often than not.
harley said...
First Amendment,
First of all, I figure you are throwing stones at people who you have NO proof they did anything like that.
In kurt's blog, there was a couple of lines Malonis sent Kurt, a couple of lines a deposition does not make.
--------------
We do know she sent that excerpt. She said she did. But why just those two pages? And why did she tell Kurt that MJ had answered quite a few questions, when that was obviously untrue? I think her motivation is transparent: she did those things because she wanted that question to stand out. She wanted people to think MJ was taking the fifth on that question because TJ actually had a child. A child she’s hidden. Malonis was trying to smear and undercut her client with the public. But why would she do that? Again, her motivation is clear: she did it because she is desperate to stay connected to TJ past TJ’s eighteenth birthday. It’s only through TJ that Malonis can get the attention she so desperately craves. And without TJ she will sink into a richly deserved obscurity.
Deb said...
"Oh yes you WANT merril and weewillie's depositions sealed, but let whining begin if Flora's gets sealed!
Deb, Flora is one of the accusers. The Jessop men are defendants. In order for there to be a fair trial then the Constitution allows for a defendant to face his accuser. But on the other hand in order for it to be a 'fair' trial of the facts then the jury pool must be kept from hearing about the accusations anywhere except in the courtroom or from direct testimony from the accuser without media spin on it. I don't know if you can see the difference in sealing a defendants deposition versus sealing a plaintiffs deposition or not, or if you even care. There's some of the posters here that seem to not care at all about keeping the judicial system above board on this thing, they just hate the FLDS and there's no two ways about it. There's really nothing we can do to satisfy some except maybe lay down and die.
shyster
Im not sure about that. But FLDS have a marriage certificate for every woman they marry. Even though it is printed up by Flds, it's still evidence of the marriage.
----------
The Federal government would never recognize a religious certificate as a civil legal marriage.
Gays can legally marry in Massachusetts but their marriages are not recognized by the Federal government either.
This constitutional conflict needs to be hashed out in a big way between states and the federal government.
Shyster, in Texas it would be a felony to live with a member of the opposite sex (purporting marriage) without first being divorced.
harley said: "Since there were others who left the courtroom before this agreement was taken place, I agree with Ron, any one of those people could have sent the new media a copy of the depositions."
Ron, I have a question.
In order to get a copy of the deposition do you have to get it from the court recorder or who? Is it posible for someone to leave the courtroom right after a deposition with a "copy" in hand or does it take some time? Is it illegal for anyone in the room to write down word for word the deposition? Or record it? Tell me the legality of the thing. I really am curious. Maybe Blues can chime in on this too. He's got a lot of legalese in the ol' coconut!
Kurt, you too!
Rubytuesday said...
"shyster
Im not sure about that. But FLDS have a marriage certificate for every woman they marry. Even though it is printed up by Flds, it's still evidence of the marriage.
And you got that from where?
There is absolutely nothing "religious" about a civil legal marriage recognized by the Federal Government.
Rubytuesday said...
"shyster
Im not sure about that. But FLDS have a marriage certificate for every woman they marry. Even though it is printed up by Flds, it's still evidence of the marriage.
---------
I didn't say that, I neglected the authors name.....my bad!
This post has been removed by the author.
My bad too, Ruby! I should've known by the content that it belonged to harley!
There is absolutely nothing "religious" about a civil legal marriage recognized by the Federal Government.
--------
Due to the diversity of the citizens in this country....there shouldn't be anything "religious" about it.
Civil marriage is about protection rights and no one and I mean no one should be discriminated due to their sex, creed, color or religion. This is after all AMERICA!
I see this entire issue as a hypocritical blight used to "politically" divide people in this country.
Ruby, it's actually a subchapter of the 'modern feminist movement' engineered toward 'population control'! It's just part of the 'great movement' toward political socialism which can't be instigated as long as there are 'Godfearing people' in the country. In order for it all to be implemented the powers that be have to figure out how to get the masses to fear to offend government more than they fear to offend God!
Cheese
I'll bore you, but I'll give you a little history of court reporting...
Remember when people learned "short hand?" In the very old days court reporters actually wrote their notes long hand on paper.
Stenographic machines came next and they were like typewriters that used long, thin continuous sheets to record the strokes of the stenographic keyboard.
As technology advanced, stenographic machines had actual floppy disks to record the information (they still used paper, but also added floppy disks.)
Now, stenographic machines can be hooked directly to computers which interpret the strokes on the machine. "Closed captioning" of live events uses this technology.
OK to answer your question....
Right now, a lot of court reporters "real time" (meaning they give the testimony to their judge as it's being said) for their judges. The problem is that the "real time" is imprecise. Things like names and words the court reporter doesn't understand are often misinterpreted.
So, a court reporter could give you their "real time," but it wouldn't be precise. Most court reporters will want to review their real time before they give you a copy.
So, if you really pressed them, they might give you the raw real time which would be available as soon as the court reporter was able to either 1) print it or 2) transpose it to some readable format.
So, yes, if the court reporter is willing, you could have an imprecise transcript very soon after the deposition. Most court reporters are going to want to correct their mistakes and give you a less raw copy of their reporting.
