|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Broken bones and possible boys molested at FLDS compound|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
SUNLINER81 you are still trying to misrepresent the facts and the law. As has been pointed out several times (with links to court decisions) as long as the warrant was issued in good faith (it was not known the call was fake) then the evidence found because of the warrant will be LEGAL. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Pomelesk, IMO SUNLINER81 is posting this because he has been caught misrepresenting the facts (lying) about this case so often that he is reduced to stating "Where is Sarah" hoping people will ignore the fact that the warrant was legal. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Because, Flank,  the average age of marriage among the Amish is 20."The step of marriage is a major one in Amish society, so the preparation and the execution is quite involved. A quick trip to the Justice of the Peace with a couple of witnesses will not suffice. The sequence of events will be covered only briefly here. Weddings take place after the fall harvest. November is the favored month because the winter weather has not yet begun. Sixteen is the age when courtship begins, but couples will likely be 20 or older when they marry. Both parties must be church members." http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish3.htm and, the decision to stay in the Amish community is strictly one of individual choice, as this article relates: http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=amish.ht...ures/2002/may/amish/ Flank, as it turns out, the marriagable age in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community is late-teens (legal age or more) and up. "Even as Orthodox teenagers and young adults are exposed to sexualized images in popular culture, the age of marriage has risen. While ultra-Orthodox Jews still generally marry in their late teens to early 20s, Modern Orthodox Jews typically wed in their mid-to-late 20s, and some wait until their early 30s, said Sylvia Barack Fishman, professor of contemporary Jewry and American Jewish sociology at Brandeis University." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/03religion.html?_r...nted=all&oref=slogin I believe that may be why the authorities are "not raiding them" - because they aren't marrying off children to old men.  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The issue is Texastan knowing the call was fake when they heard it. Again, what part of "there are no black FLDS members" do you not understand? ANY reasonable person listening to the tape could quickly deduct that the call was not genuine. The link to the informant was posted early on in the other thread and doesnt seem to work at this moment but the information about the informant will resurface as this debacle goes on. I reported the hoax call before it made the news and how many teen mothers there was before it was reported so Ive got good sources. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
actually, according to the Tanakh, the Jewish bible, One can marry as soon as they reach majority, which has been defined since well before the first century as age 12 for girls, 13 for boys.
In the early biblical period, they instead defined majority as having two pubic hairs (with some extra rules for people who couldn't grow any). The change in definition is rabbinic, and therefore doesn't apply to some biblical matters, such as conversion. However, it does apply for marriage. However, in those days a father had the right to marry off his minor daughter at any age, with the assumption that he knows what's in her best interest, and that's part of caring for her. She has the right to anull the marriage when reaching age 12. Today, the father would be violating a prohibition if he exercised this right, however, the marriage would be binding and a writ of divorce necessary. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Flank, the need for a Jewish writ of divorce (a get) is because the betrothal contract, or ketubah, is a legally binding contract, which can only be voided by divorce. These traditions are not in practice today - unlike the FLDS. Remember, in an age when the average life expectancy was less than 45 years, it made sense to get married and have children when very young. That doesn't mean it is a valid practice today. BTW, I guess you can't find any links to validate your claim that the FLDS "confidential informant" was himself a perp who has been granted immunity from prosecution. I checked the Deseret News - there is NO INFO. Your credibility here is so low it could rappel off the side of a dime, buddy.  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
We have already gone beyond that, if you can't stay up with the group, don't bother to post, you wast our time... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
NO, again you don't get it or me. Second as far as punishment goes I'm not talking about you but another poster who was warned by the mods to "knock it off" or face getting thrown off. Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
YOU were told not to bait and call names, how long will it be before you are thrown off? YOU can't take the advice of the mods can you? Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I don't waste my time replying to people that want to bait and call names, you were warned and I see that it didn't take... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Only you and another poster are. You can't understand, that no matter how good the intentions, warrants can't be issued on false data, whether known or unknown, when it gets to court, all data will be thrown out and yes it has happened, time after time, after time after time. The law is the law, no matter what you wish to believe. It's not a case of the law goes in and finds something else, it don't work that way. Now if it was a legit warrant and they go in and find something else, yes. That's to answer what someone posted several posts ago. There have been cases where drug warrants have been issued and police went in and literally trashed houses looking for drugs, tore cabinets off of walls, smashed toilets and bathe tubs, ripped couches and chairs to shreds looking for drugs, NO DRUGS, guess what? The police are liable for all damages and had people been home and harmed, they would have been held accountable for assault under color of the law. The police didn't know that the warrant was false, yet they are accountable for it. The police are also accountable for hitting the wrong house also. Where this applies and a sharp lawyer will bring this up, the warrant was for buildings, not homes or residences. The law doesn't care if their homes doesn't fit YOUR definition of a home or residence, but a sharp lawyer in front of a jury, will make the distinction... Sorry you just can't get what I and others are talking about, but when it all goes to court, if it does, because I have serious doubts that it will, then you will understand... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
