Apparently, there will be no Polygamy Test Case in Canada

The charges against Blackmore and Oler? Dropped. Child abuse? Not even mentioned.

The Canadian Press/CTV - "A British Columbia court decision has quashed polygamy charges against two controversial B.C. religious leaders.

Winston Blackmore and James Oler were arrested earlier this year in Bountiful, B.C., and charged with one count each of polygamy.

The men had petitioned the court to stay the charges, arguing that the B.C. attorney general had gone 'special prosecutor shopping' until he found someone who would go ahead with charges.

In a decision released Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Judge Sunni Stromberg-Stein agreed.

The judge said the province's attorney general did not have the jurisdiction to appoint a second special prosecutor to consider charges against Blackmore and Oler after the first special prosecutor recommended against charging the two men.

She found that the appointment of the second special prosecutor -- and therefore the decision to charge the men was 'unlawful.'

The attorney general had no jurisdiction to appoint a second special prosecutor, the judge concluded."

Will the charges be brought back?

"(Blackmore and Oler's attorney) said he's not sure whether the charges could be resurrected.

'I believe this will be the end of the criminal case but what the judge has actually done is to quash the appointment of the special prosecutor,' (Bruce Elwood) said.

The B.C. Criminal Justice Branch will have to decide what they will do now, he said."

So, they went venue shopping to "get" someone. How strange. It is probably not an accident that the Canada avoided a "Charter Rights" issue at the same time.

Renn Oldbuster is all over it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brent Hunsaker, ABC 4, Nails it.

It's a test case.

KTVX - "After years of investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Crown's prosecuting attorneys in British Columbia charged the leaders of two polygamist groups (one is F.L.D.S., the other a splinter group) with one count each of polygamy.

Just one count each. A test case.

Backed by a strong anti-polygamy law, section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code, B.C. District Attorney Wally Oppal argues he doesn't have to look for crime within polygamy, polygamy itself is the crime. His case may well hinge on proving that polygamy by definition is abuse. Whether the man is kind or mean, principled or ruthless, polygamy is inherently abusive of women and children.

That is very different from the approach of Shurtleff and Goddard. The question is, which is the better?

If Oppal succeeds, it could open the door to hundreds of prosecutions in Canada. Even the mere threat of such prosecutions could lead to a mass exodus of polygamists from Bountiful -- that's what they call their community in the Creston Valley of British Columbia.

And where do you think all those Canadian polygamists would end up? Yep. Here. In polygamist enclaves in South Dakota, Nevada, Texas, Arizona and Utah.

We should pay close attention to what happens in a Canadian courtroom. It may well have irrevocable consequences for those of us in the States."

And yes, he also notes correctly it will have effects here. Either by sending Canadian polygamists our way, or by emboldening our Law Enforcement, or by pressuring us to legalize it because of our close ties. Canada in a way should be applauded. Now we'll know.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Winston Blackmore, has a BLOG

Hat tip to FeVaFotos. "Share the Light," is Winston Blackmore's blog. Winston's Home Page is, "The North Star," on which is contained his statement.

At present both have a page rank of "no data." I imagine, that will change. Nothing like a good persecution to call attention to someone, and something, no one cared about.

"Since I am not going to take your questions upon advice of legal counsel, and since you all know that whether I have liked it or not I have always tried to accommodate the media, I will try to anticipate your questions in this statement.

Almost nineteen years ago we were discovered by the media. We didn’t even know that we were lost. It has taken three AG’s, many special prosecutors, and millions and millions of tax payers dollars, almost nineteen years to arrive at the conclusion that Fundamentalist Mormons want to practice the fundamentals of their faith.

Canada has a law against polygamy. It was made in or around 1892 and was made specifically against the Mormons. Canada also has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees every person the right to live their religion, and I guess now, every person except those of us who are Fundamentalist believing and practicing Mormons.

This is not about the police. They kindly waited until my children would be all at school before they came to arrest me. They certainly did not expect that school would be delayed for two hours because a foot of heavy snow had fallen in the night and all my school children were still home. They also did not know that my three children that want to be police officers when they grow up, a 16 year old girl, a 12 year old boy, and an eleven year old boy got to witness the process. My children hated the police all day long and were still hating them when I got home. I have met dozens of police officers over the years and made many good friends among them. I was treated very kindly by the arresting officers but can honestly say to them, you have some pr work to do with some of my family members, and perhaps since Canada has chosen to disregard our basic charter rights then you should at least work in some sensitivity when it comes to dealing with our children.

This is not about Polygamy. Tens of thousands of polygamists among many different cultures are hiding in plain sight all across Canada. They are known by their neighbors, policemen, legislators and media just as we are. I am sure that they are an active valued part of the economic structure of the communities in which they live just as we are. But they are not fundamentalist Mormons! To us this is about religious persecution. Persecution has always been about politics. Whatever else is involved with it, it is still about politics. It is therefore no surprise to us that this spectacular grandstanding event has happened in the face of an up and coming provincial election. I hope this government has calculated all the risks. Time will tell.

My family reaction was negative and yesterday was a hard day for them. There was no way that we could talk. They listened to the news, collectively fielded hundreds of phone calls and waited. My little children couldn’t do their school work, and were emotional and traumatized by the uncertainty of the event. My college children couldn’t focus. I didn’t know about it all day but a number of my dear family members waited outside to see me when I was released. We had a wonderful reunion and as I stood there in Cranbrook with a dozen grown up sons and daughters, all struggling in their own way to understand this religious persecution, not to mention the inevitable question of why a government presiding over this economy, would target them as employers, students, workers, taxpayers, all the while wasting enormous amounts of their hard earned dollars waging a political religious campaign. One quipped, “wouldn’t it be nice if this government focused their political and financial energy on creating jobs”? I had this huge feeling of gratitude that these fine men and woman are what my life is really all about. My family will be just fine.

