No new tricks up Michael Emack's sleave, he goes No Contest

Michael Emack pled "nolo contendere" but preserved his right to appeal, answering a question on my mind:

The San Angelo Standard-Times - Judge Barbara Walther of the 51st District Court asked (Michael) Emack if he understood what the plea allowed him to do.

'I believe it helps me maintain my dignity,' Emack said.

He also said he understood that it allowed him to appeal. The court recognized that Emack reserves the right to appeal only in certain cases.

One case regards the lawfulness of search warrants that law enforcement personnel used to raid the Yearning for Zion Ranch outside Eldorado in April 2008 on the basis of what later turned out to be a hoax call of a girl claiming she was abused inside the community."

I had wondered about this. If you plead "no contest" can you re-open the case if the evidence is disallowed later and the answer is "yes." Depending on how long those appeals take, Michael may be out about the same time they get processed through our legal system. It apparently took making a special stipulation to reserve that right for Mr. Emack who will get seven years.

He also gives up his "right to remain silent" among others which I don't know exactly how to take. The waiver stipulation worries me:

"(Judge Barbara) Walther had Emack agree to a 'waiver of stipulation of the evidence,' saying that the evidence was accurate and could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt."

I honestly don't know. Does this now constitute a form of testimony that can be used in other cases? Namely, that the evidence is "accurate?" Judge Walther is not a great jurist, but she is not a stupid woman either, and I'm sure the prosecution had influence on what it would accept from Mr. Emack. Greater legal minds than mine (there are quite a few) will chime in on this development and reveal what it means to it's fullest extent.

As always, it happens late on a Friday. For now it seems though, that Michael avoids the meat grinder trial, the publicity and the "perp walk." If the appeal goes badly, he won't spend too much more time behind bars than he would if it's successful.

This also means that in general, procedural issues with regard to appeal have been covered by the first two trials. There was no "grand stand" left to make at this trial, that wasn't made in the first two.

There is this fascinating tidbit as well:

"Emack has a pending bigamy case against him, and he said he intends to plead no contest to that as well for seven years to be served concurrently with his sexual assault sentence.

(Michael's) defense lawyer, Abilene attorney Randy Wilson, will reserve the right to appeal that bigamy case, stating that Emack intends to be a part of a joint motion of FLDS members that will challenge the constitutionality of Texas’ bigamy statutes."

Interesting. Plead out so that you can challenge the constitutionality of a bigamy law. My work may be done soon.

The constitutionality angle will burn the candle at one end, the evidence challenge at the other. Eventually, if the evidence challenge fails, but the constitutional angle does not, it will be argued that Texas married young women right up to the point of the raid, that were of similar and younger age than the informal brides of the FLDS. I suppose the argument would then be, "I wasn't asking to do anything wrong, I was just forbidden to do what was my right by the state of Texas." Texas can hardly argue it doesn't want young girls having sex, when it's marrying them off. All they can say is they don't want young girls having sex with older men who have another wife, and that will be an unconstitutional restriction.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooks Long and David Doran are issued Criminal Subpoenas

Along with Bill Loader and Allen Pashano.

They can be found at the Mohave County Site. They were issued by request of Michael Piccarreta and are for February 17th, 2010.

Allen Pashano is the Mohave County Sheriff. Bill Loader is a retired probation officer from Arizona.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Douglas County says no, "Charges against Rozita have not been dropped."

There is a revocation hearing set for January 27th, 2010.

Douglas County - "Charges against Ms. Swinton in Douglas County were not dropped and there is a pending Probation Revocation hearing set for January 27."

I have a tendency not to like David Foley, as he is on the "other side," but that's superficial. He grand stands a bit, but he hasn't been wrong yet. The money says whatever Douglas County does, will be inconsequential. You have to figure if they just let it slide, not giving Rozita any jail time, it becomes someone else's problem, namely, El Paso county. The time is set for 1:30 pm.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Marty Braemer "Borrowed" Money from the Fort Plain Little League?

I now have corroboration.

The dispute is over whether or not he "Borrowed" the money, or just took it without permission. I stress that Marty could offer a convincing denial. The best way to be convincing of course, is that you didn't do it, and Marty may not have.

Allegedly from one side of the story, Marty is supposed to have said he did not think "borrowing without permission" was "embezzling."

The other side of the story suspects he had some form of permission. I have emailed Marty Braemer several times on the story, he will not comment.

The original tip of the iceberg appeared in "Upstream." Dan Weaver should get the credit.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I'm just sayin' (UPDATED)

This may seem like an odd topic for me to comment on, but it's not.

Upstream reports:

"(S)omeone absconded with money from the Fort Plain Little League during 2009."

At this point, I have to warn two things. It's a rumor that the money is missing, but it's a fairly official and reliable rumor that I don't have first hand.

The other thing? I've pinged two people in a position to know, one of them being the "prime suspect," and they haven't answered.

The Fighting Fundamental Forums have speculated on who they think it is. I caution, this is by no means certain. I'd say there's at least a 50% chance it's someone else, but their candidate is one of the people I pinged, and he's a past president of the Fort Plain Little League. He might at least be in a position to know something.

UPDATE: Former Pastor of Fords Bush and Fort Plain Little League Former President Marty Braemer is the suspect.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Confronting the Church on Marriage, Part V

The following is cross posted at "Vermont Polygamy." When we last left off, I promised to take up this discussion, interacting with Hebrew Language professor Stewart "Woody" Lauer on the topic of "Elder Monogamy," and his surprise admission. That was last year, then several stories I had been following blew up, and dominated my time.

Sorry about that, it is hard for me at least, to maintain burning intensity of interest on several fronts at once, I don't know about you, but that's me.

I had written the following for public consumption about 6 years ago, and had sent it to the session of my church in April of last year, who then sent it along to Dr. Lauer. It is the argument based on the supposed argument that Elders are to be monogamous. It's a sort of "AHA!!" contention that is offered to polygyny proponents by monogamy only proponents. I lay aside the contention of some that the Greek word "mia" is mistranslated for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that calls our translations into so much disrepute that we would have to all go learn Greek and Hebrew to continue the discussion. I'll accept, at least for the sake of discussion with the OPC, Dr. Lauer, and the COPC session that it means "Husband of One Wife."

"Elders are to be husbands of one wife" Again, "dicto simpliciter." This is a condition of office, not a rant against polygyny. Again, take a deep breath. The argument using this verse employs the notion that it is an ideal to be striven for. Credible, until you realize you've just said women are sub creatures. Besides it's virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church. Otherwise why say anything about it?

Remember this is a talking point, designed to get the conversation going. There is a great deal more to talk about on the polygyny side of the argument, and perhaps we will get to those other points. The most significant contention I make here, is conceded outright:

Dr. Lauer - "I agree with the last two sentences, above."

I've highlighted what he agrees with. First some housekeeping. I hadn't noticed in 6 years that I said something incredibly silly that NO ONE has ever picked up on. "Polygynous couples?" That should be families, not couples but the concept of the adult component of family being a "couple" is so deeply embedded in our culture, that I said it, repeated it, didn't pick up on it, and no one did for all that period of time where I have used that form of the argument as a "foot in the door" when discussing polygyny.

Dr. Lauer concedes without a fight that one of the major contentions of many "monogamy only proponents," that "polygyny is not mentioned in the New Testament and not present in the early church" is completely false. They were there, that's it, and from my point of view at least, the practice was so unremarkable that it's only mentioned in passing. Indeed, if you were to ask of a Disciple why they never mention polygyny as part of a claim they didn't, because they were downgrading the practice, you'd get a really weird look, like "we didn't mentioned beards either, dummy."

All of what I am doing here, has now come to light in my church over the issue of membership. After months of stonewalling me on membership, I went to the congregation and said "they won't let me join" and the church responded with an email in which they said the following:

"(Our refusal to allow Hugh to join) involves (him) both believing and publicly advocating, especially via the internet, a position that that is so seriously sinful that no church throughout all of Christendom accepts it."

Which makes you wonder if they even read the response they contracted with Dr. Lauer, to write.

The position was "so seriously sinful" that Paul, the apostle, whose writings are the ones on which we base doctrine and church governance, didn't think it was even important enough, to mention. He doesn't mention it in the face of SPEAKING to congregations in which he looks out over the church, identifies and sees (and knows) men who are in church, with several of their wives in tow.

In the past a friend (now deceased), of mine and I had remarked to one another, if we ever got past the first rung of church elders, and reached the "intelligentsia" round, very quickly many of the arguments routinely raised and fervently held to, would be dropped. That drop was audible. Dr. Don Dean and I have had discussions with prominent theologians who admit in one way or another, privately, that our arguments are not unsound, they just won't sell in the church. In Dr. Lauer's response through the session of COPC a number of such concessions occur. This is one of them.