My experience has been that many court reporters will email you a preliminary copy the next day.
cocheese,
This case has been before the public since April last year, not only in Texas but the whole United States.
Documents can be ordered and paid for by anyone if they aren't sealed. Of course before a trial and juries are chosen, you think they don't read newspapers, and watch the news?
The marriage certificates of the underage girls are in documents Cheese. Of course they weren't issued by the state, but by Flds.
Harley
Deposition testimony is admissible if it is *RELEVANT* to the subject matter of the case.
Probably 99% of this stuff is totally irrelevant
Someone please tell me how Merrill Jessop's belief in a higher power is relevant to whether Annette Jeff's parental rights should be terminated and/or modified?
I'm going to call this one exactly how I see it...
This is a fishing expedition. Natalie Malonis' 15 minutes of fame had expired and she's looking for an extension for another 15 minutes.
If Judge Walther is smart, she'll shut this thing down before it damages the upcoming criminal cases.
Ruby, I agree with this part of your statement.
Civil marriage is about protection rights and no one and I mean no one should be discriminated due to their sex, creed, color or religion. This is after all AMERICA!
++++++++++++
However, this is where I differ with you. Women in polygamist's marriages don't have the same rights as Legal civil marriages, because if their husband leaves, or she leaves, according to law, she wouldn't for instance get half the assets of the marriage. And I doubt most women in Flds would even file for child support.
So, the Law of Legal marriage, protects women and children as far as Im concerned.
harley But FLDS have a marriage certificate for every woman they marry. Even though it is printed up by Flds, it's still evidence of the marriage.
I'm still trying not to gag over the stupidity displayed by this law and those who defend it.
I wish one of the proponents of the so called polygamy statutes can tell me exactly what is "marriage," in a legal sense, if it isn't defined by a government-issued legal document?
This all reminds me of Plato's theory of forms. Apparently our society has suscribed to the idea that "marriage" is this quasi-attainable state of being, i.e. one of Plato's perfect forms that humans try to emulate.
Now I'll be damned if this mysticism has actually found its place into modern law! It's ludicrous!
However, this is where I differ with you. Women in polygamist's marriages don't have the same rights as Legal civil marriages, because if their husband leaves, or she leaves, according to law, she wouldn't for instance get half the assets of the marriage. And I doubt most women in Flds would even file for child support.
So, the Law of Legal marriage, protects women and children as far as Im concerned. - Harley
---------
You missed my point entirely, if indeed they could legally marry, they would be protected.
Ztg
Your not stupid enough not to know what a legal marriage is. You go down to the city clerks office, fill out forms, proving your age, name, social security number. If everything is correct, and you swear it is before the clerk, they give you a marriage license. It is signed by a clergy when you get married or a justice of the peace, then it is recorded.
But, when you already have a legal wife, you as you know can't go and file for another marriage certificate. That's called bigamy.
So Flds, don't do that, they print up their own marriage certificates.
Ruby, I understand, But they can't. At least at this point in time they can't.
Did you know that there were only three federal crimes up until the mid to late 1800s? And now there are well over 4,000.
Thanks for that info. Shocking. Something I'm going to have to read more about and share with others.
Police state?
Someone please tell me how Merrill Jessop's belief in a higher power is relevant to whether Annette Jeff's parental rights should be terminated and/or modified?
Ron I don't know the revelance of that question. Maybe Malonis threw it in because, Jessop was falling asleep. lol
This is a fishing expedition. Natalie Malonis' 15 minutes of fame had expired and she's looking for an extension for another 15 minutes.
I thought it was a fishing expedition until I realized there was a more insidious plot behind it, which was to sway public and private opinion by getting all the most incriminating evidence out in the public's eye. Regardless of whether th questions were answered, one of the objectives has been met, and that is to publicize the state's case against the indicted FLDS members. The question now is, exactly who prepared the questions and how much planning went into this media stunt? I won't hold my breath to hear the answers any more than I expect Swinton to be indicted in Texas for false reporting, at least not until long after the FLDS trials have been held.
Oh Ztg
You're always looking for a governmental plot. Moon landings - a governmental plot. 9-11 - a governmental plot. Kennedy assassination - a governmental plot.
Even paranoid folks get followed from time to time.
Ztg
Why do you insist on making some ominous plot out of everything? Merril and Wille were listed on Annette Jeffs witness list.
Malonis is a woman Ztg, and I know that chaps your butt, being she's single and a woman.
But, I don't think anyone helped her with questions. She wasn't the only attorney who ask questions.
Mr Davis also asked many questions about schooling, how many children qraduated, were the teachers certified?
Did someone help Mr Davis with his questions to? He is attorney for Joseph Jeffs a child.
So Flds, don't do that, they print up their own marriage certificates.
So what's illegal about that? Churches aren't allowed to print certificates now?
I also will laugh as well at the Texas requirement that a "formal marriage" under the law be solemnified by clergy. That flies in the face of our implied Constitutional requirement that church and state be separate.
It would be set up just like businesses. Should there be only partnership business's in America because American's can't figure out how to divide assets? Give me a break already.....
