The Rest of the Story...
- Thread starter Glow
- Start date
Glow
Active Member
I couldnt have said it any better :clap: :clap: :clap:
Freedom and Liberty Defenders Society Petition
On July 24, 2008 the United States Senate is holding a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the FLDS Church and the polygamist lifestyle. In order for this hearing to be fair, we, as petitioners, feel that it is absolutely essential that members of the FLDS Church and those favorable to their cause be invited to testify to give a fair balance of the facts before that committee.
Because of the one sided, and often greatly exaggerated and false reports, officers of the sate of Texas raided a small community called Yearning for Zion Ranch and removed over 420 innocent children from their parents, and held them and two dozen adults in state custody for over two months. The raid was based upon public misconceptions about these people and a hoax phone call. We believe that persecuting the FLDS people in this way, the state of Texas has engaged in an egregious abuse of authority from start to finish and has already wasted over $20 million dollars of taxpayer money.
F B I Director Robert Mueller has stated publicly that he does not feel a federal task force to investigate these people is necessary.
The Federal Government should, instead, be heading a task force to investigate the state of Texas, The Child Protective Services, and every official who had a hand in the massive violation of basic human and religious rights that occurred against these people. We adamantly oppose conducting what could be tantamount to a federal witch hunt based on rumors and innuendo; much of which coming from the same individuals and organizations responsible for the current mess in Texas.
We, as signers of this petition, are not seeking support of the polygamist lifestyle. We are not seeking to legalize polygamy. We are not all sympathetic to the people of FLDS Church or any of its practices. We are not all sympathetic to their position over those who have been invited to the hearing.
What we are sympathetic to is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates.
http://www.voicesforthechildren.org/viewpetition.php?id=3
Where do I sign?
Freedom and Liberty Defenders Society Petition
On July 24, 2008 the United States Senate is holding a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the FLDS Church and the polygamist lifestyle. In order for this hearing to be fair, we, as petitioners, feel that it is absolutely essential that members of the FLDS Church and those favorable to their cause be invited to testify to give a fair balance of the facts before that committee.
Because of the one sided, and often greatly exaggerated and false reports, officers of the sate of Texas raided a small community called Yearning for Zion Ranch and removed over 420 innocent children from their parents, and held them and two dozen adults in state custody for over two months. The raid was based upon public misconceptions about these people and a hoax phone call. We believe that persecuting the FLDS people in this way, the state of Texas has engaged in an egregious abuse of authority from start to finish and has already wasted over $20 million dollars of taxpayer money.
F B I Director Robert Mueller has stated publicly that he does not feel a federal task force to investigate these people is necessary.
The Federal Government should, instead, be heading a task force to investigate the state of Texas, The Child Protective Services, and every official who had a hand in the massive violation of basic human and religious rights that occurred against these people. We adamantly oppose conducting what could be tantamount to a federal witch hunt based on rumors and innuendo; much of which coming from the same individuals and organizations responsible for the current mess in Texas.
We, as signers of this petition, are not seeking support of the polygamist lifestyle. We are not seeking to legalize polygamy. We are not all sympathetic to the people of FLDS Church or any of its practices. We are not all sympathetic to their position over those who have been invited to the hearing.
What we are sympathetic to is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates.
http://www.voicesforthechildren.org/viewpetition.php?id=3
Where do I sign?
Glow
Active Member
Once again I think we find it easy to lose sight of what the terms of life are for the FLDS as compared to mainstream society.
While I don't agree with it "wholecloth" - I did find this article very enlightening as far as helping me understand the culture and the way of thinking that the FLDS people hold to.
Just a whole different take on the concept of dating and marriage altogether.
http://truthwillprevail.org/
An incident recorded in The Mosiah Hancock Journal is interesting in the light of current accusations regarding the FLDS in Texas.