It is in fact powerfully convincing that polygyny is an acceptable practice when it's going on right in front of Jesus, his disciples and the growing church in the New Faith. It's going on, and the disciples and apostles say NOTHING whatsoever about it except that Paul seems to be saying "If you have a polygynous man in church, don't make him an elder."

Woody goes on to say that it indicates disfavor, but that is frankly impossible. Again now the first part of my contention comes back into play.

Dr. Lauer - "(I)t is clear that the apostles (representing Jesus officially; 1 Cor 14:36) viewed it with disfavor, disqualifying the man from office. This official, negative attitude toward the practice on the part of the Lord’s apostles cannot be dismissed so lightly."

There are some, who employ the phrase "it is clear" because it is precisely the opposite, it's not clear.

Dr. Lauer is easily refuted. If those disqualified from the office of Elder are viewed with "disfavor," then he is saying women are viewed with disfavor. (Elders as husbands unpacked, means among other things, elders are to be men.) Any other man that qualifies for office on marital status can be disqualified also because they are not "apt to teach." Paul himself says that teaching is a gift:

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" - 1st Corinthians 12:29 (ESV)

This is extremely simple logic. Some of the qualfiers for office of Elder in the church have to do with morals, and indeed, on the face of it, it could very well be that being polygynous is being morally compromised, or at least "morally not quite the best thing." Elders are not to be drunks for instance, but Paul mixes up his list naming things that are merely things Elders should and should not be, but otherwise acceptable, and things that no one should be, particularly elders. A man not gifted by God to teach is not to be an Elder. A woman, no matter how she is gifted, is not to be an elder. Neither are viewed with disfavor, it does not logically follow that a polygynous man is viewed with disfavor. We know from other passages of scripture that drunkenness is a bad thing, there is no such corresponding scripture for a much married man.

Though the this post is short, and Woody's answer is short, it is what you do when you're trying to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Unless you change your position on the subject, you give it a short shrift and blow past it. This is what Woody does, but not before showing us a very important fact.

Polygyny is mentioned in the New Testament. It is NOT commented on, in that context, as a negative. The most important theologians in the church, Christ, and his immediate Apostles say nothing whatsoever about polygyny being wrong or substandard, even though polygyny is right in front of all them, among the believers. The most that seems to be said is; "Don't make them, and women, and people who can't teach, Elders."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Douglas County Drops charges against Rozita

I don't know how you can "drop" a charge that a person has already plead guilty to, but according to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Rozita isn't going to face the music in Castle Rock:

The Gazette - "As part of the plea, authorities in Douglas County have also agreed to drop charges stemming from a similar false reporting incident in 2005, (DDA Frederick Stein) said."

Mr. Stein also characterized the verdict as "fair." What's he going to do, say he was taken out back, had his arm ripped off and he was beaten nearly to death with it? It's one of those "Too Heavy, Too Light" questions.

There are a number of errors in the article, not the least of which is Rozita's age (she's 35 now) and her middle name is misspelled. She snuck in through a side entrance after El Paso county lied and stated her case had been "called off" that day.

"Swinton was barely audible in the courtroom as she said a few words during the 30-minute hearing to indicate that she knew she was waiving her right to a trial."

Her attorney had the audacity to suggest that she did a good thing:

" 'I believe the phone call in Texas resulted in the prosecution of some people who were sexually assaulting young women,' Foley said. 'If anyone felt that Ms. Swinton was involved in that, that’s a good thing.' "

He's portraying his client as a heroine, and daring anyone to sentence her to anything, and perhaps reminding Texas that he may know something.

I was apparently wrong about her employment status, though she has hobnobbed about the country a bit over the last year and a half, she still works it would seem, for State Farm Insurance.

"Foley said the case took longer than most misdemeanor cases because of his client’s medical issues. She was evaluated by doctors in advance of the plea and prosecutors had their own experts review those reports.

Foley described his client as 'a real sweetheart' who has held a job with an insurance company for the last 10 years. He said she declined comment on the case."

And she is to stay in Colorado:

"(Rozita) is not allowed to leave Colorado without the court’s permission."

An attempted murder, that's one way of looking at it, attempted murders actually, over about 500-600 people at YFZ, had it ended similarly to Waco. A real sweetheart alright.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jerry Strickland says David Foley is full of Smoke (and YES, Rozita will serve NO time)

We're not finished with the investigation, says the Texas Attorney General's office:

"Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Texas Attorney General, told the Houston Chronicle today that the state's inquiry 'into Rozita Swinton and other aspects of this case is ongoing.'

Swinton, of Colorado Springs, was considered a 'person of interest' in connection with calls to a hot line alleging abuse at the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch in West Texas."

Oh, I believe David Foley, as he has not lied to me yet. How long does it take, JERRY? It's been almost TWO YEARS.

This interesting little tidbit is also included:

"Swinton was also sentenced to 45 days in jail but given credit for time served, so she faces no further jail time."

She didn't show for trial, Foley entered her plea (apparently) and she won't be showing up in jail.

The Salt Lake Tribune added this detail:

"The judge also limited her to one landline telephone and one cell phone and ordered her to give both numbers to the district attorney's office."

I wonder if she will continue to be able to use a computer, to access the internet? According to her "MySpace" pages, she was on yesterday.

Still unanswered? What happened to her deferred sentencing arrangement in Douglas County for her 2007 conviction of false reporting?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Dirty Deals Done Dirt Cheap - Rozita Swinton Pleads Guilty (UPDATE, will apparently serve no time)

The trial day shift was a technical matter, or a ruse, in any case, she has pled guilty. It also appears from the AP story on the subject, that everything is linked to Texas dropping any interest in charging Rozita:

Deputy District Attorney Frederick Stein, El Paso County Colorado - "Ms Swinton entered a guilty plea which was just completed 10 minutes ago. She plead guilty to a charge of false reporting to authorities and received a 2 year deferred sentence with several conditions."

This is also being reported by KRDO:

COLORADO SPRINGS - "35-year-old Rozita Swinton avoided trial by pleading guilty on a charge of false reporting (today).

Swinton made multiple fake calls to police in Colorado and Texas. She was accused of making a phone call to police in February of 2008, claiming she was a girl named Jennifer and was hurt and trapped in a basement. Police went door-to-door searching homes for hours, looking for the girl. The call turned out to be a hoax.

The judge deferred sentencing for 2 years, but he is still requiring her to serve 45 days in jail.

Police turned their focus to Swinton, when Texas Rangers traced a call to her, following the raid of a polygamist compound in April of 2009. In that case, a girl named Sarah told a social worker she was trying to escape the religious sect. Swinton has not been charged in that case."

I have contacted Douglas County to see how this affects her deferred sentencing agreement there. It may be that in delaying Rozita's trial as long as it has been delayed, that Douglas County no longer cares. I'm not sure how those sorts of things work, but hypothetically if her "deferred sentencing" in Douglas County stated "Don't Get Into Trouble" for 4 years, and those 4 years were up, she could then become convicted in El Paso County, and keep her Douglas County deferred sentencing agreement intact. The story errs in assigning the date of "April 2009" to the raid, which occurred in April of 2008.

It turns out that Rozita may not even go to jail, despite what it says above:

KKTV - The attorney for Rozita Swinton entered the plea on her behalf (this) morning to false reporting charges. In February 2008, Swinton started calling Colorado Springs police, telling them she was a 16-year-old girl trapped in a basement. The calls triggered a massive and frantic search in the northeast side of the city. Swinton allegedly also made calls to TESSA, a local group that helps domestic violence victims.

- Swinton was handed a 24-month deferred sentence. She received 45 days jail time but the judge gave her credit for time previously served in treatment.

Also it would seem that she did not even show up.

The Associated Press had this take on the story:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) -- "(David Foley), attorney for (Rozita Swinton) says Texas authorities don't believe she had any 'criminal involvement' in telephone calls that triggered a raid on a Texas polygamist group.

Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs was once considered a 'person of interest' in connection with calls to a hot line alleging abuse at the polygamist compound in Texas.

(According to her attorney), she won't face charges in that case. A spokesman for the Texas attorney general didn't immediately return a call.

In an unrelated case, Swinton pleaded guilty in Colorado Springs today to misdemeanor false reporting. The judge ordered her to get medical treatment but did not specify her condition."

It appears that we were just waiting for the Dirty Deal in Texas to be done.

What happens to the evidence that Texas took? Rozita's computer and cell phones?

