An insider's view of Polygamist sect

[mrs reb77]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/earlyshow/main3997462.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3997462

Unless any of us have lived through this we cannot have any idea of what these women and children down in Texas are going through.
http://www.bankingonheaven.com/

For those that question why someone would go back if the situation was 'so bad' inside the sect, perhaps this will answer that in some part. It's scary that things like this are going on large scale in this country in this day and age.

[air311]

I can't figure out why any man would want one wife. You women are all crazy. :p I thought this only happened in Utah.

[mrs reb77]

I don't think they do it to have a "honey, I'm home" type of wife. They do it to have as many indentured servants under their control as possible. The women do all the work and aren't allowed to travel--they just stay at home to work and have babies.

[air311]

I don't think they do it to have a "honey, I'm home" type of wife. They do it to have as many indentured servants under their control as possible. The women do all the work and aren't allowed to travel--they just stay at home to work and have babies.

I can't get the links to work. Are these people Mormons? Or are there other people that live that lifestyle?

[mrs reb77]

Mormons will tell you that these people are not affiliated with their religion. Who knows.
I use Firefox, maybe that's why you can't access links? They are both active.

[glennac]

Mormons will tell you that these people are not affiliated with their religion. Who knows.
I use Firefox, maybe that's why you can't access links? They are both active.

They of course are not affiliated directly to the existing Mormon Church but they do consider themselves followers of the profit Joseph Smith and thus are the "true" Mormons.

[mrs reb77]

Yeah, I guess they consider themselves Mormon but the accepted Mormon church doesn't. ;) Kind of like Scientologists consider their cult a religion but accepted religions (and sane people) don't.

[chillerfreak]

I don't think they do it to have a "honey, I'm home" type of wife. They do it to have as many indentured servants under their control as possible. The women do all the work and aren't allowed to travel--they just stay at home to work and have babies.

Jeez...when you explain it that way it doesn't sound that bad....:D

[mrs reb77]

Well, maybe if you aren't a female. :mad:

There's all kinds of things coming to light about this group. It's very disturbing to find that the things most feared are exactly what's been going on. Of course there are those that feel these people should be left alone to perpetuate this culture of female slavery and brainwashing because the men's rights shouldn't be infringed. Those same ignorant individuals think these women can just stand up for themselves. That's just as disturbing as what's been going on in this culture.

[mrs reb77]

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Story?id=1672757&page=1

An additional ex-insider's view. There's evidently a few women who have escaped these people and want to help others do the same.

[glennac]

Well, maybe if you aren't a female. :mad:

There's all kinds of things coming to light about this group. It's very disturbing to find that the things most feared are exactly what's been going on. Of course there are those that feel these people should be left alone to perpetuate this culture of female slavery and brainwashing because the men's rights shouldn't be infringed. Those same ignorant individuals think these women can just stand up for themselves. That's just as disturbing as what's been going on in this culture.

I think there is also a good percentage of the world's population who also think that women shouldn't be allowed to stand up for themselves. 20% of the planet. They are called Muslims.

[mrs reb77]

That is true Glenn. I'm very glad I was "Born in the U.S.A."!!

[sysint]

"Of course there are those that feel these people should be left alone to perpetuate this culture of female slavery and brainwashing because the men's rights shouldn't be infringed. Those same ignorant individuals think these women can just stand up for themselves." --- You obviously don't understand a word I post.

It's not those men's rights in the compound. It's ALL of our rights. I know that you think it's OK to do whatever is necessary to get those kids out of their situation the first second you find out some information acting out in total impulse rather than thinking out the situation first. I'd rather think things through and be successful and not destroy rights of the individual in the process making precedent in the future to allow this sort of thing to happen to all sorts of groups. Safe to say you will never have the capability to be a judge. Good thing for that. Really, if you want to accuse people of being ignorant by all means use the mirror.

The state of Texas is LUCKY that there is now a federal search warrant because it is becoming evident they botched theirs. This could have been a total disaster.

[glennac]

Sysint, with all due respect you are carrying on a one man crusade here in defence of this crazy group. Outside of this sect and probably the followers of Islam you have no support in the totality of your views on the "rights" of the sect. Where are you coming from on this?

I noticed that you have no bio in your profile. Most of us in this forum do. How about telling us a little about your self so we know as to whom we are talking to. Like age, interest, job, background, your town or state, etc. It's helps to know each other and it keeps us all on level ground. How about it, Sysint. It would be appreciated. Nobody needs to hide there background.

[mrs reb77]

Glenn, some people just can't face when they've been shown to be wrong so they continue ranting on about not being understood. This is a very sorry situation down there in Eldorado and those poor kids are in my thoughts. I'm so very glad none of my nieces have been held hostage in a situation such as this and I applaud the girl who called authorities and begged them to step in. Hopefully she is still alive. I actually don't care as much whether there is any prosecution of these people, as long as they can stop the abuse. I would like to see these monsters put away of course but, if they can at least be stopped it is a step in the right direction. These people will be judged on their actions sooner or later.