A civil marriage is nothing more than legal contract.
Just think if there was religion involved there to throw in the wrench.....this whole issue is ridiculous.
Do you reckon Mr Davis was trying to protect the child he represents to, or was HE out for fame?
Why do you insist on making some ominous plot out of everything?
I have to conclude conspiracy; because it's quite obvious that Malonis didn't or couldn't have come up with all those questions herself, even if she was so obssessive to have devoted unpaid weeks of research to the project.
(and if you say she was paid for the countless hours of research it had to have taken if she went it alone, then again I ask, by whom was she paid?)
Marriage laws are set up to protect both the man and woman in the marriage Ruby.
Also, marriage laws are set up so that children to young for marriage can't be married.
You may not like the law, but it is the law in most states.
Maybe corporations should be outlawed since they are not fair to those who suffer if they fail..what do you think, Harley?
Did someone help Mr Davis with his questions to?
Maybe so. What does Merril have to do with his client? It must be that Merril is sometimes the topic of this group's weekly meetings. The fact that he knew what to ask, and was present (along with CPS attorneys -- monitors? stand-ins for the state AG? -- I might add), indicates prior knowledge and preparation. Which all points in the direction of a conspiracy of some sort.
Ztg
If you have source where a third party is paying Malonis , please share with everyone?
I know she hasn't filed in the county to be paid anything since she started representing flds children and as far as Ive heard, she hasn't filed for reinbursment from the state either.
Ruby, If corporations screw stockholders out of their money, Yes I think they should be held accountable.
Ziggy's paranoia is showing...
Marriage laws are set up to protect both the man and woman in the marriage Ruby.
Also, marriage laws are set up so that children to young for marriage can't be married.
You may not like the law, but it is the law in most states.- Harley
----------
Busness are set up to protect all those who contribute. There are also labor laws involving children.
No I don't like the law......it needs to be change to include everyone.
Everyone has a right to share their lives with who they want to share their life with.
Ruby, If corporations screw stockholders out of their money, Yes I think they should be held accountable. - Harley
----------
Do you see that happening? Why don't you speak up.....now is the time!
Legal work can be defined by the exchange of money for services. Criminal rape can be defined in great concrete graphic detail so there is no ambiguity.
The question is what is "marriage" defined by if it's not defined by a government-issued license? Cohabitation? Define "cohabitation." Belief? Define "belief," for purposes of criminalization, in a way that doesn't contravene the First Amendment. Purporting to be married? Define "purporting" per se, for purposes of criminalization, in a way that doesn't contravene the First Amendment.
You may not like the law, but it is the law in most states.
-------
Laws can be changed. I have never seen anything written in stone saying they can't change, have you?
Ruby, If corporations screw stockholders out of their money, Yes I think they should be held accountable.- harley
--------
I hate to break it you but it is taxpayers who are being screwed.
The question is what is "marriage" defined by if it's not defined by a government-issued license? Cohabitation? Define "cohabitation." Belief? Define "belief," for purposes of criminalization, in a way that doesn't contravene the First Amendment. Purporting to be married? Define "purporting" per se, for purposes of criminalization, in a way that doesn't contravene the First Amendment.
----------
Work to change it!
Well, what is marriage within the American System is it a 'right' or is it a 'privilege'? If the State issues a license then it is looked upon as a practice lawfully awarded by the State, like a Driver's License, Liquor License, Fishing License. Right?
Then if you look at 'Religious Freedom' is that a 'privilege' or is it a 'right'? If it is protected in the Constitution/BillofRights then it must be an inherent right lawfully recognized by the State.
Polygamy is it a 'right' or is it a 'privilege'? Maybe it is neither and therefore can not be practiced or recognized as either a 'right' or 'privilege'.
Do anarchists grasp this concept?
Ron, Abe Lincoln and John Kennedy had something in common before they were both assasinated what was it?
There seems to be a huge contradiction going on from the state's perspective. They used to have "common law" marriage where if a couple lived together under the appearance of marriage they were deemed legally married. Then most states did away with common law marriages (unless they were grandfathered in for x number of years).
Now we're going backwards to say that co-habitating makes a marriage?
I also want to know why nobody is making a big deal about the Muslims who practice polygamy openly in many, many cities?
Polygamy is it a 'right' or is it a 'privilege'? Maybe it is neither and therefore can not be practiced or recognized as either a 'right' or 'privilege'.- Hazzbinns
---------
Time for some animal talk...I will have to ask my polygamist mating animals and my monogamous mating animals whether or it is a they consider their relationships a right or priviledge.......
I'll get back to you later with the results......hazzbins
Polygamy is it a 'right' or is it a 'privilege'? Maybe it is neither and therefore can not be practiced or recognized as either a 'right' or 'privilege'.
It's my opinion that both "polygamy" and "marriage" (independent of the government contract via marriage license issuance), falls under the rights granted by the First Amendment, specifically speech and expression by extension.