I have been roundly ridiculed for connecting the cases, but it now seems that Texas has been talking to David Foley on Rozita's behalf. This is so dirty.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Coakley can't recognize Terrorism when it happens RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER.

Democrats. Hat tip to "Legal Insurrection."

A reporter in a country with an ostensibly "Free" press is pushed to the ground by one of Martha Coakley's thugs. Does she reprimand him? Of course not.

We will not be a free nation much longer if these sorts of Senators who don't think there are terrorists in Afghanistan are in charge.

I understand now. Martha can't recognize terrorism even if it happens right in front of her.

Heck, she can't even spell the name of the state for which she already holds elective office.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Called Off (UPDATED) Rescheduled for FRIDAY (the 15th and then back to today)

She plead guilty. no word on if it was just another delay, plea deal or outright dismissal.

Up until yesterday afternoon, El Paso county was saying the trial would be today at 9am MST (one hour from the time of this posting).
CallOffs for Wednesday January 13, 2010

CaseNumber	AppearanceDate	DefLastName	DefFirstName	Division
C021 2009M 007121	1/13/2010	Donovan	William	B
C021 2009M 007122	1/13/2010	Donovan	William	B
C021 2007T 014782	1/13/2010	Hill	Jeremy	B
C021 2009T 010055	1/13/2010	Hill	Jeremey	B
C021 2009M 005177	1/13/2010	Hill	Jermey	B
C021 2009M 005956	1/13/2010	Medina	Loretta	B
C021 2009M 003671	1/13/2010	Waller	Travis	B
C021 2008M 002726	1/13/2010	Swinton	Rozita	C

Sometime late yesterday or yesterday evening, the "Call off" appeared on the El Paso county "Call Off" list for January 13th. At the moment of this posting, that would be a "tomorrow" list, though that will change to "today" sometime later this morning.

You have to remember, she was caught, by the POLICE, RED HANDED. The documents in that trial, of this "friend of CSPD" were sealed then.

UPDATE - See above, she plead guilty. All blog reports were accurate representations of what was from the El Paso county website, and also confirmed by phone calls. It appears Frederick Stein and David Foley colluded a bit to throw off potential spectators and media coverage.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's a MIRACLE!! Rozita's "Pre Trial" conference actually TOOK PLACE, Trial Tomorrow

According to El Paso County, Rozita's court dates are now actually taking place.

Trial is set for tomorrow. A warning to anyone who is trying to attend that trial. The Judge is Daniel Scott Wilson, write that down. The courtroom is "Room C." I am told there is construction going on over there and they may move the trial to another room. If you're planning to attend, show early, ask questions, have the judge's name.

Representing the State (last time I checked) is Deputy District Attorney Frederick Stein. Representing Ms. Swinton, "Exclusively CRIMINAL" Defense attorney David Foley.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Too Funny, updated Bible Story

Found here.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Emack gives up on his Neighbors, no new trial for Raymond

The next FLDS trial, will be in San Angelo.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "In a pretrial hearing on Thursday, the prosecution, headed by attorney Eric Nichols, and the defense, led by Abilene attorney Randy Wilson, agreed to the change of venue from Schleicher County. The prosecution had pushed for the change of venue for the previous trials of FLDS members Raymond Merril Jessop and Allan Eugene Keate, but the trials were held in Eldorado."

Whatever value the FLDS has assigned in the past to being at home, they've given up on now. I guess you have to figure 33 years is bad enough, and it can't get worse going to Tom Green county.

"Earlier in the morning, (Barbara) Walther denied a motion for a new trial for (Raymond) Jessop, who was convicted of child sexual assault in November. A defense attorney argued that the Schleicher County grand jury selection process was unfair to Jessop."

We do get a view though, of another appeal angle. Regardless of what was agreed to by the defense regarding the composition of the jury, they clearly took umbrage and now they're griping for the record. I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and legal outs of procedure, but this process has stunk up the place, it only works if you don't care how you "get 'em" but just want to "get 'em."

"Gerald Goldstein, who stood in for Mark Stevens as Jessop’s attorney, was displeased that Walther presided over the hearing because she was involved in the grand jury selection process.

'This should be heard by a different court,' Goldstein said at the beginning of the hearing."

Some FLDS arguments I am sure are exotic and far fetched. That is normal for a vigorous defense. I'm sure that attorneys have touched bases for all forms of appeal during the trial and will be trotting them out out one by one or in a bunch.

I don't think it's possible for trials to go so seamlessly for the prosecution when there were so many well known question marks about the raid in the first place. Walther makes a better driver, than she does a judge.

Nice that they got this out of the way, before Rozita's first appearance.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

If you were thinking of showing up at Rozita's pre-trial conference tomorrow, don't.

At the last minute it has been moved from 9am tomorrow:

Frederick Stein/El Paso County District Attorney's office - "The pre-trial readiness date has been moved to Jan 11th at 9:00 am at the request of the defense and the prosecution. The trial date on Jan 13th remains the same." 4:14 MST.

I really don't think they want anyone showing up. Who knows, maybe they'll move it back now, at the last second. It's not on the "Call off" list for El Paso county and wasn't the last time either.

Once again, there is every evidence to suggest this is the oldest misdemeanor case in El Paso County that is being actively pursued. This means it's also approaching the record for "most delayed" as well.

There's only one question in both instances really.

Why?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rozita's Pre Trial Conference on Wednesday

It's been nearly two years since Rozita Swinton was arrested while driving around Colorado Springs, faking distress, and being a little girl.

Her pre-trial conference for that misdemeanor is Wednesday. It has not been "called off/postponed."

History tells us it will be again, and that no prior notice of this "call off" will be given. I will have to chase the prosecuting attorney for the county again, until he reveals that fact to me, that is, if history is our guide.

I remind you, there was an active channel of communication between the FBI in Texas, and the Colorado Springs Police Department. Messages from an unnamed FBI agent in Texas were passed via email or cell phone to Agent Steve Smith, who then wrote them down on paper, gave them to a detached duty member of CSPD on his "Task Force," a Lt. Sean Mandel, who then took them into CSPD. I talked to these men, they acknowledged the existence of this back channel.

The unanswered questions are:

WHY was there this elaborate off the record back channel communcication set up?

Why was this back channel being used prior to Rozita's arrest?

What was the nature of the Task Force Lt. Sean Mandel of CSPD was detached to, from CSPD to the FBI?

There is also the matter of CSPD employment of Rozita, through Lt. Magdalena Santos (980D) who was head of the "Internet Sex Crimes" wing of the "Sex Crimes Unit" of CSPD.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Let it snow, let it snow let it STOP ALREADY!!

Global warming in Vermont, I love it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Morning, not in Church and my Christmas Present.

Just dripping with liberal silliness, but still, I just had the best cup of coffee I have EVER had in my life, so they get their say.

And yes, I like those murdering little monkeys too (chimps are dangerous).

For Christmas I hinted, and finally had to come out and say "I want THAT coffee grinder" to my wife. She hates coffee.

I got a pretty good "Mr. Coffee" IDS77 Coffee Bean Grinder, and used up most of my ground coffee in between now and then. So today, January 3rd, I got up and used my Christmas Present. On the last day of 2009, I went up to Green Mountain's home office, which is just up the street, bought my favorite grind (so far), a "Tanzanian Gombe Reserve, Medium Roast," but this time in whole bean form.

I brew with distilled water which all coffee experts say "never do." It turns out at least for these taste buds, that stronger coffee in a neutral medium tastes better. You can just keep dialing up the strength and all happens is your coffee headache comes on with the first two sips of your second cup. That's cool. One good cup is generally enough in the morning.

So, continuing on my research path of "Hugh's Favorite Cup of Coffee," I washed and assembled my IDS77 model grinder, and put the $17.00 wonder to work. I fine ground it, enough for a very strong 8 cups, poured in the water and let 'er rip.

Breakfast was poached eggs on microwave baked potato, fresh diced onions and Monterrey Jack cheddar in between tater and eggs with a medley fresh ground pepper.

Oh. Wow. What a cup of coffee. What's even better is I think I did it wrong, and can do it even better the next time.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The WCF is not the final word. Who says? The WCF!!

I have renewed my written insistence that the local body of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church admit me as a member in a letter sent via email today:

The OPC uses the American revision of the WCF, it would seem, since it is numbered in Arabic numerals, and chapter 25 deletes a reference to the pope being Antichrist.

"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

The original, and the revised version of the WCF Chapter 25, says this:

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will."

Thus per the WCF, there is error in the WCF, and by your allegiance to it, you say there is error in the OPC and in it's local representative, the Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Vermont.