[fixacr]

Why would they choose to return? Regardless of what a child is taught as they are growing up, whether it is marriage at 16, polygamy or even outright abuse, they believe that their situation is normal.

[mrs reb77]

[I]I know that you think

Wow, a mind reader. :eek:
Even my husband doesn't know that, you're very special. ;)

[mrs reb77]

Why would they choose to return? Regardless of what a child is taught as they are growing up, whether it is marriage at 16, polygamy or even outright abuse, they believe that their situation is normal.

Exactly, and they've been conditioned to be afraid of the rest of the world.

[sysint]

Sysint, with all due respect you are carrying on a one man crusade here in defence of this crazy group. ....no support in the totality of your views on the "rights" of the sect. Where are you coming from on this? Glenn, with all due respect you don't get my position. I don't care what TYPE of group they are. I do not defend their position or their actions. However, in this country we try not to haphazardly trample over rights granted to everyone just because we have some information. The REASON you don't is because once you start establishing that PRECEDENT it makes it easier in the future to ignore the laws that are in place. This is LAW 101 and you don't get that.

With a little planning the FEDs could have been in there from the start and took care of the men. Then (if Texas were smart) they could have planned for the amount of KIDS they needed to care for and had arrangements in place to handle things.

What we have now is the MrsReb/Glennac/Texas method which may be in jeopardy of not handling these kids properly AND the real possibility of a mishandled warrant. I have already posted about the judge's frustration with the state not executing the original warrant properly.

Hopefully the FEDS clean up the bungled up job the state of Texas is doing.

[bootlen]

Sysint, with all due respect you are carrying on a one man crusade here in defence of this crazy group. Outside of this sect and probably the followers of Islam you have no support in the totality of your views on the "rights" of the sect. Where are you coming from on this?

I noticed that you have no bio in your profile. Most of us in this forum do. How about telling us a little about your self so we know as to whom we are talking to. Like age, interest, job, background, your town or state, etc. It's helps to know each other and it keeps us all on level ground. How about it, Sysint. It would be appreciated. Nobody needs to hide there background.


If his JW friends knew he was a member of Jeff's church, they'd likely disfellowship him.

Or not.

:D

[sysint]

If his JW friends knew he was a member of Jeff's church, they'd likely disfellowship him.Or not.:D I like it better when you misquote scriptures. Identify the mystery two people in your 10 person Ark yet?

[mrs reb77]

According to initial reporting, there were expected to be a couple hundred occupants in total at the ranch. Now, with over 400 children and more than 100 women off the ranch, exactly how would you have planned ahead to house them not knowing there were that many there in the first place?

I'm so very glad these kids are at least out of that situation. Hopefully they can find healing. I hear many former members that have escaped are doing their best to help with this situation. That's a positive step.

[bootlen]

I like it better when you misquote scriptures. Identify the mystery two people in your 10 person Ark yet?

Quite right, y'are. Only 8 people...4 men, 4 women. Doesn't change the ratio OR the point, now does it?

[sysint]

Tell you what- just go back to the other thread so everybody sees in order how whacked out your "point" was.

[sysint]

According to initial reporting, there were expected to be a couple hundred occupants in total at the ranch. Now, with over 400 children and more than 100 women off the ranch, exactly how would you have planned ahead to house them not knowing there were that many there in the first place?....Again, if they planned properly they could have gone in took a look around and then CAME BACK. These people weren't going anywhere.

[bootlen]

Tell you what- just go back to the other thread so everybody sees in order how whacked out your "point" was.

The only thing whacked about my point was your lack of comprehension.

[mrs reb77]

Again, if they planned properly they could have gone in took a look around and then CAME BACK. These people weren't going anywhere.

What kind of search warrant would that have required?

You have heard of logic before haven't you? I think they actually DID go in and then come back. You were very insistent that was a crime against everyone's personal rights. Because it wasn't in a warrant.

Should they have had a 'Look see' warrant? Maybe a 'population check' warrant? Inquiring minds want to know...

[sysint]

Don't shoot the messenger. THE JUDGE that issued the first warrant is complaining. The first warrant was for a girl, and infant and a guy. What you do is execute that warrant and GO. The first warrant isn't complete.

If during the visit you observe a crime, find drugs during a reasonable execution of that warrant you can confiscate those type of things.

Next up all they had to do was call the FEDS for child trafficking. That gives them some more time to get their act together on removal after they get a chance to survey the surroundings...

Why inquire about the first warrant when all you have to do IS READ IT?

What you want to do is circumvent individual rights for your cause. Keep your vigilante justice to yourself. I'd rather go in correctly and not give them a case to dismiss evidence because I was stupid.

Your personal rights in regards to the state is your most important asset. However, you want to nonchalantly disregard that for people you don't like. Once you set that precedent somebody who doesn't like you or your group in the future can take action against you without proper procedure.

Maybe what you should do is examine case history on executing search warrants and a persons individual rights before you get all emotional about the situation. In a situation like this it is imperative to THINK before you ACT. Try that.