Where do we go from here? I have to make an appearance on January 21. You will all be welcome to stay home from that event. I plan on doing what I have always done. I will get up and get my children up for school. We will live each day as we have done for the last nineteen years. We will teach our children the best we can, help them get a good education, and I will try and encourage my children that want to be police officers to do so, because Canada needs good, fair, unbiased officers, from coast to coast that will honestly deal with the diverse multicultural society that it has become, without discriminating against those visible or invisible minorities, whether racial, religious or simply cultural. I want my children to respect the First Nations People of our great country, to stand in honor with them and recognize according to our Book of Mormon teachings that they were preserved by the hand of God upon this land. I want my children to grow up, get a good education, go to work and do a good job for the business that hires them, and a better job for the people that they employ. Naturally, I want them to cherish my faith, but if they do not, they are growing up knowing that their dad will always till the day he dies be there to joy in their joys, sorrow in their sorrows, and encourage them to do right along the way. I am what I am, we are what we are. We are descended from a long line of Mormon believing people. My family did not make up our faith nor did we establish the fundamental teachings of Mormonism. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. He has taught us, and I have taught my children that they should pray for their enemies as well as their friends. That is what we will continue to do.

I want to thank the hundreds, if not by now thousands who have called in their support. You guys are the best."

As always, I am not remotely LDS/FLDS/Mormon. I think their faiths are deceptions. Nevertheless, we all have a place in God's grand device, and more than that, we are all in his image. Justice is justice for us, and for all. For the stranger, and for the believer. I am grateful to Winston for getting this issue before the courts of Canada.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

"Can anyone presume to tell where religious instruction ends and brainwashing begins?"

Hat tip to blogger "Sandy" at Introspection of a Plural Wife (at Heart). Iain Hunter writes the column that says it all

.

The Victoria Times-Colonist - "I've seen high Anglicans genuflecting, Quakers quaking and holy rollers rolling in their places of worship, and it has occurred to me that something has happened to their brains. But when they emerge, shriven or whatever, they seem perfectly normal again.

It's the same with people of other faiths I've seen on TV, lacerating their bodies, beheading live chickens and crawling with their faces in the mud. I presume they have families to look after and jobs to go to.

What the Bountiful women have done, though, is more permanent. They've hitched themselves, like sled dogs, to one man so that he can 'raise up seed' and qualify to get to the celestial kingdom.

If they, and their man, really believe this is their religious duty, what right has any non-believer to stop them from performing it? And how can anyone presume to tell where religious instruction ends and brainwashing begins?"

Also he points out this circular logic, unseen by its users;

"A lot of people seem to assume that these young, healthy women in a polygamous relationship have been brainwashed by those with religious authority over them. They believe no self-respecting sister would subject herself to this kind of arrangement of her own free will. Ergo, this must be stopped."

All Polygamy is backward and abusive and it is self evidently so. Therefore, any woman in one, has to be brainwashed, and must be rescued and deprogrammed. But at Short Creek years ago, and in Texas today, there are no Patricia Hearsts, no victims of Stockholm syndrome that "snap out of it." The still believe, what they believed before when they were being abused at close quarters and being brainwashed after 9 months of "choice," or maybe they just believe it.

"Attorney General Wally Oppal's determination to lay criminal charges against Winston Blackmore, with 26 wives at last count, and James Oler, with two, is something that a lot of people would have applauded about 60 years ago when it was supposedly first considered by the government of the day.

The opinion of most legal experts seems to be, though, that it's too late. The Charter of Rights' guarantee of religious freedom, they say, overrides the Criminal Code's section outlawing polygamy, the section the Crown has chosen to use to prosecute the two men."

Read it all.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Post Election Polygamy Agenda

Harking back to what I have pointed out earlier, we're now the leftist "Obamanation." This means liberal judges on the Supreme Court and across the nation. Count on Republicans NOT being the obstructionists that Democrats were when it comes to the appointments of Federal Judges and Supreme Court seats.

In the book of Esther (the POLYGYNOUS wife of king Ahasuerus) the Jews do not strike first against their enemies, but fight back and carve out a place for the Jews among the heathen. They kill their enemies, but they do not go on a firey crusade to stamp out adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and so on. King Ahasuerus "reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia," so there is little doubt about wholesale adherence to the cultural values of the Jews. There was no such thing.

In the END, the last verse in the book of Esther, after the Jews have confronted their enemies, enemies who sought the destruction and death of the Jews, it says this;

"For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed."

Mordecai also sought the welfare of the King, as his advisor;

"And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, whereunto the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?"

As second to the King, much like Joseph in Egypt, Mordecai has a hand in the prosperity of the King, the consolidation of his power and the collection of his tribute. Does Mordecai seek to "reform" the land morally? To conform it to the laws of Moses? We have utterly no evidence that he did. Not in Esther, and to my knowledge, no archeological or extra Biblical historical evidence exists that says he did either.

So as believers in an increasingly UNGODLY nation, that was never an annointed nation, a chosen people in the first place, what is our role?

Our greatness if we have it, should be on God's terms, among our people. If also we rise to political prominence, so be it. We should seek a place for OUR people. That is why I continually point to the need for marriage contracts. We are indeed slaves in this land and scripturally it is SLAVES that have the greater numbers of rights. Masters have obligations. I seek rights in the context of the laws of this nation for OUR people, the believers. Christians. Those who have accepted Christ as savior, as King.

This is why I utterly do not care what the granting of a right produces outside the group of believers. If homosexual "marriage" or polyandries are facilitated by a change in law, and at the same time a legal cul de sac is carved out to protect marriage practices acceptable to Bible Believing Christians, I am content with that. This is not to say that I will not continually witness to the saving love of God, his Grace, and pray and hope that all come to him. This of course would make matters much easier. I would also accept the office of absolute Monarch, though no one offers it, and that would make me the moral leader of this nation. Like I said, it's not being offered to me. Until then, like Mordecai, I seek the wealth or welfare of my people. I'm just not "second in command."