I am, and have been appealing to this principle of WCF Chapter 25. For this to be faithfully adhered to there can be no artificial restriction on time or subject of discussion with regard to any article of the WCF. Granted, there are those articles that if rejected would cause a man to be no believer at all, but then their interest in the church should wane. For all other articles and chapters of the WCF, there must be the possibility of discussion. Marriage is not an issue central to salvation. If it was, King David burns in hell along with his wives as do most of the Kings of Israel and Judah. They reside there with the Lawgiver Moses and with the father of the prophet Samuel as well as Israel himself, and Abraham.

I wholeheartedly agree that if I am shown to be at variance with WCF, there is cause for discussion. Discussion I contend, has yet to take place. Carl and I spent most of our time in fellowship discussing other topics, and at the slightest pressing of the issue, which would have had to have been in a public place among unbelievers, he became reticent.

The session has met with me only once and only to gain an appraisal of my point of view. There is no record of conversation between the session and I, or any member of it, in a face to face setting with the express topic of marriage, monogamy and polygyny on the table.

The sessions only interactive response with any argument I have made is actually that of "Woody" Lauer. My reply to Woody in June of 2009 remains unanswered. Indeed, the session has corresponded with me since that time, most notably in July, but made no interaction with my responses to Woody, most notably my refutation, complete and utter, of his contention that Kings were directed to be monogamous and his appeal to the nuances of the Hebrew word "Rabah" and it's stem and aspect.

In the cases of the first use of "rabah" in verse 16 of Deuteronomy 17, the "stem" and "aspect" of the word are the same as in the case of it's use with wives in verse 17. It is the "Hiphil" stem and "imperfect" aspect. This renders the two constructions parallel. Furthermore, there are some other uses of the same stem and aspect that are worth looking into. Genesis 16:10:

"Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, 'I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.' "(NAS)

Or Genesis 17:2:

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."

Genesis 22:17:

"...I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Genesis 28:3:

"May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples."

This simply cannot be a word that is confined to the use "make more than one." As it is used, in the immediate context, and others, the Hebrew "rabah" in the Hiphil stem and imperfect aspect means "a bunch." It may mean "a really big bunch." It is in fact conceivable, by stretch of the imagination, that the 1000 consorts of Solomon were actually not too many. This is consistent with Nehemiah chiding him only for foreign wives.

If interpreted to mean "more than one wife" which is distinctly inconsistent with "rabah's" usage elsewhere by Moses in other books, the interpretation would have the effect of limiting a King to one horse. The sentence construction again, is parallel. Whatever is said about a wife, is also being said about a horse. If a King is not to have more than one wife, he is also being said to be forbidden to have more than one horse. If a King lives in a way that is instructive to the rest of the populace, then indeed we are to have only one wife, as the King would, and indeed, only one horse. This would make animal husbandry problematic, and getting horses a really big problem because in this same passage we are told that a King was not to go down to Egypt again, for the purposes of multiplying horses. Why not say "don't have horses at all?" which would be a far simpler instruction. This is only one example of well documented answers I gave to Woody's letter to the session, which was intended for me.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church also takes this position:

"Members are received into a local Orthodox Presbyterian congregation by the session on the basis of their credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While members are exposed to the Reformed faith from the pulpit, from the teaching ministry of the church, and from the sincere convictions of their elders and deacons, they are not required to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms as a standard for membership....

All church officers-ministers, ruling elders, and deacons-are required to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, and to approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Church."

This helps the church to be unified and all of one mind. Officers are, by the way, allowed to take exceptions to the Standards, within reason. This allowance somewhat distinguishes the Westminster Standards from the Scriptures (on which we are NOT allowed to take exception!).

http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=56

http://opc.org/whatis.html

To hold me to a standard the rest of the denomination does not share, and to hold me to that standard without discussion, both are sins. I renew my insistence that I be accepted as a member of COPC in Barre Vermont.

Hugh McBryde

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Failure of Church Discipline and the Failure of the Reformation

It occurs to me that the reformation is failing, because church discipline, isn't working.

In my chosen denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, it is viewed that "the church" in Christ's description of church disciplinary procedure is the leadership. In a Presbyterian church, conservative or liberal, that body is the session. Ok, let's go with that. First though, let's look at the text of Matthew 18:

"If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church (ἐκκλησία-ekklēsia): but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Greek word for church (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia), really doesn't lend itself to a leadership gathering but more towards the whole church. That's the first point. The second is this procedure does not lend itself to tight control over the congregation by the leadership. Anything decided in private can be appealed to the most public configuration of the church and it's leadership, if it is indeed meant as it would seem here, that when you lose the one on one, the two or three on one, you take it to everyone. Since the word can mean the ENTIRE Church, such as the "Church Universal," it can mean a decision can be appealed to the whole of a denomination. This can only be undertaken when individual bodies are responsible to one another, hence, in part I would think, Presbyterian governance, and why I prefer it.

Taking the narrow interpretation favored by church and denominational leadership, that "the church" Christ refers to in disciplinary matters, is THEM, the leadership, there is still this uncomfortable reality. What if the session, who is the church in this formulation is held by someone, either in the session, or being accused before the session, to be wrong. It could be the accused, the accuser, a minority member of the session. Let us go to 1st Timothy 5:

"Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

The problem would be, that you could conceive of the session as of a Presbyterian church as a constituted court, as described in 1st Corinthians 6, but when that court behaves badly, who is the judge? The court? In the case of session misbehavior, either by one or all of them, the only place for such judgment is the church, because in misbehaving, one would expect that most of the time, they would cover their own misbehavior. 1st Timothy 5 then becomes a "never use" procedure, which I constantly refer to as the "emergency stop" of the movie "Spaceballs." (If you ever saw it, you remember that the "emergency stop" was labeled with a tag that said "never use.")

So of necessity then, the court of last resort in the immediate area of the church, is the church body itself, at the very least, because the issue of Elder misconduct is the province of the church as a whole. The discipline of the Elder, is to be public, for the specific reason that it serves as a warning to all. The church will publicly deal with it's highest leaders, and punish them publicly which is a statement that no man's power exceeds the rules of the church. The rules of the church as both Christ and Paul laid them out.

It may be that "going before the church" is going before the session, but if the session is questioned, as it is in my recent encounter with them, the battle goes before the church. Herein is the problem, because the denomination (and most of them for that matter) teach THEY are the court of last resort, not the congregation, and the congregation, eager to be uninvolved in the matter, assent to that. In trying to take the issue to the congregation, the congregation viscerally rejects hearing the case, and becomes angry, and the session becomes indignant, and then starts massively bending rules, such as deciding in private, receiving anonymous accusations and then employing the sword of civil authority, to enforce their views. How can this be the public process of Matthew 18 where accusers go in person, the courts of 1st Corinthians 6, which are to be used instead of the shame of public ones and the center ring keel-hauling of the elders? It's not. But that's the way things have gone.

The result of this is moral failings are not aired out in public, which is consistent with "confessing your sins one to another" and doctrinal questions don't get dealt with. Doctrinal failing on the part of an individual is "heresy." The session Polices membership, assigns the name heresy to doctrine, the member cannot be a member, or is thrown out of membership in private tribunals, and there can be no questioning of doctrine. We get then Westminster Confessions of Faith thrown in our faces, and while the Bible is supposed to be the final word, the real final word is the WCF vision of what the Bible says, and it can never be questioned, or you sin, and you're thrown out and the congregation doesn't want to hear it.

Why then haven't we reformed anything lately (Semper Reformanda)? Because you can't get anything past the guard dogs of the denomination, and the denominations as a whole, would prefer to sleep. The snarling reaction of my congregation this week which essentially was "I don't want to be involved," proving why we, as conservative reformed people, are dying out. Some estimates are that there are less that 700,000 in the United States and some of the larger denominations in this country are actually comprised of ethnic Koreans, evangelized and convinced, who have moved to this country. That's about 10% of conservative reformed Presbyterian membership all by itself. We stay perpetually stuck in the confessional mode, swearing to authorities like the WCF. Functionally speaking though, if anything is wrong with the WCF or various other reformation era catechisms or confessions, there is no way to change them unless what we do is destroy our faith, as theologically liberal denominations have done.

None of what happened this week was really a surprise. The minor details of exact procedure and speed of action could be said to be mildly surprising. I knew for instance, that the church would "Go G" on me, I just didn't know exactly how. I was fully expecting to be served, at work, with a restraining order. It just worked out a little differently than that.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS wins a little battle in the UEP trust fight

They might win a big one after Monday. I had a "heads up" this was coming. It makes you wonder how people know.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "The order, signed by Justice Ronald E. Nehring, sets a deadline of Jan. 4 at 5 p.m. for responses to the petition filed by attorneys for members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The order also extends the trust's right to repurchase heifers sold from the Harker Farm in Beryl, part of the United Effort Plan Trust, until a ruling is made on the petition. That sale was to be final on Dec. 31.