The burden of proof is on those who want to criminalize certain forms of "marriage." They must prove that polygamy is a practice that can be identified by a neutral observer. By neutral, I mean to describe someone who has no concept of "marriage" (let's say he's an atheist hermaphrodite who just stepped off the ship from Mars, or the ship from Mongolia). Can you without training him in the cultural nuances and diversity of our country, describe in plain detail how to identify a polygamist by particular actions on the polygamist's part, meanwhile making sure no ambiguity exists. By no ambiguity I mean describing the act that is the crime in such a way that the naturalized, deputized martian will have no chance of misidentifying a man who simply spent the night at the house of his girlfriend while her girlfriend slept in another room; or misidentifying a man as a polygamist who openly brags about having several "baby-mamas;" or misidentified as a polygamist a man who says he's married to one woman, but occasionally spends the night with another woman on the other side of town, and even has spent a week or more hanging out with this other woman.
Any one up for the challenge to provide an unambiguous, culturally neutral definition of polygamy? Any one want to challenge as invalid these hypotheticals?
I also want to know why nobody is making a big deal about the Muslims who practice polygamy openly in many, many cities?
---------
I can feel the love!
WWJD? said...
I also want to know why nobody is making a big deal about the Muslims who practice polygamy openly in many, many cities?
-----
Muslims are too dangerous to attack. They might issue a fatwa.
The anti-polygamy law in this country was made in direct response to the arrival of Mormons on the scene and their practicing polygamy. They were written specifically to define what the Mormons were doing as criminal.
Since when can government create legislation specifically to criminalize religious practices? The polygamy laws need to be repealed. Especially now if they are going to be enforced only against a selective religious group while others are ignored entirely.
Coincidentally the SAME religious group they were written to target in the first place.
This is not rocket science.
Time for some animal talk...I will have to ask my polygamist mating animals and my monogamous mating animals whether or it is a they consider their relationships a right or priviledge.......
I'll get back to you later with the results......hazzbins
-----------
Let me tell you Hazzbinns.....when I asked them the question they both looked at me as if I had two heads.......
I faintly heard one say to the other....."humans, pfft"!
Biologically monogamy is very rare. It's actually very interesting, there is an animal known as the prairie vole that is one of the few monogamous animals.
Humans and prairie voles share certain oxytocin receptors - anyway, I digress...
WWJD? said...
Since when can government create legislation specifically to criminalize religious practices?
-----------------
Since 1878. The SC essentially eviscerated the first amendment in Reynolds v. United States, eliminating the free exercise of religion just to screw the Mormons. It’s been over a hundred years, and we still haven’t gotten it back.
First Amendment
The problem is that laws against polygamy pre-date the Mormon church.
It's not like those laws were passed just to mess with the Mormons.
Ron, the Mormon church was established in 1830.
"The United States government has constitutional power to enact laws governing territories, and under that authority Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1862), making bigamy in a territory a crime punishable by a fine and five years in prison. The statute was upheld in Reynolds v. United
States (1879), although the defendant argued that the law violated the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion."
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/Legislation_EOM.htm
1862 was well after 1836.
Ron in Houston said...
First Amendment
The problem is that laws against polygamy pre-date the Mormon church.
It's not like those laws were passed just to mess with the Mormons.
--------
The first Republican (1856) platform stated this: "Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery."
The Mormon church was organized around 1830, I believe.
WWJD
Well if you only focus on Utah...
Otherwise:
The law of England is thus laid down by an authority supposed to be of the time of Edward I (1272-1307), the king, "who", remarks Sir William Blackstone, "hat justly been styled our English Justinian" (Commentaries, IV, 425): "It has sometimes been that a man from wickedness has married several women, all living at the same time; but Holy Church says that of such women none but the first is his lawful wife; wherefore, the law regards the others only as false wives" (Britton, Lib. V, 11). While the first marriage continues undissolved by death, or by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, a subsequent marriage is, by English common law, a mere nullity and void (Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part IV, 80; Bishop, New commentaries on Marriage, etc., 1, § 717).
I'd say the 1200's predate 1830 by somewhere between 5 to 6 centuries....
First Amendment and WWJD
Hey, look on the bright side, bigamy at one point was a capital crime.
A couple of points Ron:
That only states that one marriage at a time will be a legal marriage. Nowhere does it say the man can't cohabitate with another woman if he's married.
We crossed oceans and fought a war with England. They lost. We are not bound by their laws. Yes, I understand our system is based on old english law - but that's not the same thing.
Show me a United States law that was in effect prior to 1830 when the Mormon church was established.
Ron in Houston said...
First Amendment and WWJD
Hey, look on the bright side, bigamy at one point was a capital crime.
4:03 PM
So was running away from your slave master. Like I've said before ... just because it's "the law" doesn't make it right.
The Merrill anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 banned the practice of polygamy and simultaneously dissolved the LDS church. This was an anti-Mormon law, without question.
From Reynolds vs. US:
In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that, on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that "all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience," the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, "it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth." 12 Hening's Stat. 691. From that day to this, we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity.
WWJD
Don't change the subject. I'm just telling you guys the laws against bigamy predated the Mormon church. Don't beat the drum of whether those laws are right or wrong.
I'm just stating the facts. I'm not arguing whether they're right or wrong.
I'm not arguing whether they are right or wrong... I'm arguing whether the United States government enacted legislation to persecute the Mormons specifically.