This is why it makes sense NOW, as the hour grows ever later, to protect the forms of marriage that we know are Godly. Never mind the fact that the legislation that protects US also helps others we would not have among us. Right now marriage is under attack by the state. They pretend they create it. They pretend they can break it up. They use their power over the police, the courts, and you and your spouses and children as citizens to confiscate property, deprive you of your children and allow your husband or wife to leave you for no reason. What we have now, is AWFUL and it could be improved.

Again I stress that homosexuals will do what they do no matter what. If those people who are homosexual want to say they're married, ARE THEY? Not if God defines marriage. What do we care? Unless we're going on some purge of the land, killing them all, they're going to be right where they are, doing what they do.

What is divorce? Divorce is essentially a child custody issue and a property issue from the perspective of the state. Largely this issue doesn't matter if Christians marry and adhere to what God says about marriage, but on occasion, this does not happen (about half the time) and marriages split up along lines that the STATE designates. The state also CHANGES those laws regularly so as to modify what amounts to the civil prenuptials we all have with our spouses. One day she can't divorce you and do that, tomorrow, she can.

In my experience, and that of other Christians that I know, frankly, it is the WOMAN who initiates the divorce among believers, and when she is in rebellion to her husband in that fashion, she is in flat out rebellion to EVERYONE, God included. Going to her and saying "God does not want you to do this," is futile. She's rebelling. Granted men also rebel against God and do many things to destroy a marriage, but it's the woman with all the power according to the state.

What if we approached the state and said, in exchange for no longer fighting the gay "marriage" issue, we would "come together" in "unity" and "get along" by throwing out the traditional definition of marriage? I personally think that would be best. Those of us who are polygynists anyway don't buy into Prop 8 in California because it defines marriage as only one man and only one woman at any given time. So "traditional marriage" for us, has always been a crock.

Let the gays "marry" gays. What skin off our nose is it? WE do not recognize them as married. They're NOT. We would, if obedient to our God, not allow them in fellowship anyway. Let a woman "marry" two men at once, or five. As before, it is no more marriage than gays "marrying" and all of these people go through the motions of marriage without the state "sanction" of marriage anyway. Where I live now, there are "civil unions" and it's on all the paperwork for titling a car or truck. What difference does it make what the ungodly THINK they're doing? Seriously?

If we wait, polygyny, polyandry and polyamory are going to be legalized ANYWAY. Then we have real problems. This worldly country is egalitarian in it's ethic. Men and women are alike in all respects. Equal rights. Equal votes. If polygamy is allowed in all it's forms, and women have equal rights. What stops YOUR wife from marrying another man while she's married to you? In doing that will she immediately "out vote" you in your new "marriage" and send you packing with a monthly bill and nothing else to show for it? Will your wives rebel against you, go lesbian and also toss you out? Once the state LEGALIZES such relationships, they will take control over how governance occurs within them and you won't like the result.

Monogamists will not be protected in their monogamies. Casual polygynists will not be protected in their polygynies. Like Canada has done, count on many informal polygynies being declared extant merely for the purposes of breaking them up.

Again, I point out that RIGHT NOW a table exists that could be sat at with the government where they could get what THEY want in exchange for the protection, the wealth, of our people. While we can never prevent a wife from LEAVING us, maybe when she signs on to the marriage, she could sign on to the fact that she must prove certain faults on the part of her husband, or she walks away with nothing. We can never stop others from running their marriages as a democracy, but perhaps, citing religious freedom, we could construct marriages that were run by MEN, not women. If the woman changes her mind, she could leave. Even in ancient Israel they did that. It can't be stopped, it can only be dealt with.

I urge Christians to do this NOW, now later. Later will be the state concoction that we all have "free will" and that we all are equal and we all can do anything we want. When that happens, without our input, we will be at the mercy of the state, which I can assure you does not exist.

I've been through a secular, civil divorce. I did not recognize it until certain events occurred that in my understanding of scripture made it possible for me to divorce my wife. She rebelled against me, the church and God. She took EVERYTHING. The effect was devastating to my children. I could NOT stop it.

What I could have had was a document in place, a marriage contract, that stated as a prenuptial that unless I did certain things, custody and property issues were already decided. A sort of "divorce in waiting" that she could enact if she wanted to, but not without consequence. Frankly? That might have saved my marriage since my wife would not have left her children. I did not have an "affair." I did not do the disqualifying things that allow a marriage to end per scripture. I had many faults, but I would have ended up with my house (I have not owned one since) and my children.

Faced with THAT, I honestly don't think my wife would have left me. That would have been infinitely preferable to what DID happen. I see the marriages of Christians die all the time. Prior to the breakups they were smug an secure in the notion that they had the "good marriage." Then one of them went off the farm. Such family destruction will always be ugly, but it could be better than it is now.

For the FLDS, to whom I extend my had as a "different faith, " I have these words to say. We are alike in many ways. We share many of the same scriptures. We view marriage in similar ways. If these protections of marriage contracts were already in place, YFZ would NEVER have happened. You could have had legal marriages, and the whole business of "molestation of children" and "underage pregnant girls" would be moot. Your temple? Undefiled. Your lifestyle? Firmly in place.

To the Monogamy Only religious crowd? I point to the destruction of my first marriage which was unjust. It happens to many like you. It will happen (God forbid) to people like you. Write your contract. "Define" marriage as "one man and one woman at any given time." It also is no skin off my nose. It also would be a marriage, though you have a sidebar that is not part of the marriage definition from my point of view. Protect that marriage. Protect the sanctity of your congregations.

Remember, a change of 2% in the vote on Prop 8 would mean "Gay marriage" would still be legal in California. You're rapidly losing control of this issue altogether.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Polygamy Debate proves interesting.

There are informative articles in both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News today on last nights debate at University of Utah's College of Law. It's summed up by this exchange. I could write several blog posts, and in fact may do so, on the exchange. I'll start with this.

"The debate got lively when (Marci) Hamilton accused the attorney general's office of not trying hard enough to find evidence to prosecute polygamy.

'I know they don't like to hear it, but someone has to say that because it's a fact,' she said.