In a petition filed Monday, the sect asked for a stay of all proceedings and orders in the trust case and requested a schedule be set to hear claims that members' religious rights have been violated in the court-sanctioned reformation and management of the trust."

Anti FLDS forces seem to be losing their grip on the process which is being transparently manipulated by judges that of course, are supposed to be impartial, but aren't.

But we'll see after Monday, the deadline for response to the FLDS request.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Iran heats up again, and again, and again...

I haven't touched on the subject, mostly because hand wringing over something I cannot do anything about, is not my style. Here you see police literally getting kicked by protesters and on the run in front of them. That's a clear sign people are willing to die in large numbers to get what they want:

FoxNews - "The report said 10 people killed during Sunday's fierce clashes in the Iranian capital were members of 'anti-revolutionary terrorist' groups, apparently referring to opposition supporters.

The other five who died were killed by 'terrorist groups' in a 'suspicious act,' the report said, without elaborating.

Iranian security forces stormed a series of opposition offices on Monday, rounding up at least seven prominent anti-government activists in a new crackdown against the country's reformist movement, opposition Web sites and activists reported."

In addition to being something I mostly can't do anything about, it's half way around the world. But it's getting ugly over there again. We need to be aware of it. We need to pray that God's light shines in through all of this destruction.

Whatever comes out of a potential revolution, it probably won't be a "pro western" government, but it might not be a western "scape goating" government either, which would be better. It stands the good possibility of also being better for the people of Iran. Let's hope, but more than that, let's pray.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I get the boot (UPDATED) & miss Church for the first time

I have been forbidden, to enter my church or come to it's grounds:

"Dear Hugh,

We, the elders of Covenant OPC, are agreed that we must ask you not to attend any worship services, classes, or any other church events, or go onto the church property, effective immediately, and until further notice.

These are our reasons: 1. Your words posted on your blog on 12/23/09, 'It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then,' have been understood as extremely threatening to some in the church, and they have caused real fear in their hearts. In reading your words in context, the session does not understand them as an intent of physical violence; however, they are so incredibly inflammatory that it has raised even more serious concerns about you. You sound like a very angry man. We have a responsibility to protect the well-being of the flock, and we will take whatever actions are necessary to do that. 2. Our boundary with you has been that you do not talk with church people about your views about polygamy. By sending your email to the church list, in violation of presbyterian government, you effectively (if perhaps unintentionally) violated that boundary by virtually insuring that more church people would search and find your blog. 3. Our reason for having welcomed you to attend services was that you might grow under the preaching of the Word under the oversight of church leadership. Your words and actions indicate that you have rejected that oversight. That being the case, we have even greater concern about your stated agenda to spread your false teaching, and we must do whatever we can to protect our brothers and sisters from it.

Hugh, we hope and pray that this will not be a permanent requirement, but that you will repent of your errors and publicly repudiate them. As a first step we would like to have from you in writing immediately an explanation of the words from your blog quoted above. Second, if that explanation is satisfactory to us, we would be willing to meet with you at our regularly scheduled session meeting on January 11, 2010, to discuss our decision with you, to pray for you, and review your status. Please let us know if you would like to meet with us then. Again, though, we insist that you do not attend any COPC functions before that time.

Sincerely,

Pastor Carl Durham, Mike Breen, Chris Liff, and Andy Selle

The Session of Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church"

Let me explain the excerpt then:

"Your words posted on your blog on 12/23/09, 'It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then,' have been understood as extremely threatening to some in the church, and they have caused real fear in their hearts."

"Spill(ing) into the aisles of my church," means only that the discussion, would move to that physical location. I can't control others, I don't know what will happen when the discussion is public and at church. Only in my wildest imaginations would I ever think that it would become threatening to anyone. I am not, a violent man. I would not come to church armed in any way. I am not skilled in the martial arts, nothing would happen at my initiation. Any encounter would have to be initiated by another person. All responses on my part would be verbal.

The session ignores the rest of the post in which I condemn John Brown, who took matters moral into his own hands, violently. The session ignores my condemnation of the "Freemen." The session is in fact ignoring my absence from the Thursday Night Christmas Eve service. I thought I would give a chance to cooler heads, to prevail. While saying that in context they didn't see it as implying violence, but turning around and saying that I am an angry man, I don't think the session is being truthful.

In addition, the visits to my blog, which have now started by the congregation, did not start until A.) The session ignored me, again. B.) The session emailed everyone and told them essentially, where to look. In fact NO one in Vermont, from the church, visited my blogs until AFTER the session told them the INTERNET was the best place to look to discover the source of the controversy. (Elder Michael Breen acknowledged this to be a fact.) Additionally, the session through Andrew Selle, fully knowing my intent to send the letter out TWO DAYS in advance of sending that letter, only plead that it was "Christmas Time" in an effort to stop me, and offered more delays. Had this been against Church Law so to speak, then it was really an appropriate time to tell me that, but it was not said:

Dr. Andrew Selle - "It is a time when we invite those outside the Kingdom to taste the joys of knowing Christ. Do you not see that such a communication at this time would bring discouragement to the Body? and in so doing would undermine our evangelistic efforts? In the end, I'm not afraid for the church, yet I care for these concerns mentioned above, and I hope you will, too. At the least, I hope you will see reason and let this sit until the new year."

I have reviewed all communications with the session prior to my sending out the letter via email. No one warned me that it was a grave violation, only the pleading that I be nice at Christmas time. Not once has my inquiry about the topic coming up in session as Pastor Durham seemed to promise been answered. The session is covering up their neglect, and by doing so, making it worse.

UPDATE - One of the elders sent the following:

"I am writing on behalf of the Session of COPC.

While we find your answers to our email somewhat reassuring, we must repeat our request that you not attend any activity at Covenant Church until this matter can be satisfactorily resolved. We have several members who have indicated that they don't want to come if you are there. We believe our request of you is necessary for the peace of the church, and that worship may not be hindered.

Would you please confirm, at the earliest possible time, your intention to comply with our request not to attend Covenant Chruch [SIC] tomorrow. Thank you."

I then got a call from another elder whose talent seems to be experience with "Exit Interviews."

I've no sympathy with either in the current narrow context. I have heard from neither prior to this evening and it seems as if they are rotating from "unsuccessful" people in the interpersonal arena, to other ones in the hope that they'll match up better.

I've no respect for the request of nameless brothers or sister in Christ that won't come to church for fear that this post represents a threat of violence of some sort. I suggest if they are still reading at this late an hour, that they call the elders and withdraw their complaint. No such threat of violence exists.

In my conversation on the phone I was not kind. I would have to characterize my dealing with that elder as angry, something at this point, that I do not regret. I was lied to. It has been held up to me that continued exposure to the teaching and preaching at COPC would cause me to see the error of my ways. The elder calling me expressed that they thought there was "no hope" of changing my mind and thus no reason to meet with me and discuss it.

"Which is it" I wanted to know? Was I being placated with language of the faint hope of discussion or was I intractable and unable to change? Either view made the other offering a lie.

I asked WHAT argument was offered to me that was in the view of this elder, convincing. He could give me none.

I offered the two arguments extended by seminarian Stewart Lauer, and pointed to the fact that the word on which "Woody" (Stewart) hung his argument in fact meant quite a different thing, offered to prove it by examination, and this elder refused to look. He also would not discuss what it meant for a reformed seminarian to declare that Christ quoted scripture from the Old Testament, and then chose to change those words meanings and appealed to a sort of progressive revelation where God "Finds" meanings that didn't exist before.

His conclusion was that we weren't going to debate it. (From a how to fire advice article)

US News - "Don't enter into a debate. Your decision is final, and while you hope the employee understands it, the time for back-and-forth is over. Let the employee know your decision and then cover logistics, like returning keys and other property, the final paycheck, COBRA, etc.

Sound familiar?

How do you convince someone when you refuse to debate? How do you hold them responsible for correct teaching if you won't explain it? He also did not want to know that Luther or Augustine agreed with me. It seemed to make no difference that the father of the Reformation would not be welcomed as a member.

