The Rest of the Story...

[Glow]

Wow, I didnt really think the court would grant it. Seems they did.


A private investigator who works for attorneys pursuing a polygamous church was banned from the homes and offices of a sect member in a restraining order issued Wednesday by a Utah judge.

District Judge G. Rand Beacham banned Sam Brower from going within 500 feet of the homes or business offices of Willie Jessop, an elder of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Jessop sought the order Tuesday, contending that Brower has trespassed on his property — once with a TV news crew — frightening Jessop's children and harassing employees of his excavating business.

Brower is employed by attorneys who have filed civil and criminal cases against the church and some of its members.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/10/america/Polygamous-Sect-Investigator.php

 

[SewingDeb]

From your link:

Brower was a witness for attorney Natalie Malonis, who was granted a restraining order against Jessop because she believed he was exercising too much influence over the daughter.

"All those allegations are just simply not true," Brower said. "I'm not surprised that desperate people do desperate things, and I'm sure (the FLDS) are getting desperate. They are trying to divert attention from the real issues."

 

[Glow]

Yes I saw that SewingDeb. Natalie Malonis is losing all of her credibility from what I can find. She is even drawing heat from the more conservative people for her absolute mishandling of Teresa Jeffs case. When I saw that this P. I. had been hired by "attorneys" I wondered if it was her - I just didn't want too presume it was until I could find something factual. I suspect we havent yet figured out who really are the "desperate" ones here.

 

[Truly]

They are trying to divert attention from the real issues.

Hi Deb
Diverting attention away from the real issues seems to be the FLDS' only game plan.

They cannot even discuss the real issues.

They just run and hide. Obfuscate... Distort... Deny... Change the subject... On and on and on...ad nauseam.

This thread itself is admittedly a full-on diversion.
'This is a thread to talk about everything except the real issues'!

As Montana said, yawwwwnnn.

 

[SewingDeb]

Truly, I was thinking the same thing about this thread. Nothing but diversions.

 

[Glow]

Apparently once CPS was forced by the court to give the children back, they have no ongoing interest in all that "abuse" they claimed they were worried about in the first place.

THE RANCH CHILDREN IN GREAT DANGER OF ABUSE

According to the clown of a “Judge” in San Angelo, CPS to both the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court of Texas, and of course to the gullible media, this is their warning to all of us.

These children are getting their bones broken, these children are being sexually abused, men are taking little girls to bed, girls are being deflowered in the Temple, these children never get to play with “Real” toys, if these children are returned to their parents, they will flee the jurisdiction of the Court’s and we will never see them again and of course our particular favorite; a 16 year old virgin has had a child and the child is being hidden from her and the Court’s. She is once again pregnant, and she has been married to a pedophile. This poor retched child is being bullied and abused by a while her loving AAL has only the childs best interests at heart.

39 days ago today, the children were all returned to the most horrible and abusive conditions IMAGINABLE, and exactly how many times has CPS taken a little peek at these poor children to see how they are fairing under all this abuse? How many phone calls have been made, how many inquiries?

Every single contact made with a parent has been to secure information concerning making criminal charges. NOT ONE home visit has been made to see how the children are doing, or how many times they’ve been abused in the past 39 days. Of the 465 children who were freed from captivity, it’s unknown how many have left Texas, CPS hasn’t seen them so really can’t be sure.

http://www.flds.ws/2008/07/10/the-ranch-children-in-great-danger-of-abuse/

 

[Glow]

So much for the no crayons...........

(sorry the picture is so big - I dont know how to make it smaller )

 

[Ciara]

Wow thats bad if they have not gone back and done some home visits. I would have thought that the home visits to check on the kids welfare was a given

 

[Glow]

Wow thats bad if they have not gone back and done some home visits. I would have thought that the home visits to check on the kids welfare was a given

Yes. I think that it really highlights the true agenda of CPS.

We can sit here and talk about this case pro and con all day long, but what is real and what is the truth, can best be learned by what everyone does now.

CPS has asserted that they were SO concerned about these children that they had to bust in late at night and take not one (Sarah) but ALL 400+ kids.

One of the things CPS has to have as grounds for that kind of removal is PROOF of IMINENT harm. They have stated over and over that they did. They hinted heavily at salacious sexual indiscretions and broken bones and pregnant minors. And dont forget that the poor little things cant even color with crayons!