That's interesting, so if the confidential informant wasn't a perp, does that mean that an unbiased leo, to use your acronym, was in there for four years and they couldn't get enough to get a warrant in all that time? OH, let's here it for a sharp lawyer to get that in front of a jury... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
LEO = Law Enforcement Officer. Not the same as a "CI" or confidential informant. The CI (confidential informant) is said, in media reports, to be an FLDS former member. I can't find any info to substantiate Flanker's assertions that the CI was "spiritually married" to underage girls, or that he has been granted immunity from prosecution. I am still asking Flanker to post links for his information, but I don't think he can do that, unless he cites statements from Parker, the FLDS lawyer, or from the FLDS website. BTW, Sun - regardless of Warren Jeffs' criminal convictions for facilitating the rape of a child, despite the pending law suits against him for sodomy and homosexual assault of children, I find it interesting that he is still revered by the FLDS: http://www.fldstruth.org/ last portrait on the right at top of page ... there he is ... the kiddie rapist and exaulted prophet of the FLDS. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Gee, that somehow invalidates what I said about the Constitution being violated? Well, if that's the case, then we should disband the U.S. Army, Benedict Arnold was a great officer and leader, till he turned traitor... Like I have said all along, I dont' care about that gutter religion, what I do care about is the Constitution of the United States of America, the document that I swore an oath too, four times in my life... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
SUNLINER, First off, I don't think anyone is giving you a hard time about your belief in defending the Constitution. I , and I am sure others, commend that. I too believe we need to support and defend the constitution; however, I believe the rights of the minor children trump the rights of the adults/parents. I am not a lawyer and cannot quote the laws to support this, but I believe it to be true. I believe your argument stems from the fact that you believe the police were executing an invalid warrant. Again, I am not a lawyer. I don't know if you are, but if so, maybe you should state such so we know where your expertise comes from. Everything I have read leads me to believe as long as the police executed the warrant "in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the search warrant" then the search is admissible and follows the intent of the Constitution - even if the judge made a mistake. Of course, the search would have had to have been properly executed within the confines of the warrant, but if that is the case and they saw something that caused them to believe the children were in danger, then the had the authority and responsiblity to remove the children. Now, the answer would be different if the police knew the call came from someone that was not who they claimed to be, or a reasonable person would not believe the caller. I have not seen anything to support that. If they presented the fact that it was an anonymous caller to the judge and he issued the warrant, then the mistake is on him and not the police. This is where the "in good faith" part comes in. If you have something that states anything to the contrary, other than your personal opinion, I would like to see it. Otherwise, you and FlankFlyer have your opinions which differ from mine and a number of other posters and we all believe we are supporting the intent of the Constitution. SCOUTS OUT! |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
When it all comes to a head, we shall see. There are some on here that think that I am anti law enforcement, nothing could be farther from the truth, they even try and twist my own words, one has called me a child molester and was told by the mods to retract it, one compared me to her husband and the difficulties she has with him, guess that there are some problems there. The point is, I am not a lawyer, never claimed to be, but then after reading the local newspaper articles on line and what was taking place in city council meetings and wild rumors spreading through the community that the FLDS were there to steal their daughters, the community was stirred up. The local churches supplied buses to go out and remove the women and children. Given that some of the local churches have the attitude that the FLDS are devils incarnate or at best, lost and must be saved from themselves, attitudes ran wild. That statement on another occasion even got me called a conspiracy theorist and that I was attacking the local Baptist churches. I pointed out that the FLDS was a racist religion, no blacks allowed, they call it the "mark of Cain", I got called a racist, because I pointed out that Rozita Swinton, the crank caller, was black and couldn't possibly have a "twin sister" named Sarah in the FLDS religion, let alone on the YFZ ranch... Oh, did I mention that others said that I didn't care about the children and have followed me onto other threads and attacked me there? Yup, all I am doing is calling attention to the fact that the Constitution seems to be violated, not on the basis of religious freedom, but on the basis of undue search and seizure and the right to be free in ones home and possessions. I had one lady try and draw a conclusion between the FLDS and LDS and try and draw me in on a religious discussion, I had to tell her to go take that up with the FLDS and the LDS. In short, everyone has trotted out facts and figures to support, so they think, their cases. When I give them a source, of course, it's "too broad" and not good enough of a source. Now I know what the FLDS feel like, because if they say something, it is twisted, if they say nothing and keep blank looks on their faces, they are brainwashed, child molestation sanctioning idiots. People say well their leader Jeffs is in jail for child molestation of under aged children, including little boys, as if that somehow makes all who are in the religion, guilty of the same crime, how preposterous! That's like saying that the U.S. Army must be disbanded, because Benedict Arnold was a traitor! Now, I can imagine what they will say about this post, because it has become popular to play, "kill the SUNLINER81"! Well to them I say poppycock! Because I will scream long, loud and hard, when I think that the Constitution has been stepped on and I will not stop! I swore an oath to God on four occasions in my life to up hold and defend the Constitution and I took it seriously... Respectfully, SUNLINER81 |
|||
|