POST SCRIPT (December 27th) Not that faithfulness is measured by church attendance, or even that I would suggest genuine belief is signified by it either, but I had not missed church all year. That occurs to me as I am sitting here at home this morning, and not in church on the very last Sunday of 2009.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

New Year Revolution

The focus of this blog, will be shifting slightly. Really, what more is there to say on the FLDS/YFZ matter? Nothing I can predict. The CSPD connection to the FBI and the call and the caller awaits press interest. To them, it is "timely" or "topical" and as every delay occurs in what might be the oldest misdemeanor case (still being actively pursued) in El Paso County Colorado, they do get MORE interested. It would seem to our "news hounds" (who like sleeping on the porch) that this degree of delay is, interesting. Once more a reporter has feigned some interest in why a woman who is charged with one of the most minor misdemeanors has an attorney who has successfully delayed the charges against her from 2008 to 2010. How do you plea bargain nearly nothing to anything but nothing? But they're going to wait until it happens.

The shift will be towards legalization, and to that end, I may fold up and throw away the "Vermont Polygamy" blog, and merge it into this one. Two major story lines were a bit much to ask of one blog, but now it seems I have only one major story line, and it isn't our friends in the American Southwest. Does this mean I am abandoning them? No. But there's not much to tell really.

The FLDS trial story goes like this: They did it. DNA proves it. Americans are afraid of/hate polygamists as it strikes at the core of their egalitarian ideal. They want it to be about abuse, sexual deviancy, repression and perversion. They want it mostly to be "icky." So the state of Texas proves paternity with DNA, ogles mutually with the jury the age difference, the inequity and the excess they perceive in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint practice of polygamy, they leer at young bodies pawed over by older men, and the larger the age difference, the longer the sentence. The trial and the sentencing are supposed to be about legal pedophilia which is really statutory rape, but they turn into disaffected former member rants about religion and female/male roles and polygamy. The horrified voyeuristic jury goes out to deliberate, and wishes only they had the option to kill the defendants. It's not going to change, it isn't going to get any better.

For their part, the FLDS seem to be running up trial balloons of potential defenses and lining the court record with book marks to be used later in appeal. I feel bad for every FLDS male caught up in this mess. A failure to reverse the verdicts on appeal will result in Allan Keate dying in jail. Your Modern Pharisee loathes prisons, and has a Biblical reason for that loathing. In my experience, prison is an ungodly punishment (never being ordered by the scriptures), it is dehumanizing to guard and guarded alike, and The Bible recoils in horror from the concept of prisons, equating them to hell itself.

The biggest stories coming down the pike are whether or not Rozita will be delayed again, what will happen with Allen Steed, what will the new wrinkle be in the Michael Emack trial, how will the evidence challenge go in February for Warren Jeffs? Judge Conn is a real Judge, perhaps a tad too liberal for my tastes, but he's not a cartoon judge like Barbara Walther. He writes well, he is honest, almost admitting the court lost something or lost track of it in his last ruling. He is disdainful of tricks such as Arizona acting as a proxy for Texas, and claiming that they "don't foresee using YFZ evidence."

So I'm on to legalization. Oddly, it is fellow polygynists who are some of my worst enemies in this regard. A conversation recently with an unnamed member of the FLDS yielded a rather startling insight, provided I understood that member correctly. They don't WANT it to be legal, they want an exception for religious reasons, which may ultimately explain some of the legal maneuvering, or lack thereof. If I understood it correctly, they'd just as soon it stayed against the law, but that the law recognize that those who practice it for religious reasons be given a pass.

It makes a sort of odd sense. Honestly, I don't see how you can BE a Latter Day Saint of any stripe, and not embrace the "principle." The most disturbing fact about the FLDS to the LDS is, that the FLDS are more faithful to the teachings of Joseph Smith than the LDS are, and the LDS are very uncomfortable with them for that reason. For the FLDS, if I am hearing it correctly, they don't see any reason to defend the practice among those who are not FLDS. It should be for religious reasons ONLY, and as with all credible religions, the FLDS see themselves as the "true" religion. I don't see why that should surprise us. They're not going away. Attempts to make the FLDS conform to standards that society sees as "good and moral and righteous" won't work. It's wrong in the first place (unconstitutional) and fundamentalists don't change. This is something theological liberals, agnostics and atheists don't get.

On my side of the street, among Christians (sorry Saints), there is a militant desire to not only practice polygamy, but to have it be a private contract. There's more hope here than with the above mentioned FLDS/LDS offshoot point of view. Most non Mormon Christian polygynists want to run the clock back about 100 years, and simply have marriages be an agreement between private parties with the state playing no role at all in who thinks who is married to whom. That's a pipe dream.

As we watch the most massive expansion of Federal Government in our history, we have to be honest. Obama Care is going to want to know everything about you. Register you as married, not married, living together, match DNA on everyone, parent and child, license who can have children and so on. Oh yes, that is coming. So if anything there will be more and more demanding interest in your family situation than before. When there was no national health care, maybe you could have gone for private civil contract as marriage. It was dicey because of the income tax system. After the Obamanation of Nationalized Health Care, you can forget that noise.

A national health care system will want to "save money" by tracking genetic diseases. They will establish paternity at some point regardless of what you want them to do. Just like at YFZ that will be used to prosecute some "crime," which if nothing else right now, is polygyny itself. Those of you who want to keep marriage off the books, you've lost that battle. I'm sorry. I sympathize and would have preferred that myself.

Here's why you should LEGALIZE polygyny. For the near future, you don't have to actually take advantage of the legal registration of your marriage, but the fact that it is legal, will take the heat off you. There is a creepy FBI connection that keeps getting larger in the YFZ case, particularly if some connections are solidified with the prank caller. The FBI seems to be in love with sex crimes these days, looking for creepy stalkers, old men and pedophiles. Whether right or wrong, they're looking to score in that regard. There are only two degrees of separation between FBI task forces on sex stings, and Rozita Swinton. They seem to be looking in on every high profile case of sexual abuse they can find:

ABC News - "Government documents released today show that the FBI assisted Santa Barbara, Calif., officials in their attempt to get cooperation from a person who could have been a key witness in the 2005 case child molestation case against Michael Jackson: the boy who accused the pop star of molesting him in 1993."

Freedom of information act requests were filed apparently, before Michael was cold, and now we know the FBI was up to their necks chasing down Mr. Jackson. It seems they are looking through every peephole.

Don't take it the wrong way, I'm hardly defending the Gloved One. It's just interesting to see what the FBI is, um, interested in. The only way to make them disinterested is to legalize polygamy, then they have no reason to peer through the keyhole of a man living in a house with five women. Right now, they have. Tony Alamo and Michael Jackson and the FLDS tell us they're going to keep right on doing it.

If you are a "private practitioner" of polygyny, let me warn you about what happened in Texas and how it affects you. When you are investigated for whatever crime you are investigated, bigamy and polygamy will be on the menu. You may try the strategy that FLDS men did. It won't work. What happened in Texas was Child Protective Services simply threatened to terminate parental rights. "Ok," you say, "My wife is a GOOD woman, and it won't matter if the state sees me as a father or not, my wife will stay loyal." Then she will be charged with something. Contempt of court for not testifying, bigamy herself, and so on. Now we have a mom in jail, a non Dad, and an abandoned child. It worked it Texas, and it will work with you, and it's now in the FBI playbook. They'll pass it along to each local jurisdiction and repeat as often as necessary.

Don't forget Project Megiddo. I'm sure the FBI hasn't. I see them acting on that template even today. They see religious polygynists as essentially breeding grounds for right wing terrorism, and frankly, the rhetoric I have been treated to by some of my brethren makes me wonder if they're not right about that. I can see some of my acquaintances holed up like Freemen in Jordan quite easily. I KNEW Randy Weaver, and liked the guy, he's not what you think he is, but he is just a tad too militant. He made himself a target, so did "Freeman" leader LeRoy Schweitzer, who is in maximum security prison until 2018. Fighting the "man" may be a romantic notion, but you usually fight the law, and the law wins. If you want to be a modern day John Brown, knock yourself out. A married man is to be concerned with pleasing his wife. Getting thrown in jail for idealistic reasons, isn't attending to that duty.

So it must be legalized. To that end I have ramped up rather unexpectedly my quarrel with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and I'm making an appeal. FIND SOMEBODY to champion the cause. I've offered myself several times. I'm going to be living in a home with four legislators in it, and I'm in walking distance of the Capitol in Vermont. I'm a registered lobbyist FOR the cause in the state of Vermont. I could register in New Hampshire, and very soon, Washington DC will be a tempting target for legalization, having merely to clear the hurdle of congressional review for their own "Gay Marriage" law. I could devote full time to this pursuit and could easily spend $100,000.00 just running around between legislatures in various states and pigeon holing various legislators. I've collected less than $100.00 and am only registered in the State of Vermont to lobby. You can look here at what attending only one "event" entails.