Mosiah Hancock was a young member of the LDS Church during the Nauvoo period. Following his account of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, he records the following:
The Brethren pushed the work on the Temple; and the Gospel was preached; and every Saint was busy doing all he could to help the work along. Although I was very young [eleven years old], I was on guard many a night, and gladly did I hail with many of the Saints, the completion of the temple. On about January 10, 1846, I was privileged to go in the temple and receive my washings and annointings. I was sealed to a lovely young girl named Mary, who was about my age, but it was with the understanding that we were not to live together as man and wife until we were 16 years of age. The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple. (Mosiah Hancock Journal, Reprint by Pioneer Press, 3332 Ft. Union Blvd., Salt Lake City, Utah 84121, pp. 20, 21.)
While I don't agree with it "wholecloth" - I did find this article very enlightening as far as helping me understand the culture and the way of thinking that the FLDS people hold to.
Just a whole different take on the concept of dating and marriage altogether.
http://truthwillprevail.org/
An incident recorded in The Mosiah Hancock Journal is interesting in the light of current accusations regarding the FLDS in Texas.
Mosiah Hancock was a young member of the LDS Church during the Nauvoo period. Following his account of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum, he records the following:
The Brethren pushed the work on the Temple; and the Gospel was preached; and every Saint was busy doing all he could to help the work along. Although I was very young [eleven years old], I was on guard many a night, and gladly did I hail with many of the Saints, the completion of the temple. On about January 10, 1846, I was privileged to go in the temple and receive my washings and annointings. I was sealed to a lovely young girl named Mary, who was about my age, but it was with the understanding that we were not to live together as man and wife until we were 16 years of age. The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple. (Mosiah Hancock Journal, Reprint by Pioneer Press, 3332 Ft. Union Blvd., Salt Lake City, Utah 84121, pp. 20, 21.)
Glow
Active Member
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Salt Lake Tribune "Kinda" supports the FLDS
In what looks like an editorial leading into the Grand Jury and US Senate hearing week, the Salt Lake Tribune offers this;
"We continue to believe, however, that prosecution of polygamy per se should not be the government's primary focus at either the state or federal level. Instead, it is more important to bring to justice those who commit child abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, incest and fraud within polygamous communities."
Now, what if they had said THIS;
"We continue to believe, however, that prosecution of African Americans per se should not be the government's primary focus at either the state or federal level. Instead, it is more important to bring to justice those who commit child abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, incest and fraud within African American communities"
That would be RACIST, now wouldn't it? Really, it would be. So why is it that we allow this sort of extraordinary scrutiny of polygynists and polygynous communities? The problem is, that until Law Enforcement divorces themselves from the idea that polygynous communities OUGHT to be investigated for these crimes, as opposed to others THAT, IS THE PROBLEM. Just as it would be the problem if they supposed they ought to investigate Chinese or Black or Hispanic communities for such crimes. After all, doesn't everyone know that Blacks want "our" women, and rape them, Chinese harbor gangs and Hispanics are lazy wet backs? Right?
If ANYTHING polygynous communities have shown they are LESS prone, not MORE prone to such crimes. Blacks for instance, in Harlem, had higher educational success in terms of testing for knowledge, until the government came along and applied affirmative action as a solution. Apparently they did not NEED our help to mind their own business. Maybe that's just the problem, we need to mind our own business.
There need be NO hearings, there is no need for a Grand Jury. Pack up. Go Home. Move Along. Nothing to see here. I know the Salt Lake Tribune has largely been our friend, but this is bigotry. Mind your own business.
http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/
The Salt Lake Tribune "Kinda" supports the FLDS
In what looks like an editorial leading into the Grand Jury and US Senate hearing week, the Salt Lake Tribune offers this;
"We continue to believe, however, that prosecution of polygamy per se should not be the government's primary focus at either the state or federal level. Instead, it is more important to bring to justice those who commit child abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, incest and fraud within polygamous communities."
Now, what if they had said THIS;
"We continue to believe, however, that prosecution of African Americans per se should not be the government's primary focus at either the state or federal level. Instead, it is more important to bring to justice those who commit child abuse, child sexual abuse, rape, incest and fraud within African American communities"
That would be RACIST, now wouldn't it? Really, it would be. So why is it that we allow this sort of extraordinary scrutiny of polygynists and polygynous communities? The problem is, that until Law Enforcement divorces themselves from the idea that polygynous communities OUGHT to be investigated for these crimes, as opposed to others THAT, IS THE PROBLEM. Just as it would be the problem if they supposed they ought to investigate Chinese or Black or Hispanic communities for such crimes. After all, doesn't everyone know that Blacks want "our" women, and rape them, Chinese harbor gangs and Hispanics are lazy wet backs? Right?