The fact that CPS has no interest in even laying their eyes on the children now, shows their interest was never about the children. But then, the way they treated the children while they had them in custody pretty much proved that. This is just the dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's for any last people who were still trying to give CPS any kind of credit.

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I disagree with the frustration about the follow ups. If CPS is being told to close out the cases, I think their follow up actions thus far have been appropriate. They are interviewing the parents about disciplining the children, finding out who is who, who lives where, whether children are left to help care for children etc. This sounds like a pretty standard process to me. If they have no evidence of abuse within a certain family, wouldn't we be complaining if they were more forceful in their follow up?

 

[SewingDeb]

Exactly RainbowsAndGumdrops!

Another thing: I thought a lot of the children and parents were living away from the ranch now and have to answer to CPS in different counties. How do we know for sure that CPS has not seen the children or visited the residences?

 

[Glow]

I disagree with the frustration about the follow ups. If CPS is being told to close out the cases, I think their follow up actions thus far have been appropriate.

But Rainbow, isnt that is a pretty big "if"? There is no indication that CPS has closed out the cases. The parents still have to attend parenting classes, are forbidden to leave the jurisdiction of CPS and had to sign papers agreeing to unannounced visits by CPS. None of that is happening.

They are interviewing the parents about disciplining the children, finding out who is who,

They already know who belongs to whom. That was one of the conditions on releasing the children

This sounds like a pretty standard process to me. If they have no evidence of abuse within a certain family, wouldn't we be complaining if they were more forceful in their follow up?

How can they know if they have "evidence" or not unless they go look? Isnt a home visit how that is done? CPS stated that was its intention and made the parents sign on to that plan.

Now CPS is devoting all its time to questioning the parents by phone while it prepares for trial without bothering to check on even one child. People complained about the force that was used. I dont think anybody would complain about them being thorough. And there is a world of difference between the words "thorough and "forceful"

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

What is Texas CPS up to?

Texas Child Protective Services is conducting interviews with FLDS mothers and some attorneys say their clients are being told the questioning is a prelude to closing out some cases. And perhaps zeroing in on others.

What do investigators want to know? They are asking, of course, about specific allegations in each case -- broken bones, for instance.

They also are going through this uniform list of questions:

1. Who is currently living in your house? (names and ages)

2. Who lived in your building/house at the ranch? (names and ages)

3. How do you discipline your children?

4. How old to you think a child needs to be care for a younger child? Do other children in the family have responsibility for potty training or discipline?

5. What adjustment issues have you experienced since your children have been home? Have there been any specific behavior problems that have been difficult to deal with? How have you dealt with these?

6. What is your position on underage marriage? Do you think it is appropriate?


http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/07/what-is-texas-cps-up-to.htm

Glow, I'm confused by your last posts. The information I got about CPS closing out cases came from your post. I admit that I didn't have the wording right, as I was trying to make a general point, not a sworn statement.

I'm confused because I thought you were previously implying that CPS was doing too much following up and snooping to find crimes. But now I feel like you are saying that CPS isn't following up enough.

I agree that CPS should be checking on the children.

I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.

Edited to add, I missed the part where all interviews are by phone. Can you point me to that part again?

 

[Ciara]

I disagree with the frustration about the follow ups. If CPS is being told to close out the cases, I think their follow up actions thus far have been appropriate. They are interviewing the parents about disciplining the children, finding out who is who, who lives where, whether children are left to help care for children etc. This sounds like a pretty standard process to me. If they have no evidence of abuse within a certain family, wouldn't we be complaining if they were more forceful in their follow up?

I didnt know that was standard process and doing all that which you mention so thats all ok then. I just presumed they would call in to visit the kids too.
Seems like they are doing what they are supposed to which is a good thing.

 

[Ciara]

They still should be doing home visits on the kids though. Like Deb said in her post too....are they visiting the homes of the mothers and children who did not return to the compound?

 

[Glow]

Glow, I'm confused by your last posts. The information I got about CPS closing out cases came from your post. I admit that I didn't have the wording right, as I was trying to make a general point, not a sworn statement.

Thats ok dont worry. Im not ever going to hold your feet to the fire:crazy:

The link above says the interviews are a prelude to closing out some cases.

I'm confused because I thought you were previously implying that CPS was doing too much following up and snooping to find crimes. But now I feel like you are saying that CPS isn't following up enough.