'I'm astounded at the naivete in that statement,' (Kirk) Torgensen replied. 'I live this. I don't write about it from some office back east. I live it. I've got to sit in cases where I have got to ask, "Where is the evidence so I can prove it in court?" Now you can say this is easy ... '

'I didn't say it was easy, I just said you weren't trying hard enough.'

When Torgensen offered to deputize her to prosecute cases, some in the audience shouted 'No! No! No!' while others shouted 'Yes! Yes!' The chief deputy did warn polygamous communities that the attorney general's office would prosecute underage marriage cases."

The offer to deputize Marci is the one of the core points. "You try it Marci, it's not that easy." Utah cannot house all the inmates they would produce in a full on prosecution of polygamy.

Prosecuting polygamy establishes polygamy as the crime. Establishing polygamy as the crime sets up test cases along the lines of a class action to present to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court these cases may ultimately come before may be an activist and liberal one and their actions will be based on the concept that marriage is defined by society. Such a court will not be opposed to homosexual "marriage" and is not likely to be able to wiggle around the implications that has for polygamy. In short, as stated before, Marci would set up the case that would be the "Roe vs Wade" of polygamy legalization. Utah, for it's part is trying to bargain with polygamists and Utah at large to make polygamy a misdemeanor which would keep underage marriages a prosecutable offense but make adult consensual polygamy a traffic ticket. As an aside, that's a devils bargain I don't think we should make.

Marci says polygamy should be aggressively prosecuted;

" 'It is easy to figure out who is engaging in polygamy,' Hamilton said. "You just have to figure out who is going into which house. . . . If you know that even a small percentage of individuals in these circumstances are prone to abuse children, why wouldn't you enforce the criminal law?' "

Is my DAUGHTER engaged in a polygamy Marci? She lives in a home owned by one woman, and in rooms rented out to both her and a young man. That's two women and one man. Is that a polygamy Marci? Kirk makes that point to her;

"Torgensen, who said he was expressing his own opinions and not necessarily those of the Attorney General's Office, said Hamilton did not understand the difficulties in getting evidence of crimes within polygamous communities and her sweeping assumptions would never uphold in court.

'People cohabitate with each other in many instances, in many circumstances, all the time,' he said. 'Who goes into what house doesn't prove anything. The difference here is that you make it sound very easy and in my experience that is not true.' "

Marci Hamilton is an activist who wishes to bend law and have it selectively applied in other cases, to advance HER agenda;

"Heidi Mattingly, a member of the Davis County Cooperative Society, was critical of Hamilton.

'I think she doesn't know her law,' she said."

Heidi, don't be so kind. She knows the law, Marci is an activist, the law is only important when it is on her side. Now I'd like to see a debate with a clear supporter of polygamy on the panel.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Should the Children of Polygyny be taken from their parents?

How do you comment on a story like this?

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Should the state prosecute polygamous parents and remove their children from their homes?

That question will be vetted by Marci A. Hamilton and Kirk Torgensen on Wednesday during the 25th annual Jefferson B. Fordham debate at the University of Utah College of Law. The debate is at 6 p.m. in the Sutherland Moot Courtroom.

Hamilton is a law professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York City, and author of 'God vs. Gavel' and 'Justice Denied.' She says failure of states to prosecute polygamists has created 'dangerous cults like the FLDS,' a failure she attributes to authorities being 'timid in the face of specious claims of religious liberty.'

Torgensen is chief deputy in the Utah Attorney General's Office and assisted in prosecutions of two polygamists: Rodney Holm and Warren S. Jeffs, both of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has said that prosecuting all polygamists is impractical given limited law enforcement and public resources; he has instead advocated focusing on crimes within polygamous communities."

Please don't tell me that any state money is being used to put on this show or that anyone will be surprised at the outcome.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Legal Polygyny is INEVITABLE, it's a question of when.

The door is being wedged farther open on the legal front all the time, and soon we are going to have LEGALLY married POLYGYNOUS Christians in our pews. We will also encounter LEGALLY married converts to Christianity that have already entered into such a relationship.

What do you do when a POLYGAMOUS convert shows up on the church doorstep and their version of POLYGAMY is POLYANDRY? You must reject them.

What do you do when a POLYGAMOUS convert shows up on the church doorstep and their version of POLYGAMY is a "Clan" marriage or a "Communal" marriage which is increasingly being refered to as a "POLYAMORY". You must reject them as well.

But what do you do when a POLYGAMOUS man and his wives show up and they are engaged in a POLYGYNY? You can't reject them. The reason you cannot is that at BEST Christianity in it's source texts, those being the Scriptures known as the BIBLE, merely discourages POLYGYNY. I do not believe that Christianity actually does discourage Polygyny. I leave open the discussion because there are people who read passages that refer to Elder Monogamy and that can be excused at least initially for seeing that as a directive to be monogamous.

The Bible is not an egalitarian guide for living in this present world. It is true that in Christ, in Judgment before God, as we WILL BE like the Angels neither being given or giving in marriage. There we will not be not male, or female. Everything WILL be equal from one Christian to another, but that time has not occurred yet. Scripture CLEARLY teaches age roles, gender roles, child roles and parent roles. It even teaches slave and master roles. Scripture teaches acceptable Polygyny in part because Men are OVER women, not the other way around in this life. God is to mankind as man is to woman. Paul teaches this clearly. Sarah calls Abraham "Lord" and Peter in a divinely inspired and thus perfect commentary says she does so for a REASON, and that is that HE is OVER her. One God, many believers. One husband, several wives. Polygyny illustrates this principle. It is a lesson we have neglected in the West for centuries.

Make no mistake, I do not say that you must be Polygynous. That's silly. Many try to claim that I say this but I do not. The continuum of adult living ranges from single, to married to married several times. The state you should be in is the one God has selected for you. Remember though I have made the case that about half of believers in church COULD be if we allowed this form of marriage.