If ANYTHING polygynous communities have shown they are LESS prone, not MORE prone to such crimes. Blacks for instance, in Harlem, had higher educational success in terms of testing for knowledge, until the government came along and applied affirmative action as a solution. Apparently they did not NEED our help to mind their own business. Maybe that's just the problem, we need to mind our own business.
There need be NO hearings, there is no need for a Grand Jury. Pack up. Go Home. Move Along. Nothing to see here. I know the Salt Lake Tribune has largely been our friend, but this is bigotry. Mind your own business.
http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/
Glow
Active Member
Everyone is a libertarian when it comes to his or her own choices:
My speech should be legal (though those other guys are over the line)
My choices, diet, lifestyle should be legal (though those other guys need to be protected from themselves)
My personal interactions are fine (but those other guys are all racists, threats to children, indecent, etc)
My business is great (but those other guys are all evil exploiters)
The hard part about defending freedom is not defending it for oneself. The hard part is defending other people's right to be free.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/07/statists-in-lib.html
My speech should be legal (though those other guys are over the line)
My choices, diet, lifestyle should be legal (though those other guys need to be protected from themselves)
My personal interactions are fine (but those other guys are all racists, threats to children, indecent, etc)
My business is great (but those other guys are all evil exploiters)
The hard part about defending freedom is not defending it for oneself. The hard part is defending other people's right to be free.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/07/statists-in-lib.html
Glow
Active Member
This article looks at the timing of the leaking of news about Teresa Jeffs being married at 15 as it relates to the Senate hearings.
Why was the story about Teresa held quiet till now?
from the article -
"Well, some could call it a bombshell.
But come on, didn't you expect it? Didn't you expect some salatious details to be laid out for public consumption prior to the next Grand Jury meeting? And, especially, to be released on a Friday afternoon?
The state obviously has been aware of the sealing for some time, as one set of the infamous wedding photos released weeks ago, is dated July 27, 2006. They just somehow managed not to let that information become known to the public. Amazing how they can keep a secret when they really want to.
Every action in this case is highly orchestrated for maximum effect on the public. The filings, the delayed hearings, Malonis' public statements, the announcement of a private hearing/interview with the Judge, Friday's filing, all of it.
There will be indictments issued on Tuesday, or sometime soon. We know that, because of the previously released wedding photos, and this latest filing on behalf of the "underaged minor". This is just leverage to force testimony.
I have previously stated my concern regarding the FLDS allowing the State to retain custody of their documentation and property, and the personal property of their members, and questioned why they had not filed suit for return of their property seized unlawfully. And this is one reason why: here we have a girl's private diary contents being published in a major newspaper. A diary the state has no right to have. It's nobody's business. But, maybe the FLDS lawyers actually want the indictment(s) to be issued.
As far as Theresa goes, actually, she could file for emancipation from her family. But, the state won't be happy until she is wrested from her home, placed in foster care, and put into "deprogramming" counseling because she is a brainwashed robot who has religious beliefs out of the ordinary and because she loves and respects her father, who is a wild and crazy man who thinks God talks to him. (Don't Catholics believe the Pope is God's voice on earth? Maybe I'm misinformed there. ) She's old enough to have sex and obtain an abortion without informing her parents, but she's not allowed to have sex with anyone purporting to be her spouse. If only she had been sealed to Raymond the day after she turned 14, in July of 2005. That would have been legal. And of course, we know the age of marriage was changed in Texas to 16 only because the FLDS had the audacity to move there.
The state will also, of course, likely take all of Annette Jeffs' children away from her and place them in foster care, too. They also will have to have deprogramming counseling. (One thing I have noticed about psychological therapists. If you say your prayers are answered because you receive confirmation of something through the influence of the Holy Spirit, they look at you like you are crazy. I don't know what they actually write down in their notes.)