They did when they passed an act that made polygamy illegal in a territory and at the same time dissolve the Mormon church. They also used the act to bar Mormons from voting (among other rights) and to seize their assets.
This post has been removed by the author.
Humans and prairie voles share certain oxytocin receptors - anyway, I digress...
Perhaps we should be studying the prairie voles and crafting our laws after prairie vole culture?
WWJD
OK. Granted. Religion is not exactly known for tolerance.
No one denies that polygamy was a very big issue in the admission of Utah as a state.
Ziggy
We should always consider our biology in shaping our laws.
First Amendment
I'm really not arguing with you....
The admission of Utah as a state was pretty much conditioned on laws against polygamy...
Reynolds v US is notable for its smarmy rationalizations and its Protestant morality and intolerance. It's the toilet paper of American jurisprudence. But Marci Hamilton thinks it's good law, naturally.
That the law of 1862 was written for the Mormons is indisputable. Doesn't matter if laws against bigamy existed before that in England (and were enforced by a religious court, I believe), this one was written to outlaw the Mormon practice of polygamy, and at the same time dissolved the LDS church. You can't get any more specific than that in attacking a religion.
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law. And the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. The only defence of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.
Yes, harley, the Reynolds decision is excellent source material for several logical fallacies.
First Amendment
Maybe you should read the entire case?
I did. That's why I called it the toilet paper of American jurisprudence.
Rubytuesday said...
"Ron, Abe Lincoln and John Kennedy had something in common before they were both assasinated what was it?"
(Pliggy raising hand and jumping up and down) I know! I know!
Ron in Houston said...
Ziggy
We should always consider our biology in shaping our laws.
What about us who were BORN polygynist? Where are our rights?
Polygynists were the FIRST Women Libbers
harley quotes Reynolds...
"Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?"
Should we ban you from speaking because you MIGHT use your First Amendment rights to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?
harley said...
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and,
**************************
Well, all english law is based on CATHOLICISM and United States law is based on English law. So there you go ... the law of the land IS pretty much the law of a large and powerful religion.
There is no second marriage (or third or fourth ...). They are living together - which our government has already said does not constitute marriage. Remember states doing away with "common law" marriages that were deemed marriages based on cohabitation? The hippies didn't like the religious rights "morality" pushed on them via state laws that defined their relationships as marriages. The states capitulated.
Now they want to make living together tantamount to "marriage" again.
harley quotes Reynolds...
"Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship
***************
We already have a law against murder. We wouldn't have to redefine murder and write new laws to fit the religious practice of human sacrifice.
This argument falls flat because the government is re-defining "marriage" and then re-writing laws with the new definition to narrowly fit the practice of particular religious groups.
all english law is based on CATHOLICISM
"All"? What about the Acts of Settlement? ;)
WWJD said:
We already have a law against murder. We wouldn't have to redefine murder and write new laws to fit the religious practice of human sacrifice.
WWJD, So if a religious group beleived in child sacrifice to get to heaven, to them it wouldn't be murder, but their belief their God said it was Okay!
What's the difference between the two?
Which laws do you want to abide by WWJD? The ones, that suit you? Or the ones made for everyone in the United States.
Abuse of children in any form with the justification its part of anyone's religion is WRONG!
It's wrong for those who don't have religious beleifs.
Did you read my post Harley?
My point was that your argument "What if a religious group wanted to commit human sacrifice?" was stupid and innane in context with the topic of polygamy.
Murder is against the law. If a religious group wants to murder somebody it's still murder whether they think it is or not. It's against the law and always has been.
With the polygamy issue the government has REDEFINED and changed its laws to fit criminalizing the practice of a religious group.
The arguments are apples and oranges.
Abuse of children in any form with the justification its part of anyone's religion is WRONG!
**************
I'm talking about polygamy between consenting adult people.
By the way the laws I want to live by are the ones that don't flout the constitution ... all the other ones I'll fight to change.
WWJD
Reyonalds forced the Supreme Courts hand on Polygamy when he delibertely married another wife. He forced the issue of Polygamy and the Supreme Court answered by Outlawing it.
Whether you like it or not, it's illegal.
Then if you talk about flouting the constitution, you should realize the Judiciary is part of the constitution. There are there for the purpose of making, changing and insuring the laws are followed.
Let me just ask you, Harley, what do you think of Rosa Parks? How about the folks who operated the underground railroad?
They were all criminals. Really ... lawbreakers with no respect for the law. Who did they think they were anyway? Jeez.
Laws are made to be scrutinized and if they're unconstitutional or immoral against basic human rights we (you and me and everybody else) has a responsibility to speak out against them and change them.
Anybody whose only arguemnt is "it's the LAW!" prove themselves to be ignorant lemmings.
Rodney Holm tried again to force the issue of Polygamy, the Supreme refused to even hear the case, and was in 2005
Harley's comment, corrected:
The Judiciary is part of the constitution. There are there for the purpose of insuring the laws are followed.
Harley, try reading what the Constitution actually says about the powers of the Judiciary.
Rosa Parks, didn't drag anyone else into her decision to sit in the front of the bus WWJD.
