RE: Re: POLITICS: Impeach TX Judge, FLDS Incident

[Guest guest]

I did! But, everyone seems to want to think of this as a religious issue, which

it is NOT, rather than a " government has gone amuck, again " issue.

Kathy

---- Sharon son <skericson@...> wrote:

=============

Now, now, you know what I meant. But, hey! Maybe it is time for TX citizens

to voice their opinions. Start writing, if you haven't already.

Sharon

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...>

wrote:

> > Good job, Texas

> Oh geez, don't blame all of us.

>

>

>

--

Deut 11:15 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Check out my blog - www.ericsons.net - Food for the Body and Soul

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> In any case, something indicating that the belief modifies the

> legitimacy of the behavior, which should only be true, of course, if

> the belief is verifiably true.

Your point is valid, but I think your other point, about government

definitely weighing in on one religion vs another, is mistaken. Good

government doesn't weigh in on beliefs, it weighs in on actions,

ideally prohibiting those which harm others or impinge on others'

freedoms. The motivation for the action is beside the point except in

weighing the competence of the accused to stand trial. The most

obvious exception in the US is our woeful body of hate crime law, in

which the beliefs and motivations of the criminal are somehow

considered criminal in and of themselves.

-

[Guest guest]

My 0.02:

Statuatory rape is illegal, but it is my understanding that it requires

either the underage woman OR her parents to complain to the police for the

charge to be brought forward. In most instances in our society, the parents

would complain... however, it seems in this instance the parents and the

underage women are okay with it, giving the government no where to stand.

No matter how wrong the conditions in the compound were, the children should

not have been taken before proper evidence was accrued. Why? because our

legal system is based around " innocent until proven guilty " . IMHO, the

judge was only doing what was right: to give back children that were taken

without the proper evidence. Want someone to blame? Try the cops for

jumping the gun and not following procedure.

-Lana

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> Statuatory rape is illegal, but it is my understanding that it requires

> either the underage woman OR her parents to complain to the police for the

> charge to be brought forward. In most instances in our society, the parents

> would complain... however, it seems in this instance the parents and the

> underage women are okay with it, giving the government no where to stand.

It isn't always the case that if all parties agree it is okay. The

K. LeTourneau case in the state of Washington was a prime

example. The mother was okay with it, the " boy " was okay with it, and

there was a newborn child involved. Everyone wanted to be a family,

but a judge locked her away for 7 years for violating the no-contact

order she had issued earlier.

Rape by statute (i.e non-forcible relations between an adult and

someone below the legal age of consent) has a pretty checkered past

and has always been problematic in this country, where the state tries

to draw a bright line as to when someone is mature enough to engage in

sexual relations outside of marriage. The laws have led to some very

ridiculous situations and the needless ruining of young lives if a

prosecutor is so inclined.

> No matter how wrong the conditions in the compound were, the children should

> not have been taken before proper evidence was accrued. Why? because our

> legal system is based around " innocent until proven guilty " . IMHO, the

> judge was only doing what was right: to give back children that were taken

> without the proper evidence. Want someone to blame? Try the cops for

> jumping the gun and not following procedure.

No, a thousand times no. That doesn't mean that the Texas Child

Protective Services and the Police aren't at fault, but it is the

judge in this case who is the ultimate villain because she issued

**both** of the defective search warrants **and** the order to have

the children removed. Without her nothing goes down.

The court clearly said the removal was without warrant and that the

judge had abused her discretion in ordering the children to be

removed.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/may/080391.htm

It is Judge Walther who has balked at the Supreme Court decision

telling her to release the children. It is Judge Walther who has put

legal restraints on the families without any charges being filed,

forcing them to sign a terrible agreement in order to get their

children back, and basically trying to undercut the Texas Supreme

Court after getting a very public backslap from them.

Judge Walther, like most judges in this country, is simply a

prosecutor wearing a black robe sitting behind a bench. She should be

impeached.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/potter2.html

Grigg put it well:

" Second, those parents -- once again -- are innocent before the law.

They have been convicted of nothing, indicted for nothing -- indeed,

they haven't been charged with any offense. Yet they are now

imprisoned at their ranch by judicial degree, subject to the invasion

of their property at the whim of a manifestly corrupt, incompetent,

and hostile government bureaucracy, and forbidden the freedom to

travel that is the indefeasible right of every American citizen.

" The CPS is still engaged in a criminal enterprise, and Walther is

their fully enlisted accomplice. That agency will not relent until

someone in the FLDS community is railroaded into court as an abuser,

thereby permitting the child-snatchers to try, once again, to

prosecute the entire community under the novel doctrine of collective

criminal guilt devised especially for this case. "

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/06/child-snatchers-win.html

--

I will say that unless one is in some kind of daily, personal dynamic,

be it marriage or monasticism, one will never truly see themselves.

Like it or not in either of these situations there is inescapable

feedback on one's character and choices...There is a built in reality

gauge in living in an intimate vowed relationship that cannot be

simulated otherwise.

-Anonymous

[Guest guest]

>

> Rape by statute (i.e non-forcible relations between an adult and

> someone below the legal age of consent) has a pretty checkered past

> and has always been problematic in this country, where the state tries

> to draw a bright line as to when someone is mature enough to engage in

> sexual relations outside of marriage. The laws have led to some very

> ridiculous situations and the needless ruining of young lives if a

> prosecutor is so inclined.

>

This is a very good point.

> No, a thousand times no. That doesn't mean that the Texas Child

> Protective Services and the Police aren't at fault, but it is the

> judge in this case who is the ultimate villain because she issued

> **both** of the defective search warrants **and** the order to have

> the children removed. Without her nothing goes down.

>

I jumped into this discussion late, responding to a post which was against

the return of the children to their families due to the whole underage sex

issue. I guess I over trimmed as I now realize there was no quote under my

post and can't find the one I was replying to. What you say makes absolute

sense, I was speaking without having all the facts and so I rescind my

statement regarding the placement of fault.

Thanks for enlightening me!

-Lana

[Guest guest]

,

>> In any case, something indicating that the belief modifies the

>> legitimacy of the behavior, which should only be true, of course, if

>> the belief is verifiably true.

>

> Your point is valid, but I think your other point, about government

> definitely weighing in on one religion vs another, is mistaken. Good

> government doesn't weigh in on beliefs, it weighs in on actions,

> ideally prohibiting those which harm others or impinge on others'

> freedoms. The motivation for the action is beside the point except in

> weighing the competence of the accused to stand trial. The most

> obvious exception in the US is our woeful body of hate crime law, in

> which the beliefs and motivations of the criminal are somehow

> considered criminal in and of themselves.

I don't remember exactly what I said indicating otherwise, but I agree.

Chris