Now, I have a question or two. Does abuse take place if the purported victim does not recognize the action to be abuse? Are sexual relations between a man and his wife abuse? Is 14 or 15 old enough to be married? Is 14 or 15 old enough to have sex? Is 14 or 15 old enough to participate in public school sex eduation classes? How many women currently living in the state of Texas first became mothers at 14 and 15 year old? What percentage of young ladies in Texas under the age of 18 are virgins? How many abortions were performed in Texas last year on young women under the age of 17? (I hear their abstinence program is called a success. )
And, a CASA's job is to determine what is in the best interest in the child. Part of determining that is to actually spend time with the child and the family. They discuss the case with the CPS social workers and any other specialists called in for the case. I don't think I would be out of line to say that in probably 99.9% of the cases, the CASA volunteer advises the court that the best interest of the child is exactly the same as what CPS social workers recommend. If there are any CASA or GAL workers/volunteers out there reading this, I'd sure like to hear of any cases in which they stepped up to say, "I think the child should remain with the family instead of being placed in foster care." Does that actually happen?
http://soretoesandableedingheart.blogspot.com/
Why was the story about Teresa held quiet till now?
from the article -
"Well, some could call it a bombshell.
But come on, didn't you expect it? Didn't you expect some salatious details to be laid out for public consumption prior to the next Grand Jury meeting? And, especially, to be released on a Friday afternoon?
The state obviously has been aware of the sealing for some time, as one set of the infamous wedding photos released weeks ago, is dated July 27, 2006. They just somehow managed not to let that information become known to the public. Amazing how they can keep a secret when they really want to.
Every action in this case is highly orchestrated for maximum effect on the public. The filings, the delayed hearings, Malonis' public statements, the announcement of a private hearing/interview with the Judge, Friday's filing, all of it.
There will be indictments issued on Tuesday, or sometime soon. We know that, because of the previously released wedding photos, and this latest filing on behalf of the "underaged minor". This is just leverage to force testimony.
I have previously stated my concern regarding the FLDS allowing the State to retain custody of their documentation and property, and the personal property of their members, and questioned why they had not filed suit for return of their property seized unlawfully. And this is one reason why: here we have a girl's private diary contents being published in a major newspaper. A diary the state has no right to have. It's nobody's business. But, maybe the FLDS lawyers actually want the indictment(s) to be issued.
As far as Theresa goes, actually, she could file for emancipation from her family. But, the state won't be happy until she is wrested from her home, placed in foster care, and put into "deprogramming" counseling because she is a brainwashed robot who has religious beliefs out of the ordinary and because she loves and respects her father, who is a wild and crazy man who thinks God talks to him. (Don't Catholics believe the Pope is God's voice on earth? Maybe I'm misinformed there. ) She's old enough to have sex and obtain an abortion without informing her parents, but she's not allowed to have sex with anyone purporting to be her spouse. If only she had been sealed to Raymond the day after she turned 14, in July of 2005. That would have been legal. And of course, we know the age of marriage was changed in Texas to 16 only because the FLDS had the audacity to move there.
The state will also, of course, likely take all of Annette Jeffs' children away from her and place them in foster care, too. They also will have to have deprogramming counseling. (One thing I have noticed about psychological therapists. If you say your prayers are answered because you receive confirmation of something through the influence of the Holy Spirit, they look at you like you are crazy. I don't know what they actually write down in their notes.)
