Spin, Spin, Spin goes the Media

It really doesn't matter which side of the Warren Jeffs/FLDS oppressed, Warren Jeffs/FLDS foundationally evil you fall on, this is classic spin.

Without linking to, or providing a copy of the actual order, Jim Seckler and the Mohave Daily News spins the coverage marvelously, portraying a complete and utter defeat for Rebecca Musser and Texas as only marginally positive for Warren and his attorney Michael Piccarreta.

"(Steven) Conn granted Piccarreta's motion Wednesday to formally interview Musser. The judge did not address a request for the county attorney's office to pay for Piccarreta's expenses to travel to Texas if the deposition is held in that state."

The judge's language from the bench was indeed grumpy. He reserved a little backhanded slap for both sides, dismissing any idea that he was interested in the back and forth and then jumping with both feet on the notion that anyone could ignore his previous order for Rebecca to be deposed without formal request. Having eschewed such formal request to his order, the judge then becomes as mightily grouchy as you can get from the bench and still maintain the Court's decorum. At this point, Judge Conn embodies the Court, and he is offended. In other words, Judge Conn doesn't care about this at all:

"Musser was to have been deposed in April but according to prosecutors, Musser who lives in Idaho, had back surgery."

WHY did the court not address the issue of travel expense? Michael Piccarreta does not have to travel:

"The Court will not address in the defense counsel's Reply the request that the State be ordered to pay expenses to go to Texas to depose Ms. Musser because the deposition will take place at a time and place of (Michael Piccarreta's) choosing."

The Court does not care if Ms. Musser had back surgery. The Court also does not care to pay travel expenses because essentially the Court stated that Rebecca would have to come to Michael Piccarreta's office, if that is the venue that Michael Piccarreta chooses. Michael also gets to pick the time. If Rebecca doesn't like that and Texas doesn't like that, oh well. Of course if you read the Mohave Daily News article, you'd think he was bound to go where it was that Rebecca wanted him to go.

To expedite things there may be another compromise on venue and who is present. There's the whole issue of Jurisdiction, but the Court in no way approved of Rebecca's bad behavior, and insofar as it was possible for the Court, they made that clear. Rebecca had better not travel into Judge Conn's jurisdiction, without complying with the Court's order.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Ellen Goodman shows MSM blindness

Ellen Goodman proves that she writes first, and asks questions later, perhaps never. This is what those of us who stand by the FLDS in their fight against tyranny have to put up with. From the Boston Globe by way of the Houston Chronicle.

"In the world of the FLDS, 'spiritual marriage' between older men and underage girls — what the law defines as rape — is given the stamp of religious approval. Of 53 girls believed to be between 14 and 17, more than 30 have children or are pregnant, including one who gave birth to her second child in custody. Among the boys, too, there is suspicion of widespread physical abuse."

The abuse of boys? Texas seems to have dropped that altogether, we will see. Ellen concludes;

"But in the end, what we have on that ranch in Eldorado is not a lifestyle. It's a pedophile ring. If we cannot rescue children from that, we've already destroyed their village."

While something may come out in the individual custody hearings starting tomorrow, Texas has done what we in the sales business call "ranging." If you say you have twenty nine 17 year old girls and one 14 year old and you at other times say you have thirty 14-17 year old girls, you have said the same thing in both cases. In the latter case though, you have neglected to mention you have no 16 year old girls and only one 14 year old. You have not discovered a pedophile ring when you have discovered one 14 year old girl that had been pregnant if in fact she has been. We only know now that the state of Texas says they have 14 year old girls that have been pregnant but the have lied before, or at best dissembled. Frankly if one 14 year old turns out to have been pregnant out of the whole population of FLDS children, that would be unremarkable. Wrong? Probably. Hypocritical in view of their values? Probably. Preventable? No. No group or society I know of is successful in preventing such things from happening.

In addition Ellen just has her facts wrong and I think she dissembles. Over 30 out of 53. The number is 31 Ellen, and you're guilty of inflating it making it appear as if it could be as high as 39. In addition, at the time this column was printed, the number was UNDER 30, namely it was 29 since two of the girls had been ceded by this time as being "of age." One girl that gave birth was 18, the other in her twenties. Those Ellen, are women.

The state of Texas has still not told us how many 14 year olds they have, or even if it's really that they have girls that they think were 14 when they gave birth but are 17 now. If there are any 14 year olds that HAVE been pregnant, that is significant, but still not a crime even if that pregnancy occured in Texas. Read through the blog, you will find Texas even MARRIES women legally that are 14. It would be a crime if her partner had her in Texas, was not married to her and was more than 3 years her senior. If as I now suspect, that Texas may be padding their "14" year old numbers with "women that they think were 14 when they had their first child" that's even more irrelevant. For good or bad that places the pregnancy maybe three or more years ago and the law was different then. The bottom line is that Texas needs to tell us they have X number of 14 year olds (now) that had been pregnant in the past. Y number of 15 year olds, same conditions, Z number of 16 year olds and however many 17 year olds. They have not done that yet.

If the past is any indication (the state of Texas has been shown to not pay attention to it's OWN acknowledgment of age) a good percentage of the remaining twenty nine "14-17" year olds may prove to be of age and we may have some 17 year olds that have been pregnant. Three years ago if she had sex and got pregnant in Utah and then moved to YFZ, there is no crime. For there to be one she would have to allege rape, something no one has come forward to do.

The fact is it seems the FLDS has been "cleaning up it's act," not in response to a wrong done, but in response to a law changed to make what was legal into a felony. Let's be frank about this. A 14 year old could have given herself willingly to a man 3 years ago and they started what the law would regard as a consensual relationship. Harvey's law comes along mid relationship and says it's illegal, a crime in fact punishable by life in prison. Unless though Texas proves that intercourse between the two occurred IN TEXAS, AFTER the law was passed that WASN'T a marriage as far as Texas was concerned, they have nothing.

I could go on and on. This though is what we are up against. A good percentage of the country is being misinformed in specific ways by the willing accomplices of the MSM. A lie indeed, travels around the world before the truth can tie it's shoes. More →

Sphere: Related Content