Nor did she have underage children in harms way.
Yes, Lets compare apples with apples.
harley said...
Then if you talk about flouting the constitution, you should realize the Judiciary is part of the constitution. There are there for the purpose of making, changing and insuring the laws are followed.
***********
WRONG!!
ju·di·ci·ar·y (j-dsh-r, -dsh-r)
n. pl. ju·di·ci·ar·ies
1. The judicial branch of government.
2.
a. A system of courts of law for the administration of justice.
b. The judges of these courts
Judges do not make or change law (or they are not supposed to). They are supposed to interpret existing law and make sure it is applied correctly to the cases before them.
Rosa Parks was discriminated against only because of her color, not because she had done anything illegal. She wanted an education, and deserved one. There was no federal law against Rosa Parks sitting anywhere she wanted, or getting an education.
Polygamy has nothing to do with Rosa Parks.
Rosa Parks, didn't drag anyone else into her decision to sit in the front of the bus WWJD.
She didn't act on her own. She planned the whole affair out, with others, so you're wrong on that too.
http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/parks02.html
Polygamy has nothing to do with Rosa Parks.
Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?
The Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the law in Polygamy.
The Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the law in Polygamy.
Yes, we know, as that has been brought up a hundred times on this blog. What's your point?
not because she had done anything illegal.
Her actions were indeed illegal at the time.
Lucille, Rosa Parks took responsibility for what she did. There were no federal laws against what she did.
Rosa Parks Was Arrested for Civil Disobedience
December 1, 1955
Rosa Parks stood up for what she believed, or rather, sat down for what she believed. On the evening of December 1, 1955, Parks, an African American, was tired after a long day of work and decided to take a seat on the bus on her ride home. Because she sat down and refused to give up her seat to a white passenger, she was arrested for disobeying an Alabama law requiring black people to relinquish seats to white people when the bus was full. (Blacks also had to sit at the back of the bus.) Her arrest sparked a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus system. It also led to a 1956 Supreme Court decision banning segregation on public transportation.
Harley, the courts already ruled that merely practicing polygamy did not constitute putting any child in harms way. Maybe you missed that when the higher courts made CPS return those kids in Texas back to their families.
The Supreme court made the right decision when it came to people of color, just like it made the right decision in not allowing Polygamy.
Harley, stating that there were "no Federal laws against what she did" is either an attempt at deliberate misdirection or simple failure of comprehension on your part.
That bit you just posted refers to
an Alabama law.
harley said...
WWJD
Reyonalds forced the Supreme Courts hand on Polygamy when he delibertely married another wife. He forced the issue of Polygamy and the Supreme Court answered by Outlawing it.
Whether you like it or not, it's illegal.
---------
If you're going to make these arguments, you should try to understand the basics. Reynolds didn't force the issue; he was just practicing his religion, as were many people. The SC didn't outlaw polygamy, Congress did that. The SC merely gutted the bill of rights, using arguments that were full of shit, to put it bluntly.
Rosa Parks took a stand (or a seat) in flagrant disregard for the law of the state to make a point and draw attention to the flaw of the law she was breaking. To educate people ... to change the law.
It was a good and necessary thing. The law needed to be changed.
The point of the analogy was that "it's the law" isn't a good argument why somebody should be punished.
Would you say Rosa Parks should have been put in jail for what she did? She broke the law after all.
That was my point. To get you to think about what you were saying.
Harley:
"Kbp
The depositions can be used in court, am I correct? And if so, then jurors would see the depositions."
Late response.
That does not mean passing it through the media would not prejudice candidates to serve on the jury. That means the defense is allowed to even the score. Seen it ruled on in many cases. Not sure how Texas handles this.
Rubytuesday:
"The Federal government would never recognize a religious certificate as a civil legal marriage."
Never heard of the fed's dealing with that.
I call that a state law, but the fed's seemed to find ways to get involved in many things that should be state law, again & again & again....
What about Jehovah's Witnesses and their religious belief of not giving blood transfusions to children, who some of which have subsequently died? If that isn't child abuse, nothing is. Yet the FLDS are scrutinized? Correct me on this if someone knows inteligently about their doctrines.
What you are forgetting, is Reynolds already knew polygamy was against the law. He married another wife in spite of the law in Utah.
The supreme court of the unites states decided this case. Polygamy is against the law whether it's religious belief, or just what someone wants to do.
WWJD
The problem you have is that the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.
Reynolds is the law of the land and the denial of certiori in the Holm case only affirms that Reynolds is the law of the land.
This was posted by a "california Jim" on the trib's comment boards:
I guess it's getting closer to the time to start discussing the Federal investigation which is "muy RICO", if you get my drift. Actually, with the U.S. Attorney's Office ability to invoke certain Federal statutes, Natalie trying to get a set aside trust before everything gets padlocked could be a very good thing for her client(and her baby). Racketeering takes a pretty long pattern of behavior before it can be charged, like over a ten year period, there must be 27 Federal and 8 State committed crimes, as luck would have it we may be nearing these magical numbers or we are there and the Investigators are apprising their next best move? Anyone charged faces a $25,000Dollar fine and up to 20 years in the Federal System, so those favored to plea bargain tend to whistle pretty loudly.