Now, I have a question or two. Does abuse take place if the purported victim does not recognize the action to be abuse? Are sexual relations between a man and his wife abuse? Is 14 or 15 old enough to be married? Is 14 or 15 old enough to have sex? Is 14 or 15 old enough to participate in public school sex eduation classes? How many women currently living in the state of Texas first became mothers at 14 and 15 year old? What percentage of young ladies in Texas under the age of 18 are virgins? How many abortions were performed in Texas last year on young women under the age of 17? (I hear their abstinence program is called a success. )
And, a CASA's job is to determine what is in the best interest in the child. Part of determining that is to actually spend time with the child and the family. They discuss the case with the CPS social workers and any other specialists called in for the case. I don't think I would be out of line to say that in probably 99.9% of the cases, the CASA volunteer advises the court that the best interest of the child is exactly the same as what CPS social workers recommend. If there are any CASA or GAL workers/volunteers out there reading this, I'd sure like to hear of any cases in which they stepped up to say, "I think the child should remain with the family instead of being placed in foster care." Does that actually happen?
http://soretoesandableedingheart.blogspot.com/
Glow
Active Member
Is This Where We Want to Go?By Donald Richter
Considering the hearing scheduled for this Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the closed-door meeting of top law-enforcement officials that took place in Las Vegas six weeks ago targeting the FLDS, the American people need to ask themselves whether this sort of scrutiny is what we want for all citizens.
Examine each American family with a fine-toothed comb. Confiscate all computer hard-drives, diaries, letters, and financial records. Monitor phone calls, and track Internet usage. Apply to every citizen the same scrutiny allowed under the Patriot Act for suspected terrorists. No one should complain. Just trust Big Brother to judge properly every intimate detail of our lives. After all, if we havent been doing anything illegal, what do we have to fear? And just think how much safer we all will be, knowing that every criminal activity is properly ferreted out and the offenders brought to justice.
But, you object, this would be very sort of totalitarian regime that George Orwell warned us against in the 1940s.
Well, wake up, America! When this sort of thing is allowed against any group in our society, we are just that much closer to the day when the police state is a reality for all of us and individual liberty is nothing but a distant memory.
http://www.truthwillprevail.org/
Considering the hearing scheduled for this Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the closed-door meeting of top law-enforcement officials that took place in Las Vegas six weeks ago targeting the FLDS, the American people need to ask themselves whether this sort of scrutiny is what we want for all citizens.
Examine each American family with a fine-toothed comb. Confiscate all computer hard-drives, diaries, letters, and financial records. Monitor phone calls, and track Internet usage. Apply to every citizen the same scrutiny allowed under the Patriot Act for suspected terrorists. No one should complain. Just trust Big Brother to judge properly every intimate detail of our lives. After all, if we havent been doing anything illegal, what do we have to fear? And just think how much safer we all will be, knowing that every criminal activity is properly ferreted out and the offenders brought to justice.
But, you object, this would be very sort of totalitarian regime that George Orwell warned us against in the 1940s.
Well, wake up, America! When this sort of thing is allowed against any group in our society, we are just that much closer to the day when the police state is a reality for all of us and individual liberty is nothing but a distant memory.
http://www.truthwillprevail.org/
Glow
Active Member
Sometimes its interesting - in a critical skills thinking kind of way - to take out a name and substitute another, just to see if the same logic applies. In this case lets take out "FLDS" and in its place use "Catholic". That seems to be what this articles author was attempting:
Imagine this scenario:
HEARING ON CATHOLIC SEX ABUSE
The ailing Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), courageously fighting brain cancer, and Sen. David Vitter (R-La), have both denounced the scheduling of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week entitled "Crimes Associated with Celibacy".
The witness list for the the hearing, includes:
William McMurry, a Kentucky attorney who has represented three men alleging sexual abuse by Catholic priests;
Philip Jenkins, Episcopalian professor of History and Religious Studies, and author of the book Pedophiles and Priests;
and the Catholic actor Mel Gibson, who, in a 2003 interview, claimed the Vatican II has corrupted the Catholic church, with pedophilia as a result;
The names of other witnesses have not been released.
Kennedy and Vitter claim the hearing is not about celibacy, but in reality, focuses on the Catholic church and its scandal of sex abuse by priests. They noted that no representatives of the Catholic Church have been invited to present testimony.
Just imagine it.
http://soretoesandableedingheart.blogspot.com/2008/07/hearing-on-catholic-sex-abuse.html
Imagine this scenario:
HEARING ON CATHOLIC SEX ABUSE
The ailing Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), courageously fighting brain cancer, and Sen. David Vitter (R-La), have both denounced the scheduling of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week entitled "Crimes Associated with Celibacy".