Make up your minds out there, because I have no need of self styled John Browns and unlike the FLDS who I will continue to champion, I'm not just doing this, for them. Unless they can manufacture some ecumenical love for legalization, ultimately, they're just today's "cause célèbre" and there will be others. The moving finger will write and move on past them.

I have the distinct feeling that a long "fish or cut bait" moment is rapidly approaching in my life. It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then. I can guess that I will go underground, debating it for the record within the church, or I will be cast out of that church altogether. Frankly, I will be content to go underground and leave the battle to others. For the near future though, it's legalization, to some degree the internal church debate, and regular seasoning of FLDS information, as it hits the fan.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Piccarreta loses 3, wins 1

Judge Conn had hinted earlier that he thinks Sam Brower and Dan Fisher have responded adequately to the defense. Your Modern Pharisee has stated earlier that Michael Piccarreta was probably overreaching, but what do you do? Do you NOT ask? A good defense counsel asks for all he can ask for, until he's told no. But Carolyn Jessop? She is not out of the defenses reach:

More to follow soon, I haven't finished reading the order. The prosecution is ordered to turn over impeachment material. This whole issue could come up again.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Site News, TIA, MRA, RIND, Me.

Your Modern Pharisee may have gone "TIA."

"A Transient Ischemic Attack (spelled ischaemic in British English) (abbreviated as TIA, often colloquially referred to as 'mini stroke') is a change in the blood supply to a particular area of the brain, resulting in brief neurologic dysfunction that persists, by definition, for less than 24 hours. If symptoms persist longer, then it is categorized as a stroke.

A cerebral infarct that lasts longer than 24 hours, but less than 72 hours is termed a reversible ischemic neurologic deficit or RIND." (Wikipedia)

Less that 24 hours right now, and I'm trying to line up a MRA which through my insurance company, Aetna, requires "prior physician authorization" or I pay for it and then argue with them later.

"Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) is a group of techniques based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to image blood vessels. Magnetic Resonance Angiography is used to generate images of the arteries in order to evaluate them for stenosis (abnormal narrowing), occlusion or aneurysms (vessel wall dilatations, at risk of rupture). MRA is often used to evaluate the arteries of the neck and brain, the thoracic and abdominal aorta, the renal arteries, and the legs (called a 'run-off')."

I'm 55 and I have had some odd sensations and symptoms in the past week. Last night around 11pm they got a little weirder and I dithered back and forth about going into the ER until the numbness I was experiencing started to show up in several places at once, all on my left site.

Pants on.

Pants off.

Mutter, mutter.

Dither, dither.

Then I had marginal numbness on the left side of my leg and into my toes, down the outside of my left arm, and in the middle of my cheek into my lips. Not entire numbness mind you, a sort of numbing, as if I had been shot with Novocaine and it was wearing off.

Maybe I pinched a nerve in my neck.

Maybe not. The Doctor on duty assured me I had done the right thing. As a perpetual cynic with regard to all things Doctors tell me "I should have done" that involve my insurance paying, I'm still leaning "Maybe not," but we'll see.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

33 Years. That's life.

Only an appeal of the method by which the evidence was obtained will give Allan a chance to see the outside of a prison:

The Eldorado Success - "Allan Keate, 57, was sentenced to 33 years in state prison by Schleicher County jurors moments ago. He was found guilty Tuesday on a charge of Sexual Abuse of a Child. Under Texas law Keate could have received 99 years in jail and a $10,000 fine. The jury deliberated just over 5 hours before reaching their decision."

I know murderers, plenty of them, who get less time.

CNN - "As her minister husband lay dying from a shotgun wound to the back, Mary Carol Winkler wiped the blood bubbling on his lips and apologized, according to a statement read Friday in court.

'He asked me, "Why?" and I just said, "I'm sorry," ' she told police in the statement. 'I told him I was sorry and I loved him.'

Winkler, a 32-year-old mother of three, gave the statement March 24, two days after prosecutors say she shot her 31-year-old husband, Matthew, in bed in the parsonage of Selmer's Fourth Street Church of Christ." October 3rd, 2006

I guess if you're sorry, that makes it not so bad. Mary Carol Winkler? She's out of jail, and has full custody of her three daughters. She did, after all, tell her dying husband she loved him.

Oh wait, her husband was a man. Death, was too good for him I guess. Allan's a man too. I guess that explains everything. And Mary's husband? He was involved in RELIGION. So was Allan. Those evil bastards. Probably both men believed that religious stuff too.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Keate's Sentence up the the Jury Now

Frankly, I don't think it looks good for Allan.

The jury was apparently "shocked" to know he had also married of his daughters young. The state made the punishment about his religion, and about polygamy.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And the point is?

Polygamy needs to be legal:

The Eldorado Success - "Law Professor John J. Sampson testified that Allan Keate was legally prohibited from marrying the victim."

Which means two things. Allan could "marry the victim," but could not as a polygynist. For that he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Keate Guilty

From the Texas Attorney General's office:

"Allan Eugene Keate found guilty of sexual assault of a child in Eldorado, TX. Keate in custody pending punishment."

Found here.

Next up? Michael Emack, January 25, 2010, "sexual abuse of a child."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Verdict Soon

At least, that's my prediction.

They are in deliberations.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Prosecution rests

DNA evidence has been presented that almost certainly established paternity in the eyes of the jury and then:

"Law professor John J. Sampson of the University of Texas then testified that the alleged victim was not married to Keate. Sampson said he is a tenured professor and that he operates a children's rights legal clinic where he and two other lawyers supervise law students that advocate on behalf of children.

Sampson then said that he had reviewed evidence in the case and expressed his opinion again that the alleged victim was absolutely not the legal wife of Allan Keate." - The Eldorado Success.

The case seems to be pretty simple. Keate is the father, this is his child, this is his mother, they are married, she's too young. Randy Wilson preserved his appeal options by moving to dismiss, which I would have denied, had I been the judge, but Randy has to do his job.

Whatever defense there is, will commence tomorrow morning.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Piccarreta goes Public, he "smells a rat." Judge Conn will look at YFZ Evidence Exclusion.

Are you sure it's not a Fish(er)?

The Mohave Daily News - " 'I smell a rat,' Piccarreta said. 'Elissa Wall has received so much money. I want to show that she's biased against my client.'

(Judge Steven) Conn said he will take the motion (to depose Dan Fisher and Sam Brower) under advisement."

This is a sign of growing confidence on the part of Warren Jeffs' attorney, who normally plays his cards very close to the vest.

"(Judge Conn) will also set another hearing in February for another motion to exclude evidence seized during a 2008 raid on a FLDS compound in Texas. Other motions to be addressed is a deposition of Carolyn Jessop, a well-known critic of the FLDS, and a motion to list expert witnesses that Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith plans to call at Jeffs' upcoming trial."

Michael Piccarreta stands a good chance of getting everything he wants in terms of depositions. If he does not, start striking witnesses from Warren's case.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Walther Threatens to Sequester Jury?

The only available place to do so, in Eldorado, is described as a "hole in the wall."

A source tells me that yes, there had been some report of unfortunate conversations/communication involving one/some of the jury. I imagine they will seek to behave themselves.

Judging for the speed of the last conviction, and judging from the report that Walther cautioned against visiting "Blogs" and judging from question 14 of the Jury questionnaire, Walther would not be so much concerned about them visiting THIS site, but "those other ones" who have Allen Keate tried and convicted.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Something is up at the Keate trial (UPDATED)

Something with the jury. (Rumor to follow) First:

The Polygamy File/Brooke Adams/Twitter - "Texas jury in Allan Keate case is in recess until Monday after hearing some testimony from Rebecca Musser, according to Steve Anderson."

And then:

"(T)he judge is interviewing each juror individually in chambers before dismissing them. (The) question: Is something amiss?"

Just when you thought it was going to get dull.

The pattern of jury surveillance in the various trials has been to clean them up to keep the prosecution safe. I honestly don't think Walther cares if there is someone on the jury that hates the FLDS, unless she thinks it might taint the verdict later.

It could just be that Barbara is telling them to behave over the weekend.

RUMOR - The rumor is someone shot their mouth off about something after being selected as a juror. In Eldorado, that kind of news would get around very fast.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

South Carolina's First Lady, Jenny Sanford, doesn't want to be, anymore.

Jenny Sanford, files for divorce:

The Palm Beach Post/AP - " 'This came after many unsuccessful efforts at reconciliation, yet I am still dedicated to keeping the process that lies ahead peaceful for our family,' Jenny Sanford said in a statement.

A spokesman for her husband, Gov. Mark Sanford, had no immediate comment. The divorce complaint was filed Friday in Charleston County Family Court.