Of course, then your not going to be trash talking the Texas Rangers but rather Homeland Security and the FBI."
Anyone here aware of such charges in the works?
Ron:
"Harley
Deposition testimony is admissible if it is *RELEVANT* to the subject matter of the case.
Probably 99% of this stuff is totally irrelevant
Someone please tell me how Merrill Jessop's belief in a higher power is relevant to whether Annette Jeff's parental rights should be terminated and/or modified?
I'm going to call this one exactly how I see it...
This is a fishing expedition. Natalie Malonis' 15 minutes of fame had expired and she's looking for an extension for another 15 minutes.
If Judge Walther is smart, she'll shut this thing down before it damages the upcoming criminal cases."
Maybe a first.
We agree here!
But then you lost my confidence when your response to refute the claim that "the anti-polygamy law in this country" was made by pointing out laws in England and Virginia.
Looks like a move to confuse opposition into believing either of those laws were "the ...law in this country".
WC
The Jehovah's Witness group has been frequently scrutinized.
Their belief in the denial of blood transfusions have been frequent sources of conflict with scientific secular society.
However, unlike the FLDS they don't advocate the violation of secular laws.
kbp
Like it or not the vast majority of our laws are descended from the English common law. The only real exception is Louisiana which has a large amount of the Napoleonic code.
Ron,
Well, I must not be educated enough on child abuse laws. It seems to deny a child an emergency blood transfusion, and that child dies, it seems that would be breaking some law. Unless secular society says that is there religious right- which brings us back to selective persecution of the FLDS.
The jurors will not get to see the depositions. Judge Walther will determine what information gathered in the depositions will be allowed into questioning.
I believe Merrill Jessop's atty. acknowledged ongoing RICCO and MANN Act investigations.
WC
There have been a number of "faith healing" child abuse case brought against many different religions.
There have been orders by Judges ordering Jehovah witness kids to be transfused.
Give your persecution complex a rest.
Ron in Houston said...
WWJD
The problem you have is that the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.
*************
Luckily SCOTUS is kinda "fluid". Members come and go over years. The judges also are affected by shifts in societal perceptions of issues and can change their thinking over time too.
:o)
WC
More and More Judges are siding with doctors against Jehovah witnesses in saving children who need blood transfusions.
I read there were 4 cases in the latter part of November 2008, where jehovah witness parents refused blood transfusion for their children and a Judge ordered the children given the transfusions.
WWJD
Supreme Court Judges dont come and go often, their Position is considered a lifetime position.
This SC seems reluctant to go into the bedroom. Depending how a case is framed, if a "marriage" issue, whether between same-sex couples or consenting polygamists, the court may very well say the states have no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults, even those all living under the same roof. Or especially those living under one roof.
Ron,
It's easy to not have a "persecution complex" when your butt isn't full of arrows like theirs' is.
There may be scrutiny of the JW's, but there is not a full blown media, legal and propaganda assault on their religion like the FLDS. Even if the sexual asault accusations are correct, at least the FLDS children live through it.
harley said...
WWJD
Supreme Court Judges dont come and go often, their Position is considered a lifetime position.
7:05 PM
Yeah. Well they're usually older when they're appointed so even though it isn't often there is pretty regular turn over when they step down at 110 years old or so.
Oh, and you have a few seats that will come open in near future. With Barack Obama-nation sitting on the throne you can be sure liberal judges will be appointed. They'll legalize same-sex marriage, polygamist marriage, marriage between dogs and cats ....
Ron:
"kbp
Like it or not the vast majority of our laws are descended from the English common law. The only real exception is Louisiana which has a large amount of the Napoleonic code."
I do not dispute as much of what you post as you prolly think, but laws of England, Virginia or "Napoleonic code" were not "the ...law in this country".
I actually gave you credit for what you did, and saw humor in how that discussion transformed so much most lost track of how it started (as a late comer, it was easier for me).
At times many of us tend to disagree "just because we can"!
"Should we ban you from speaking because you MIGHT use your First Amendment rights to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?"-Pliggy
----------
"(Pliggy raising hand and jumping up and down) I know! I know!"-Pliggy
---------
LOL.....
WWJD
That should be interestng seen men marry dogs and cats.
Things are not right or wrong, moral or immoral just because the government created a law.
My ancestors broke federal law many times.
They used their lives and property and sometimes their children to aide them in breaking this law.
They violated the fugitive slave act, refusing to return run-away slaves. Instead they hid them in a secret under-ground cellar not half a mile from my house.
And sometimes they hid the children in bed with their own children, both to keep the children warmer and drier (it's a cold place where we live) and because few would have thought they would put black children in the same bed with their own.
I am proud of them. "It's the law" is the argument of fascism, of totalitarianism.
Headmistress,
If one of those underage children from Flds didn't want to marry an adult, I would take them in myself.
My wife and I always have room for one more, if a child needs protection.
I would be willing to betcha, if a runaway slave had run away back in that day, NOT one Flds family would have even opened the door to a person of color!