The witness list for the the hearing, includes:
William McMurry, a Kentucky attorney who has represented three men alleging sexual abuse by Catholic priests;
Philip Jenkins, Episcopalian professor of History and Religious Studies, and author of the book Pedophiles and Priests;
and the Catholic actor Mel Gibson, who, in a 2003 interview, claimed the Vatican II has corrupted the Catholic church, with pedophilia as a result;
The names of other witnesses have not been released.
Kennedy and Vitter claim the hearing is not about celibacy, but in reality, focuses on the Catholic church and its scandal of sex abuse by priests. They noted that no representatives of the Catholic Church have been invited to present testimony.
Just imagine it.
http://soretoesandableedingheart.blogspot.com/2008/07/hearing-on-catholic-sex-abuse.html
Glow
Active Member
Interesting Parallel
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church
Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'
Posted: July 15, 2008
8:48 pm Eastern
"A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.
The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."
The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."
The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."
She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.
Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials even in their official capacity as representatives of the government can say what they want.
"It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.
"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.
Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."
The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."
The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.
Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693
So who/where is next?
FAITH UNDER FIRE
Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church
Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'
Posted: July 15, 2008
8:48 pm Eastern
"A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.
Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."
As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.
The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."
The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."
The anti-Catholic diatribe had been challenged in U.S. District Court on similar grounds, but District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the city, saying, in essence, the church started it.
She wrote in her decision, "The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith provoked this debate, indeed may have invited entanglement" for instructing Catholic politicians on how to vote. This court does not find that our case law requires political bodies to remain silent in the face of provocation."
She ruled that the city's proclamation was not entangling the government in church affairs, since the resolution was a non-binding, non-regulatory announcement.
Since no law was enacted, she ruled, city officials even in their official capacity as representatives of the government can say what they want.
"It is merely the exercise of free speech rights by duly elected office holders," she wrote.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is appealing the District Court decision on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco, disagrees with Patel's decision.
"Sadly, the ruling itself clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church," he said in a statement. "The judge in her written decision held that the Church 'provoked the debate' by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded 'responsibly' to all of the 'terrible' things the Church was saying."
Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," he said.
"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church. Their egregious abuse of power has now the backing of a lower federal court. Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases," Muise said.
Thomas More attorneys argued in the District Court case that the "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message" that Catholics are "outsiders, not full members of the political community."
The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.
Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."
Openly homosexual California Assemblyman Mark Leno told protesters of the teen rally that though such religious people may be few, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."
The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."
The Thomas More Law Center hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide in the case of Resolution 1680-08 that even if a large portion of the community is at odds with a religion's views on homosexuality, the government cannot be used as a weapon to condemn religious faith.
Currently, as WND has reported, Colorado and Michigan are tackling the question of whether the Bible itself can be vilified as "hate speech" for it's condemnation of homosexuality, and Canada has developed human rights commissions, which have decided people cannot express opposition to homosexuality without fear of government reprisal."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69693
So who/where is next?
Ciara
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,814
- Reaction score
- 11
I am Catholic and dont think you can compare the Catholic Religion with the FLDS. For one thing, we have choice and can follow all, some or none of the teachings and secondly those paedophile Priests would have been Paedophiles whether they were Priests or not.
As for racism.....the FLDS are as racist as you can get. I listened to some of Warren Jeff's teachings about race.
As for racism.....the FLDS are as racist as you can get. I listened to some of Warren Jeff's teachings about race.
Glow
Active Member
Hi Ciara,
I know that you are Catholic and I have great respect for you as well as the Catholic religion. I in no way see the above posts as comparing the FLDS and the Catholics.
In the first article, the author was trying to make a point using the contrast/compare method.
The second article was pointing out what some say is unfair of the Catholic church ie; holding to the Bibles standard on (among other issues) homosexuality. Some in fact, want certain passages stricken from the Bible.
The Catholic church is a Christian religion who claims its highest authority to be the Scriptures. Without launching an intense debate over whether they are right or wrong - I think they are on terra firma with their position here. The Church has been doing a fine job of defending itself for quit awhile on this issue and certainly doesn't need my help. Even if I disagree, the Church has every right to uphold its own Holy Book.