I agree that CPS should be checking on the children.

I'm just not sure what point you are trying to make.

I think that CPS should have moved slowly and carefully initially, which they did not do. As a matter of fact they did just the opposite and to a great extreme. Then they put a lot of false stuff out there and they let a lot of rumors that they knew werent true stand uncorrected.

This holy bastion of children protectors - because that is how they view themselves as well as how they would like us to view them - where are they now?

How did we go from the children have to be taken in the middle of the night to no need to even check on them at all?

The author of the article is trying to point out the irony of that.

Edited to add, I missed the part where all interviews are by phone. Can you point me to that part again?

I, like you was trying to make a general point, not a sworn statement. The article I linked said

"Every single contact made with a parent has been to secure information concerning making criminal charges. NOT ONE home visit has been made "

How is it that they are have "contact" w/o a phone? The local FLDS may go in to an office perhaps. About half are scattered around Texas though. I assumed the phone would be the type of communication they would use. Let me add e mails, faxes, and snail mail to that list instead of just phones.

My point was that the focus of CPS is on trying to salvage a criminal case and not on the childrens well being - if they believed all the dangers they said were there in the beginning.

They said the danger was clear and immediate. The Supreme Court said that was not proven but did leave leeway for Judge Walthers and CPS to impose some sanctions. What CPS came up with in part was that the families could not leave Texas and CPS could make unannounced visits.

So if CPS still feels these children are in danger why arent they making any visits?

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

Hmmm. Good points to ponder. I'd like to learn more about what CPS is doing - there side of the story.

 

[Glow]

Who is a Mormon?


The Principle Voices Coalition is taking on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over its recently launched campaign to distinguish itself from fundamentalist Mormons.

The coalition issued a statement today that says:

''The Principle Voices Coalition has learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a letter to media outlets asking that the term ''fundamentalist Mormon'' not be used. In the recent past, the Church has insisted that we instead be defined as ''polygamous sects,'' even though most of us are not (and do not refer to ourselves as) polygamists.

Two weeks ago, the LDS Church launched a campaign to distinguish itself from polygamous sects, particularly the FLDS. The LDS Church said the campaign was necessary because of public confusion over the relationship between the polygamous sect and the mainstream Mormon Church.


But the various sects and independents who adhere to the original principles of Mormonism say they do share a common heritage and should be allowed to define themselves.








http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/07/who-is-mormon.htm

 

[Glow]

The rest of todays story on the LDS and their attempt to create distance from the splinter groups.

PRESS RELEASE: “Fundamentalist Mormon” is the Correct Term Contrary to LDS Church Claims
NEWS RELEASE
July 9, 2008


Contact: Anne Wilde

Community Relations, Principle Voices

Email: [email protected]






“FUNDAMENTALIST MORMON” IS THE CORRECT TERM CONTRARY TO LDS CHURCH CLAIMS

The Principle Voices Coalition has learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a letter to media outlets asking that the term “fundamentalist Mormon” not be used. In the recent past, the Church has insisted that we instead be defined as “polygamous sects”, even though most of us are not (and do not refer to ourselves as) polygamists.

We strenuously object to any efforts to deprive us and others of the freedom to name and describe ourselves by terms of our own choosing. Fundamentalist Mormons have been referred to by that name since the 1930s, often by the Church itself. We are proud of our Mormon heritage. Plural marriage is only one of the tenets of our religion, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.

Ironically, the LDS Church has been justifiably uncomfortable with repeated assertions by members of some Christian denominations that Latter-day Saints are not Christians. In many ways, we consider ourselves to be adherents to Mormonism (and Christianity) no less than were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor. What distinguishes us from the modern, mainstream Church is that we have endeavored to observe the original, fundamental precepts of the restored Gospel, while the Church itself has, since the early 1900s, repudiated several of them.


—————————————————

The Principle Voices Coalition - contact: Anne Wilde

The Apostolic United Brethren - contact: David Dye

The Davis County Cooperative Society - contact: Carlene Cannon

The Work of Jesus Christ (Centennial Park) - contact: Marlyne Hammon

and numerous independent fundamentalist Mormons


To contact any one of these representatives, please send your emails to: [email protected], and we will forward them for you. Thank you.

 

[SewingDeb]

Glow,

This is a video link about an unrelated case but is of interest:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/07/10/newton.yemen.child.bride.cnn