The hippies didn't like the religious rights "morality" pushed on them via state laws that defined their relationships as marriages. The states capitulated.
Now they want to make living together tantamount to "marriage" again.
-------
Hear here! I am one of those diehard hippies and feel derided.
For example: "Free love" doesn't mean promiscuity, it means to be able to honorably love freely (equality).
It is my opinion the states did not capitulate. In fact,I believe everything was deliberately trashed.
harley said...
I would be willing to betcha, if a runaway slave had run away back in that day, NOT one Flds family would have even opened the door to a person of color!
**************************
You would be wrong! Again.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/15/MN5CVGVA7.DTL
Not only would they open the doors they would welcome them into their church and teach them their gospel.
Even in the 1830's black people were included in the Mormon church. They just weren't allowed to hold the priesthood.
harley said...
"Which laws do you want to abide by WWJD? The ones, that suit you? Or the ones made for everyone in the United States.
Which laws do you want to abide by harley? Just the ones that specifically target the FLDS? Which "Freedoms" do you want for yourself? Do you want to practice your religion? Or none if you chose?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/15/MN5CVGVA7.DTL
The black man that worked in Joseph Smith's house and went across the plains to Utah with Brigham Young was not a slave. Another black man that arrived as a slave was freed by Brigham Young.
Hardly sounds like the early Mormons were hateful towards black people.
Keep talking Harley. Either you'll learn something or you'll just out yourself as a huge bigot. Either way the end result will be a positive one.
WWJD,
I was talking about FLDS, not LDS!
Even in the 1830's black people were included in the Mormon church. They just weren't allowed to hold the priesthood.
*****************
I actually have to correct that because in the earliest days of the Mormon church blacks did hold the priesthood. Elijah Abel was the first black man ordained in the priesthood of the Mormon church. That was in 1836 - just 6 years after the church was established.
This post has been removed by the author.
harley said...
WWJD,
I was talking about FLDS, not LDS!
9:48 PM
**************
I thought you said you'd "researched" in the interest of learning. Who do you think the FLDS are? They branched off from the LDS AFTER they had gone to Utah. So speaking about the Mormons in the 1830's you ARE talking about the FLDS.
They used their lives and property and sometimes their children to aide them in breaking this law.
--------
My ancestors did the very same thing.
I have heard numerous stories of what they did to show their appreciation of what one of my relatives did for them.
Cheese I respect the Laws. I have the freedoms to my beliefs, my beliefs are'nt forced on my children.
You are free to beleive whatever you want Cheese, you just can't practice a belief which is against the law.
Newell Bringhurst, a history and government professor at the College of the Sequoias, in Visalia, Calif., has extensively researched racial issues among Mormons.
Bringhurst, who was raised Mormon but has since left the faith, attributes the ban to remarks made by Brigham Young, the church's president after Smith was assassinated in Nauvoo, Ill. Young once said that blacks were the children of Cain who settled in Africa, and ''any man having one drop of the seed of Cain'' could not gain priesthood. Bringhurst said that view took hold.
A century later, the ban came under increasing scrutiny during the civil rights era. Still, Bringhurst said the church's international expansion more likely prompted its review of black priesthood.
harley said...
"Lucille, Rosa Parks took responsibility for what she did. There were no federal laws against what she did.
Rosa Parks Was Arrested for Civil Disobedience
December 1, 1955"
harley, I'm agast at your brilliance! If there were no laws against what she did then why was she arrested? And if she was arrested for "civil disobedience" then just exactly "who" was she disobedient to? I mean that could arrest her?
"Because of what appears to be lawful commands on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance."
--United States Supreme Court
US. v. Minker ,
350 US 179 at 187 (1956)
how many blacks are in FLDS WWJD?
how many Blacks are in Boutiful Flds?
How many blacks are in Centinnel Park group?
Cheese, She was arrested because it was agaisnt the law in Alabama.
This is why it was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. Which it should have been!
Due process brought justice for Rosa Parks and Blacks in the United States.
I wouldn't know, Harley, I'm not FLDS nor do I reside in any of those areas.
I was responding to your statement that not one FLDS family would open their door to a runaway slave.
You don't want to admit you are wrong and biggoted so you ignore the information and jump to something else.
Bigot.
This post has been removed by the author.
See Harley can see why breaking the law sometimes serves a greater prupose in one case but not in the case of the FLDS. In their case the law must be right simply because it is the law. THAT law must be respected. Period.
So far I haven't seen any real substantive argument to support his view that polygamy is wrong and SHOULD be illegal other than that it's against the law.
Harley said,
"But FLDS have a marriage certificate for every woman they marry. Even though it is printed up by Flds, it's still evidence of the marriage."
Do you have a copy to prove this?
If you do you must have printed it
Ron said,
"The problem is that laws against polygamy pre-date the Mormon church."
It's not like those laws were passed just to mess with the Mormons.
The first amendment makes those laws moot!
harley said...
"how many blacks are in FLDS WWJD?
how many Blacks are in Boutiful Flds?
How many blacks are in Centinnel Park group?
I personally know scores of Blacks that are members of the FLDS, harley!
"In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger."
James Madison
Post a Comment
<< Home