I make this assertion again, here, having made it many times before in forums because it needs to be discussed essentially among Christians to see how were going to deal with this issue. It's coming, God has ordained this discussion quite obviously because of the upheaval surrounding marriage in society today. Being the Calvinist that I am, I cannot think that this is an accident. We are being compelled to face this issue, it's not unlike having our faces forcibly turned and ground into the mess that we call marriage today. We're straining against the hand that pushes us, we're trying to turn our heads, we close our eyes but our faces are being smashed into it and we can no longer deny it.

While I hold out hope that this country will select John McCain for President and he is NOT as far behind at this point in the race as Bush was VS Kerry or Reagan was VS Carter, Barack Obama is still a good bet to be the next President.

President Obama, if he does become that, will appoint HYPER liberal judges. He may have a "Filibuster" proof Senate and an increased majority in the House of Representatives. Obama's father had many wives from what I understand. Obama has a constituency that embraces "gay marriage." It's a short step from there to Polygamy in all it's forms. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The FLDS finds a way to get a Polygamy decision before the Courts

Bravo!

The Salt Lake Tribune - "(The FLDS) alleges that one of the reasons for reorganizing the trust - that the UEP supported bigamy - is invalid because Utah's bigamy law is unconstitutional.

Named as defendants are Wisan, Lindberg, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard. The unnamed FLDS members pursuing the suit are represented by Salt Lake City attorneys Rod Parker and Richard A. Van Wagoner."

By George, I think they've got it. More →

Sphere: Related Content

More Nonsuits, FLDS pulls out of Evidence Challenge

In a move that probably was inevitable, the FLDS Church itself has ceased to challenge the warrants.

The Deseret News - "The motion lists several reasons why they are withdrawing the challenge. Most notably, none of them have been charged with a crime.

'Accordingly, movants are not "defendants" in any criminal proceeding,' attorneys Daniel Hurley and Cynthia Orr wrote."

I'm no legal eagle so I'll take their word for it. They have no iron in the fire, even if they would like to have. The FLDS is saying they have to have standing, which they have to have, and don't. Since there are persons charged in this case, there will be a challenge since those persons do have standing. The state in it's response though, did seem to show it's entire hand, including claiming that certain entities had no standing.

At the same time, Texas nonsuits other children, bringing the "nonsuit" total to 300 out of 439. That's more than 68% of the kids (that actually were kids) taken into custody that Texas is saying have no case.

"On Monday, CPS filed to have four more children 'nonsuited,' said agency spokesman Patrick Crimmins. That brings the number of people dropped from the case to 300. The Deseret News tally includes 26 FLDS women that CPS initially believed were minors, but eventually conceded were adults."

The numbers are so confusing that intially no one could come up with an accurate account of kids in custody and some of them, 5.5 percent of the Deseret News accounting, turned out to be adults. Overall of the 465 persons initially termed kids in danger, over 7 in 10 have been "nonsuited" or dropped altogether. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Anti Polygamy laws hang on by a thread.

Other aspects of this story are being covered in other blots, such as "The Plural Life" and "I Perceive." What I'd like to focus on is this statement;

The Deseret News - "Brigham Young University law professor Fredrick Gedicks questioned why polygamy itself remains criminalized, noting there are other groups more dangerous to conventional social values than polygamists.

'We do not punish membership in groups, we punish behavior,' he said. 'So if there are crimes occurring in polygamous society, then prosecute the crimes. Don't criminalize the society.' "

Really, the only crimes being prosecuted in Texas right now are a direct result of polygamy being criminal. To review, anti polygamy laws are so shakey in the eyes of every state that has the opportunity to prosecute them that they won't prosecute a "clean" polygamy case. That would be a case where there is no formal bigamy, the registration concurrently of two or more marriages with the state, and no ineligible partners. Ineligible partners would be a relative that is too close, such as a mother and daughter or a person that is too young per state law to have given consent to sexual behavior.

IF Polygamy were legal only the mother/daughter type relationships would be barred from marriage to the same man or cousins too close for state law to allow. What we find being prosecuted (and I remark on this over and over and over again) are relationships that would be legal, if only they were monogamous.

Polygamy as criminal behavior is on such shakey ground that it cannot be prosecuted. It does however create secondary crimes by preventing legal marriage between two people who would otherwise do nothing wrong. It BARS the cover of marriage that would make relationships legal. As has oft been remarked on this blog, Texas doesn't have any trouble with a 14 year old girl having sex with a 40 year old man. They just have trouble if she isn't married to him or to someone else and they don't prevent, despite what you may believe, men from marrying girls. They even don't care if she's been married and divorced already, something else that is possible.

Technically all that would be necessary for a 14 year old girl to have legal sex in Texas, with just about anyone, would be that she marry legally in some way. Then she would be free to do whatever with whomever, even if she got a divorce.

Polygamy is a legal and political hot potato. Law enforcement knows it can't prosecute it by itself, but knows they can't get themselves re-elected if they acknowledge that, so they look for salacious situations like 12 year olds spiritually married to Warren Jeffs or allegations of Child Porn with Tony Alamo and allegations of brutality and child labor with "Buffalo Bill" Hawkins. Then they claim they're after "Polygamy" and the press goes along.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Salt Lake Tribune confirms, dismissals are imminent.

The Pharisee's musing that some cases were about to be dismissed, seems to be a valid one. The Salt Lake Tribune shares that view;

"(Barbara Walther) has ordered that a massive child custody case involving a polygamous sect be split up, a move that may be the first step in dismissing some cases while investigation continues in others."

Then there is this UNAMERICAN and DISGUSTING reference;

"Walther also ordered that attorneys' requests for information gathered by the state be suspended until she adopts a discovery management plan."

A "discovery management plan?" There is nothing in our constitution about a "discovery management plan!" There is plenty about a right to a speedy trial. The "discovery management plan" is now shown to be a simple assertion that the STATE has the RIGHT TO SAVE IT'S CASE. There IS no such right to compete with the rights of the accused who are INNOCENT until proven guilty.

As innocent people they have the right to getting their lives back as soon as possible, that is what a speedy trial is all about. If you, as the state, undertake to arrest 650 people all at once, and then find out three months later that is imposing a hardship on you, that is part of the built in advantage given to defendants in this country.