If groups are offended by that book then they need to speak out about how they feel and then find a belief system they are more comfortable with. There are many to choose from.
The fact that both articles above used the word Catholic really wasn't the point.
We have to remember that the FLDS fancy themselves as being 100 years behind the mainstream in behavior. That is part and parcel of their fundamentalism. So to use that same measuring stick, where were the Catholics 100 years ago?
Girls were encouraged to marry young and marry Catholic.
No birth control and have as many children as possible - for God.
NO abortion (therefore no choice)
No divorce (except under rare circumstances) and ALWAYS determined by men (the church) - never women.
I wont even bring up the molesting of children of both sexes by men in power within the religion since we all know about that. So moving on to the racism....
Practically everything that comes out of Warren Jeffs mouth is wrong in one way or another. He is a mentally ill man in a position of power. This is not the first time that has happened. He takes the fundamentalists teachings of his forefathers and he carries them even further. Maybe some demented attempt on his part to be viewed as "more righteous" who knows?
The Latter Day Saints have been criticized before for appearing to be racist. The FLDS get their views from the same origins. In spite of that several blacks were ordained to the Mormon priesthood in the 1830s
The Latter Day Saints have made remarkable strides in recent years to adjust that viewpiont. Since the 1978 priesthood revelation Black men are now serving in leadership roles. As far as the saying "when we know better - we do better" I dont think they are to be faulted.
But the FLDS see themselves as many years back from NOW. Our understanding that is intrinsic to our understanding them.
So where was the Catholic faith 100 years ago?
Well here in America they were just ordaining their FIRST black priest. Augustine Tolton (1886)
as recent as 75 years ago, blacks went to their own churches because they were not allowed to join white parishes or, if they did, were required to sit in reserved pews in the back of the church.
Here are the words of one woman of the Catholic faith-
"In 2007 it was announced that the Pope Benedict XVI has agreed to go back the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass was written during the 16th century and denounces all other religions. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960's had abolished the mass. I was astonished that the Pope would do such a thing when two thirds of the Catholics in the world live in Asia and Africa! The Tridentine Mass is only spoken in Latin, and if you do not know Latin, oh well. This mass also really states some hurtful messages about Jews. Tridentine Mass specifically talks about how Jews are not believers/followers of God, and the Catholic Religion is the only religion that there is."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/326559/the_reintroduction_of_the_tridentine.html
Here is another lengthy article addressing present concerns -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n19_v34/ai_20404493/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
With attention and emphasis on Hispanic needs and concerns, many feel that issues in the African-American community are ignored. Many African-Americans still view the church as a racist institution." -- Jacqueline Wilson, former president, National Association of Black Catholic Administrators
"The institutional church does not have a clue how to relate to blacks and has no desire, does not put forth the effort and will not take the time to find a clue." -- Fr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church Chicago.
The lingering "injury," in Dennis' view, includes the church's long reluctance to condemn slavery, its indifference to segregation and, above all, its historical failure to encourage black vocations to the priesthood and religious life Back in the 1960s and 1970s, said Dennis, urban blacks flocked to Catholicism. It was in part a prestige thing, he said, "and perhaps the converts were not always deeply evangelized." But they -- and their children and grandchildren -- have since experienced racism in various forms, and in the aftermath of the civil rights era they are less inclined to accept second-class status in church or society.
"The racism's not as blatant now," said Dennis, "not insults, just a kind of shunning that said you're not welcome here. So folks are saying, the heck with it! If you don't want us, we'll go our own way."
I find no fault with the Catholic Church nor the Latter Day Saints OR the FLDS. I feel patience is in order.
The first two groups seem to be struggling to address this issue so good for them.
The FLDS are where they were 100 years ago so if the best indicator of the future is the past....then we can expect the FLDS to begin to address this issue in upcoming years. This will probably begin with the removal of Warren Jeffs from his position of power within their structure.
I have the greatest respect for the Catholic Church as well as the Latter Day Saints. My point is that ALL religions have done OR are doing what the FLDS are currently being accused of.