Jenny Sanford's announcement came after a week of wrenching twists in her relationship with the governor. A legislative panel rebuked him for his conduct, he told reporters he still wanted to reconcile with his wife, and she said in a television interview that it was a simple decision to not stand with him as he publicly confessed the affair.

'Certainly his actions hurt me, and they caused consequences for me, but they don't in any way take away my own self-esteem," she told ABC's Barbara Walters. 'They reflect poorly on him.'

Her divorce complaint did not mention money, property or custody arrangements for the couple's four sons."

And another Christian Morals oriented couple in Politics and in society in general, who think women, can divorce men.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A landslide of filings in Arizona

Michael Piccarreta gets busy:

First to Matt Smith he says "oh no, YOU have the burden of proof" in the evidentiary hearing that will be occurring.

Then he says "oh no Matt, this is not another interview of Carolyn Jessop" and then he challenges Becky Musser, Carolyn Jessop and Richard Holm as expert witnesses:

"Carolyn Jessop has written a whole book in which she characterizes Mr. Jeffs as a bad man and the FLDS as a bad religion. She, of course, characterizes herself as intelligent, wonderful and almost perfect. The defendant does not believe that any of this admissible but, at a minimum, the defendant needs to know how much, if any, of this type of evidence he will need to met at trial."

It is amazing how much the defense seems to be on it's heals in Texas, but so much in charge in Arizona. The difference must be the judge.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

We have a jury

No word on it's composition:

The Eldorado Success - "La(w)yers for the prosecution and defense agreed moments ago to a jury panel of 36 members. Judge Walter called for a 30-minute recess after which both sides will be allowed to strike 10 members from the panel. Given that a jury must have 12 members and 2 alternates, it appears that a jury will be seated this evening."

IF there were 13 FLDS members among the 36 (which I doubt) the jury will contain a member of the FLDS.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

In Memoriam, Barbara Jessop

Brooke Adams has the news:

From Twitter - "Barbara Jessop, whose husband Merril oversees the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Texas, passed away from a stroke today in Eldorado."

We all go through that door.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Attorney General Abbott to question Jurors

(UPDATE: Jury Selection Recessed until 9am tomorrow) Not only was the showing a surprise, but the AG will conduct juror interviews, showing that perhaps Texas doesn't think this will be a slam dunk or that a sympathetic juror might slip through. Maybe he's just trying to get the trial moved.

The Deseret News/AP - "Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott made a surprise appearance Tuesday at the trial of a polygamist group member, to question potential jurors in the sexual assault case."

Here is the questionnaire, courtesy of the Eldorado Success:

"1) How long have you lived in this county?
2) have you ever served in any branch of the military? If yes, what branch? If yes, were you honorably discharged?
3) Please list the organization to which you belong, in which you participate, or in which you have ever held any office. For example, service clubs, governmental bodies, unions, professional organizations, volunteer activities, educational groups, political parties or political groups.
4) Have you ever served on a grand jury?
5) Have you ever been called as a witness in court or given a statement in any legal proceeding?
6) Do you have any close relatives or friends who are at the present time, or in the past employed by any state or federal agency, district attorney, lawyers, judges or employed in any job within the legal profession. If yes, list the names, relationships and occupations.
7) Have you ever had any legal training?
8) Have you or any close relatives or friends ever been the victim of a crime?
9) Have you ever been a witness to a crime, or ever been questioned by a law enforcement officer about a crime?
10) Have you ever filed a complaint against someone with law enforcement?
11) have you or any close relatives or friends ever been charged with or accused of a crime?
12) Have you or any close relatives or friends ever worked in law enforcem4ent, such as for a police department, county sheriff, highway patrol, or the attorney general?
13) Have you or do you have any close relatives or friends who have ever worked as a probation officer, parole officer or in the prison system?
14) Have you ever participated in 'posting' or 'replying' on any internet sites or 'blogs'? If yes, please list the name or 'handle' you post under and specifically which sites or 'blogs' upon which you post or reply.
15) Have you participated in any activity related to the care, transportation, feeding, housing, or clothing of any members of the FLDS?
16) Have you had any contacts or dealings with any person you understood at the time or now understand to be living at the YFZ Ranch in Schleicher County, Texas?
17) have you had any contacts or dealings with any person you understood at the time or now understand to be a member of the FLDS?
18) Please state your religious preference. State which church or synagogue you attend, if any."

AG Abbott is concerned it would seem, about the bloggosphere. See question 14.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Canadian Pastor cleared of Hate Crime against Homosexuals

It should never have gotten this far, but it did:

Citizen Link - "Former Canadian Pastor Stephen Boissoin has been cleared of hate-crimes charges over a 2002 letter to the editor that expressed a biblical view of homosexuality.

School teacher Darren Lund filed the charges with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The commission ruled that Boissoin had to stop expressing his views on homosexuality in public.

On Friday, a Canadian court overturned that decision. Boissoin was grateful."

I'm sure the enemies of the Church will continue to try.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Attorney General Abbott shows up for Jury Selection

Nothing like showing the flag:

The Eldorado Success - "Abbott's presence in the courtroom would seem to indicated the importance he is giving the Keate prosecution."

Nothing like having your boss stare over your shoulder. I guess he wants the jurors to see him.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Judge Rucker was the "Recusal Ruling" Judge

It was Judge Dean Rucker:

The Eldorado Success - "Judge Barbara Walther told defense attorneys that she referred their motion to disqualify her to Judge Dean Rucker, who serves as the Presiding Judge over the Seventh Judicial District of Texas. She said that Judge Rucker notified her this morning that he would not appoint another judge to hear the motion to quash the grand jury indictments of 10 YFZ defendants."

It appears that the Success will be giving "blow by blows," for those of you who wish to keep up.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Up until midnight, Stalin's trains must run on time. "Git 'er Done!"

Why no news all day yesterday on the various motions before the court?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Judge Barbara Walther, known for marathon courtroom sessions, presided over a joint consolidated motion by the defense attorneys for 10 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on Monday in the same makeshift courtroom where last month Raymond Merril Jessop was convicted of child sexual abuse and sentenced to 10 years in prison by a Schleicher County jury.

Keate is the second of the 10 to go to trial on a charge of child sexual abuse based on evidence acquired during the state's historic raid in April 2008 on the Yearning For Zion Ranch, the 1,700-acre community near Eldorado operated and inhabited by members of the polygamist sect.

Attorneys for the sect members argued Monday that the indictments against their clients should be quashed because the Schleicher County grand jury that issued the indictments did not have enough Hispanic members to represent the community profile in accordance with the accused men's civil rights. Walther denied the motion in a hearing that ended a few minutes before 11 p.m."

There is a complete dearth of information in the press on who the Judge would be that would rule on the motion to recuse, according to "Ron" who supposedly is an attorney and lives in Houston:

" 'That motion will be denied counsel" only takes about 3 seconds to say."

I have heard from a variety of sources, some fairly reliable, the names of two judges. That of Judge John Hyde and later a poster I don't know anything about claimed it was Judge Dean Rucker who ruled on the motion to recuse Judge Walther.

Bill over at "Free the FLDS Children" says Judge Walther just ignored the motion, but the San Angelo Standard-Times article says no, but doesn't give any detail:

"An earlier ruling by another judge denied a motion to disqualify Walther on the basis that she might be called as a witness in the grand jury challenge. The FLDS legal team, led by Jerry Goldstein, had argued that Walther should not be allowed to hear the motion against the indictment because she had a role in selecting the grand jury commissioner."

3 seconds? Apparently the court needed more, Ron.

At some point someone on the defense is going to raise the issue of the quality of the decision based on the "ram it, jam it, 'git 'er done" sort of pushiness that Walther is exhibiting. There are complex issues in all of these trials and they are in a lot of ways, unprecedented, but Walther proceeds by imposing deadlines and limiting testimony.

It has been remarked that it is a bad strategy in Iraq or Afghanistan to name a withdrawal date for our troops, and instead we should wait until the job is done. "Git 'er done" is a dangerous methodology when thoroughness is needed. "Git 'er done" is generally the mentality of a bull in a china shop.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What's taking so long on Walther's Recusal?

Rumor has it that the judge presiding over Walther's possible recusal is one used last year.

District Judge John Hyde. It didn't take him very long in the case of Annette Jeffs.

The Abilene Reporter-News June 24th, 2008 - "Midland-based state District Judge John Hyde, presiding via teleconference, rejected the motion, noting that Jeffs' attorneys had filed their motion too late -- after the hearing had already begun."

Maybe this is where some have gotten their idea of "timeliness."

More →

Sphere: Related Content