In justice, the prosecution has so much power that the founders sought offsets to that power to prevent TYRANNY. They fully realized this would allow many guilty people to go free. Unfettered government power in criminal prosecution would lead to and had led to the oppression of the free, which is more noxious than the unleashed (but not as organized) criminal.

Texas, YOU stuck your hand into the hornet's nest. So far you've only managed 4 felony indictments that had nothing to do with the original premise for entering YFZ and NOTHING to do with anything you saw while at YFZ. Is Discovery "unmanageable" for you right now? TOO BAD. The Founding Fathers would rather the CHILD MOLESTER go free, than the STATE be able to invent methods that infringed on the freedoms of all citizens.

That's right. The constitution of this country expressed a PREFERENCE for CHILD MOLESTERS getting away with their crimes rather than creating a justice system that could catch them all. Once again, that is because the Government that could catch them all, has been shown to, and will, OPPRESS ALL OF US with that power, and the result, believe it or not, would be ever so much worse.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Does Teresa Jeffs "Spiritual Marriage" justify the YFZ Raid?

I believe it will be shown that Texas obtained all of it's evidence in a false context. Repeatedly I have stated that I agree that law enforcement can enter a home or homes on false premises and discover clearly evident crimes and proceed with their search. Provided of course it is shown they did not participate in the creation of that false premise so as to obtain an excuse to enter a home. That would be the conspiracy angle most of us intimately familiar with the case entertain from time to time. I am one of those that does believe there was a conspiracy. I am not certain it involved law enforcment.

A hypothetical for comparison to the YFZ raid would be that law enforcement breaks down the door of a home in search of evidence of a murder or murders. Upon entry there is no such evidence and a room to room search produces no such evidence. During the search a law enforcement officer sees "Zig Zag" rolling papers. Everyone in the home is arrested on suspicion of drug dealing.

The search expands. No marijuana is found. No drugs whatsoever. Months pass. Eventually law enforcement in an exhaustive search finds a storage unit for one of the children in the family and in that storage unit, a single joint is found with DNA on it from one of the children.

The question is, does this justify the search, the continued search, the expansion of the search and remove law enforcement liability for the search under false premises? This is a grave danger we all face, for in fact it is argued that we have already created such a legal context for this behavior. If it's a crime of "Child Abuse" then all bets are off and on the mere suspicion of such abuse police may search and search and search and search and search until THEY are satisfied there is no abuse. There is no time limit to this search, there is no limit to the scope of this search. The search's parameters can be changed or reset or expanded at any time to incorporate new crimes until one is found, or until law enforcement tires of the affair.

Let us review how it is that Texas came to be in possession of the evidence of Teresa's "Spiritual Marriage" and the basis for which they now suspect her sexual contact with a much older man. First, there was the raid looking for "Dale" who was the "husband" of "Sarah." The only law enforcement agency in a three state area that BELIEVED the call was genuine was Texas. Arizona received a similar call, Utah as well, both declined to follow up on those calls, both came from Rozita Swinton. Allegedly. The allegation is in fact of such a strong variety that we know those calls came from a phone that Rozita had in her possession. Texas will not prosecute those crimes, nor will Utah, nor will Arizona, not because they can't be sure, but because the cases are of the "open and shut" variety. The evidence for Rozita's guilt as the hoaxer is only exceeded by the evidence for Jack Ruby's guilt in shooting Oswald.

That's strike one, but Texas is not out unless a conspiracy is shown to have existed. For the sake of illustration, let us suppose that on one sunny afternoon in downtown Eldorado, representatives of Texas and Colorado and Utah and Arizona sit down with Flora Jessops for lunch and during the conversation musing on how to "get" the FLDS, it is decided that if entry is gained to YFZ, there will be SOMETHING found so it doesn't matter. Colorado passes a note to Flora with a name on it, and says "here's you're wacko, wind her up and turn her loose, problem solved."

I cannot bring myself to beleive in a conspiracy THAT obvious and extensive but lesser versions of it are more and more beleivable as times goes by. I am particularly struck by Arizona and Utah dropping cases against Rozita, Texas refusing to seek her arrest and the skillful but obvious hiding of Rozita FROM the press. The latest such subtrifuge successfully moved Rozita's date with the press from BEFORE the Grand Jury week, (which now includes a US Senate hearing) to AFTER the Grand Jury week. If anything should tip you off that there will be an indictment, the scheduling of the US Senate hearings by Harry Reid should remove all doubt.

Surrender Monkey Harry is no idiot. He intends to conduct his hearings in light of the sensational allegations of Teresa Jeffs' "sexual abuse" at the hands of an older man, and with the full cooperation of her father. You can be confident that the DAY he announced the date of such hearings, that he had the details of the Houston Chronicle's story in hand.

So absent that conspiracy evidence that would be so convienient for friends of the FLDS we move on to the second issue. Why did Texas continue to search? Because (absent a conspiracy) they certainly COULD, if they saw evidence of a crime while at the YFZ ranch. Enter the myth of "pregnant underage girls." We know now that they saw no such people.

Among the large group of girls and women that Texas took into custody were two pregnant women. Both have been shown to have been of age to the satisfaction of Texas. Both gave birth. If there was a third girl or woman or perhaps more, they weren't "seen" for this simple reason. No FLDS woman/girl at YFZ that was SEEN and judged to be "underage" has given birth since the raid, other than those two. They were not underage. Any pregnant underage girls at YFZ at the time of the raid were mostly likely no more than five months along. Why? It's almost August.

Thus there were no "pregnant underage girls." What then was the "crime" or "crimes" that Texas supposedly saw that caused the ongoing investigation that turned up the evidence of Teresa Jeffs diary and "spiritual marriage?" This little uncomfortable question is the one with no acceptable answer.