[mrs reb77]

No thanks. I think what I WILL do is wait for all the facts to come out in THIS case before I jump up and down ranting and raving about how the government got it all wrong. I'll listen to what they say made them do this the way they did. But I sure as all get out am not going to look like a raving maniac by ranting on about something I have no clue about. Not one single one of us is there, were there when it started or have the privileged information the authorities had before they acted. Not one single one of us. You can go on all day long about what you think they may or may not have known or should have done but it comes right down to the fact that you do..not..have..all..the..pieces of this.

Then again, maybe you are directly involved. You don't give us any info about yourself...

[air311]

Waco em..just "accidentally" torch the place like they did to the Branch Davidian compound. What is it with Texas anyway?

[sysint]

No thanks. I think what I WILL do is wait for all the facts to come out in THIS case before I jump up and down ranting and raving about how the government got it all wrong. ....Then again, maybe you are directly involved. You don't give us any info about yourself... You are the one instantly emotionally involved. You hardly have waited at all expressing your opinion about the men and boys.

I know they started to execute the first search warrant and it was up front what they were looking for and they overstepped that before the second warrant came down. Further, they have not even executed the first warrant completely...

[air311]

They have to follow the guidelines of the warrant. That's the whole point of a warrant.

[mrs reb77]

Hmm, me thinks some people have reading deficiencies...

So, can't get any other warrants until first warrants are completely executed huh? Riiiigght.

This whole debate is quite amazing. Lets hope they sort it all out post haste and get these children into a better situation where they can thrive. After all, they are the victims.

[air311]

I never actually learned how to read, I just guess what these posts say. Yes you can get a second warrant while you're executing the first, but you better only stick to what's on that first warrant until you get the second one. Probable cause won't stand up in court with a good attorney.

[sysint]

EDIT- Air got in before me... However, they can't overstep their original warrant against the rights of individuals. They were bussing out people before warrant number 2 and they never did do warrant number 1. That's why there are two lawyers on this arguing already although that hearing is next week.

The state of Texas is at some risk to have good potential evidence become inadmissable.

[air311]

EDIT- Air got in before me... However, they can't overstep their original warrant against the rights of individuals. They were bussing out people before warrant number 2 and they never did do warrant number 1. That's why there are two lawyers on this arguing already although that hearing is next week.

The state of Texas is at some risk to have good potential evidence become inadmissable.

I'm presuming it was in Warrant number 2that they could start removing people? If it was and they started before they actually had the warrant, then yeah, a good lawyer will have a field day with that.

[mrs reb77]

Anyone ever hear of ... imminent danger?

:rolleyes:

[sysint]

I'm presuming it was in Warrant number 2that they could start removing people? If it was and they started before they actually had the warrant, then yeah, a good lawyer will have a field day with that.The first was limited to three individuals of which they only know that one is in Arizona and they now think that's the wrong guy. They could also go after materials pertaining to that.

[air311]

Anyone ever hear of ... imminent danger?

:rolleyes:

Imminent danger won't stand up against a good lawyer.

[sysint]

On the danger I'm certain they are going to try to argue exigent circumstances. I side with AIR on this. Particularly note the last case.

Brokaw v. Mercer County (7th Cir. 2000)

* Child removals are "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. Seizure is unconstitutional without court order or exigent circumstances. Court order obtained based on knowingly false information violates fourth amendment. --

Griffin v. Wisconsin (483 U.S. 868 - 1987)

* The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.

California v. Hobari D. (1991)

* For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a "seizure" of a person is a situation in which a reasonable person would feel that he is not free to leave, and also either actually yields to a show of authority from police or social workers or is physically touched by police. Persons may not be "seized" without a court order or being placed under arrest. 499 U.S. 621

Hurlman v. Rice (2nd Cir. 1991)

* Defendant should've investigated further prior to ordering seizure of children based on information he had overheard. The mere possibility of danger does not constitute an emergency or exigent circumstances that would justify a forced warrantless entry and a warrantless seizure of a child.

Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000)

* Defendants could not lawfully seize child without a warrant or the existence of probable cause to believe child was in imminent danger of harm.
* Where police were not informed of any abuse of the child prior to arriving at caretaker's home and found no evidence of abuse while there, seizure of the child was not objectively reasonable and violated the clearly established Fourth Amendment rights of the child.

Yabarra v. Illinois (1979)

* Where the standard for a seizure or search is probable cause, then there must be particularized information with respect to a specific person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided simply by pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to arrest or to search or to seizure another person or to search a place where the person may happen to be. 44 U.S. 85

[chillerfreak]

This whole debate is quite amazing.

I'll second that! :rolleyes:

[mrs reb77]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polygamy.escapes/index.html

Interesting information from another ex-sect member. She now helps free others from the abuse.

[glennac]

sysint, when not on this forum 24/7 are you a Pseudo lawyer for the ACLU? You are so wrapped up in this whole rights of the cult thing it makes a lot of us wonder where all this is coming from.