Jesus once raised the bar on the men ready to stone the woman "caught in adultery." She was caught in the "very act." He asked for one to come forward to cast the "first stone" that was "without sin." Everyone left. If we as citizens of his country allow the public humiliation of Teresa Jeffs to continue, we do a far more ugly thing than the stoning of the adulterous woman. We allow the destruction of lives at YFZ to go on, knowing full well that if our lives were turned inside out as theirs were, as Teresa Jeffs was, that we could be made to LOOK as bad, worse even, and we probably WOULD be worse. Who among us could stand the scrutiny of having all our possessions thrown onto the lawn of our homes and pawed through? Our computor hard drives exhaustively searched for porn or financial records or tax returns? Our cars stripped to the floor pans like in the "French Connection?"

The answer is that if we did this to the very persons who conducted the raid, we'd have no law enforement left to protect us and we really all ought to be in jail with them. There are limits. This has gone too far. Texas cannot tell us why they were searching the YFZ ranch, they can only tell us what they found when they were there. The search is not the evidence they saw. They only have evidence from the search. They saw NOTHING. Thus they did not "see" evidence and proceeded with a search, they searched to find evidence. That is what they are NOT allowed to do. That is illegal search and seizure. Our Government is NOT permitted to search your home to find a crime. They are permitted to name a crime for which they have SOME evidence, and then search your home. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Who IS this Sam Brower guy anyway?

Willie Jessop has had enough, as Brooke Adams reports;

"Willie Jessop, a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, filed the request against Sam Brower Tuesday in 5th District Court in St. George.

Jessop claims Brower has a 'long history of following and photographing FLDS members,' often leading to confrontations, and has engaged in a 'pattern of continual harassment' that includes making disparaging comments about Jessop to the media.

Jessop wants Brower and anyone working for him kept away from his homes and offices in Hildale, Canaan Gap, Cedar City and San Angelo, Texas.

Brower did not return a call from The Salt Lake Tribune for comment. A judge has not yet ruled on the request, according to online court records.

Jessop claims Brower took a television news crew to Hildale on June 7 and scaled a 6-foot-high wall in order to take pictures of Jessop's home and yard. In doing so, Brower "frightened . . . children sending them into the house very terrified," the filing states.

On that same day, Brower took the news crew to Jessop's ranch in Canaan Gap and, ignoring 'no trespassing' signs and locked gates, again began photographing children and other family members, it said.

'They were forced to scramble out of the water and into a cabin on the property in order to preserve their privacy, and their family outing was disrupted,' the filing states.

'Even more than it used to be, the intrusions freak the children out when strangers come barging in,' said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing Jessop. 'These children know what happened in Texas and are a little worried.'

Texas child welfare authorities removed more than 450 children from an FLDS ranch in April; they have since been returned to their families.

Jessop's court filing claims Brower photographed children outside his Cedar City office and circulated the photos to news media while falsely claiming the children were working for the company.

Brower has 'become more brazen and bold...and Willie has had enough of it,' Parker said. 'He wants to be left alone and he wants his privacy.'"

What's the harm in that, doesn't everyone know that the FLDS are sub human sideshow freaks?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Three Month Anniversary of the FLDS Raid.

April 3rd, 2008. The Raid. May 3rd, 2008, the one month anniversary. June 3rd, 2008, two months. It has now been THREE months since Texas invaded YFZ with no cause, stayed for no cause and only two members of the YFZ ranch were arrested.

What were they arrested for? For "crimes" having to do with slight obstruction and resistance to an illegal search and seizure. One was charged with a 3rd Class Felony, another with a misdemeanor. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Another WHY for the argument "Why Should We Legalize Polygamy"

A while back (2006) I pointed out that the war with terrorists is a RELIGIOUS war. As a consequence, the ideology we are war with MUST BE DEFEATED. There is no negotiation, it is much the same as in the movie "Independence Day" where our fictional President asks the alien creature what they want us to do. The answer is "DIE." There is no negotiating. The most we can ask of a religion is that they keep it in their own yards, and out of ours, if this is not so, they must DIE.

Similarly there is no negotiating with the FLDS. Behind all their fine words about protecting the children, the Marci Hamiltons, the Governor Perrys of the world, the Flora Jessops, the Barbara Walthers all know exactly what they're trying to do. They are trying to defeat a religion. It's a religious war. To their credit they at least know how to fight it, wipe them out.

But they failed. On and on and on they go about child abuse, about how impossible it is to defeat the idea that a woman's salvation is dependent on being a wife, and on top of that, a polygynous wife. They're right. They can't defeat the FLDS faith unless they strike at it's very core beliefs, causing it to become something else or causing it to go away.

So we as a country have a decision to make. If a group wishes to teach that polygyny is a core religious value, what are we to do? The group I described above has an answer, it is "get rid of them, no quarter." What should our answer be? Do we REALLY wish to wipe out a religion with all that entails?

I submit to you that the answer is no. Not only will we not succeed, but we will endanger the practice of our own beliefs. As mentioned before my beliefs, if examined by the outside world contain some noxious ideas. How does the world accept my idea, shared by many in the Reformed world of Christianity that those who are saved were chosen from before the foundations of time, having done NOTHING whatsoever to merit that salvation? That even the CHOICE they make is scribed in stone. The time of it, the place of it, the very words that fall from our mouths confessing Christ, all authored by God Almighty beforehand. On the other hand, you, if you are lost, have had that deadness, that lack of faith, all authored inflexibly from before the foundations of time.

Other "horrible" ideas that I hold that would be considered "abusive" by Marci Hamilton and her ilk. Homosexuality is wrong. I would cease to speak to a child of mine if found homosexual. I would, if King, wipe them from the face of the land. Homosexuality is an abomination. I have no tolerance of it in the body of believers. Now, before you run off shrieking you need to know that I am not King, do not expect to be made King and thus have utterly no interest in meddling in the affairs of homosexuals. They may do as they like. This is not a theocracy or a theonomy, it is a secular state and if God appoints for us rulers that are tollerant of homosexuality, so be it. But what implications does that have for me and my relationship as a religious person with the state?

Already Canada is attacking pastors for preaching from the pulpit that homosexuality is something God hates. It's "Hate Speech." We'll be sued for expelling them from congregations. We'll be imprisoned for "inspiring" acts of hatred and lawlessness towards homosexuals just as Warren Jeffs was for telling Elissa Wall or his own daughter that her salvation lay in marriage and the production of children. We'll be accomplices to murder because one day a man will be found among us who hears a sermon against homosexuality and goes and kills a homosexual, or an anti abortionist goes and kills a Doctor because he heard a sermon that was pro life.

Thus even if monogamy only advocates we must be on the side of the FLDS. They believe what they believe, and we must realize that we allow them to do that, and practice their beliefs however strange they may seem to us, or we must establish a state religion, and all the bloody war that goes with it. We must live with them, and let them live, or they MUST DIE. There is no middle ground. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Elissa Wall's 30 pieces of silver.

Having scattered the flock and done their best to destroy the FLDS, the state has what it wants. What does Elissa get? Any and everything she can have her lawyers find that the state helped procure. Isn't it ODD that her sister was right at Sheriff Doran's ear urging him to enter YFZ?

The Deseret News - "Lawyers for a former child bride who testified against FLDS leader Warren Jeffs want to keep the United Effort Plan Trust on the hook for any potential damages arising from her multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit against the polygamous sect. In a motion opposing the UEP Trust's request for summary judgment, attorneys for Elissa Wall argue the UEP was intertwined with the FLDS Church and leadership."

Elissa's attorneys are even trying to pry their way into attorney client priveleged communcations. They want it all.

"The law firm has objected to the subpoenas.

'Our position is that our communications with the previous trustees are privileged,' said Rod Parker, an attorney with Snow Christensen and Martineau who is voluntarily acting as a spokesman for the FLDS people. 'As a law firm, those privileges are not ours to waive.'"

This is why I keep breathing the word conspiracy. The state hates the FLDS and wants it gone, they conspire with and use people like Elissa who in turn uses them. Everything is neatly timed to promote her book, she becomes wealthy, Flora gets her revenge, the state gets rid of pests and panders to it's monogamy only constituancy pretending they have prosecuted polygamy when they have done anything but.

Who's goals are being served and met? Follow that trail and see if it intersects with people like Rozita.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why aren't you after gays?

Why isn't there a Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual crimes task force? Why not raid the set of "Two and a half men?" Frankly, I love the show but it has regular references to "hot girl on girl action" and "three ways." There has been a minor on the set playing the character of "Jake" now for five years. There are gay crimes, is there no gay crime related summit planned?

The Deseret News - LAS VEGAS — "The top law enforcement authorities from Utah, Arizona, Nevada and Texas gathered in a closed-door summit here, mapping out a cooperative plan to go after crimes within polygamous sects."

If in fact it is not wrong to be Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender and if it is OK for such persons to adopt when their lifestyle precludes reproduction, why is it wrong for to be polygynous? Again the answer keeps coming back to pedophilia and children's rights. Religiously inspired polygyny for Christianity and offshoots of Christianity, such as Latter Day Saints has a lot to do with taking the Bible seriously. I have shown in writings elsewhere that King Josiah was sexually active at the tender age of about 13 or 14. It's ridiculous to suggest that his brides were older women. If you did however, then they would be the pedophiles and Josiah their victim.

Scripture also teaches betrothal, a practice of early marriage and later consummation through sex. The fact that the example of Joseph and Mary, parents to the Christ child were in such a tight relationship that divorce would have been necessary to break it belies the notion that betrothal was the equivalent of contemporary engagement. Hebrews had a notion of what it meant to be "too young" but it mostly had to do with sexual maturity.

So in this nation of religious freedom, when a man or woman picks up the Bible, listens to the Apostle Paul and takes; "All scripture" as "given by inspiration of God" and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," they must then have the option to take such things to heart. We are after all, a nation of Religious Freedom, aren't we?

Instead we have an attempt to modernize that ends up with a small portion of our population being chaste because we have increasingly prudish bans on sexual behavior before a certain age. Texas has laws after all, introduced by Harvey Hilderbran that are specifically designed to destroy polygyny NOT by outlawing promiscuity, but by outlawing specific age differentials in sex. You can as I have said, bed the whole cheerleading squad if you're the quarterback of the team, but you can't touch one of them and commit to them for life, if you're a married coach.

So no, polygynists don't commit crimes in any special sense, but because again, they are unable to legally sanction their relationships, not unlike registering a car, they can be targeted by groups like these four Attorneys General. In the meantime we now have a definition of sex education that amounts to "have sex as often as you like with your classmates," and if it doesn't destroy your life completely, you can live a life of regret, as an adult. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The CPS Appeal is NOT an appeal.

I came across this analysis of the appeal in the San Angelo Standard-Times;

"The CPS request, not technically an appeal of the Third Court's ruling, says the three justices overstepped their bounds by ordering 51st District Judge Barbara Walther to vacate her mid-April order granting temporary custody of some 450 sect children. The request argued that returning the children at this point would be problematic because DNA testing has not determined which children belong to which parents."

So all of that mumbo jumbo about the danger to the children and the bad environment that seemed to us to be a mere repetition of their case, and weak, was for window dressing. It's not even an appeal, it's a statement that the court who made the ruling has no business making such a ruling.

Face it folks, that may very well be true. I am not a lawyer, much less a Texas lawyer involved in process matters before their courts. This, if handled on the merits, is going to be over quickly. Provided of course that the analysis provided here by staff of the Standard-Times is correct. The scheduling of the case before "SCOTEX" is right here.

The Austin American-Statesman has this information;

"The high court did not act on the emergency petition Friday but ordered records from the 3rd Court of Appeals, an indication justices could be planning to work on the matter over the Memorial Day weekend."

So the answer could come very quickly.

"If justices deny the request to delay family reunions, (Amy) Warr said, the 3rd Court ruling would be effective and Walther would be required to return the 130 children to their parents."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bookmark these blogs, watch, read, and learn.

The Texas Appellate Law Blog, the ABA Journal, and the Supreme Court of Texas blog. More →

Sphere: Related Content