It makes me think of the words of another prophet from long ago who told a bunch of religous people that were trying to judge and moralize
"Let whoever is among you that is without sin, cast the first stone."
Wow, now theres a thought!
I know that you are Catholic and I have great respect for you as well as the Catholic religion. I in no way see the above posts as comparing the FLDS and the Catholics.
In the first article, the author was trying to make a point using the contrast/compare method.
The second article was pointing out what some say is unfair of the Catholic church ie; holding to the Bibles standard on (among other issues) homosexuality. Some in fact, want certain passages stricken from the Bible.
The Catholic church is a Christian religion who claims its highest authority to be the Scriptures. Without launching an intense debate over whether they are right or wrong - I think they are on terra firma with their position here. The Church has been doing a fine job of defending itself for quit awhile on this issue and certainly doesn't need my help. Even if I disagree, the Church has every right to uphold its own Holy Book.
If groups are offended by that book then they need to speak out about how they feel and then find a belief system they are more comfortable with. There are many to choose from.
The fact that both articles above used the word Catholic really wasn't the point.
We have to remember that the FLDS fancy themselves as being 100 years behind the mainstream in behavior. That is part and parcel of their fundamentalism. So to use that same measuring stick, where were the Catholics 100 years ago?
Girls were encouraged to marry young and marry Catholic.
No birth control and have as many children as possible - for God.
NO abortion (therefore no choice)
No divorce (except under rare circumstances) and ALWAYS determined by men (the church) - never women.
I wont even bring up the molesting of children of both sexes by men in power within the religion since we all know about that. So moving on to the racism....
Practically everything that comes out of Warren Jeffs mouth is wrong in one way or another. He is a mentally ill man in a position of power. This is not the first time that has happened. He takes the fundamentalists teachings of his forefathers and he carries them even further. Maybe some demented attempt on his part to be viewed as "more righteous" who knows?
The Latter Day Saints have been criticized before for appearing to be racist. The FLDS get their views from the same origins. In spite of that several blacks were ordained to the Mormon priesthood in the 1830s
The Latter Day Saints have made remarkable strides in recent years to adjust that viewpiont. Since the 1978 priesthood revelation Black men are now serving in leadership roles. As far as the saying "when we know better - we do better" I dont think they are to be faulted.
But the FLDS see themselves as many years back from NOW. Our understanding that is intrinsic to our understanding them.
So where was the Catholic faith 100 years ago?
Well here in America they were just ordaining their FIRST black priest. Augustine Tolton (1886)
as recent as 75 years ago, blacks went to their own churches because they were not allowed to join white parishes or, if they did, were required to sit in reserved pews in the back of the church.
Here are the words of one woman of the Catholic faith-
"In 2007 it was announced that the Pope Benedict XVI has agreed to go back the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass was written during the 16th century and denounces all other religions. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960's had abolished the mass. I was astonished that the Pope would do such a thing when two thirds of the Catholics in the world live in Asia and Africa! The Tridentine Mass is only spoken in Latin, and if you do not know Latin, oh well. This mass also really states some hurtful messages about Jews. Tridentine Mass specifically talks about how Jews are not believers/followers of God, and the Catholic Religion is the only religion that there is."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/326559/the_reintroduction_of_the_tridentine.html
Here is another lengthy article addressing present concerns -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n19_v34/ai_20404493/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
With attention and emphasis on Hispanic needs and concerns, many feel that issues in the African-American community are ignored. Many African-Americans still view the church as a racist institution." -- Jacqueline Wilson, former president, National Association of Black Catholic Administrators
"The institutional church does not have a clue how to relate to blacks and has no desire, does not put forth the effort and will not take the time to find a clue." -- Fr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church Chicago.
The lingering "injury," in Dennis' view, includes the church's long reluctance to condemn slavery, its indifference to segregation and, above all, its historical failure to encourage black vocations to the priesthood and religious life Back in the 1960s and 1970s, said Dennis, urban blacks flocked to Catholicism. It was in part a prestige thing, he said, "and perhaps the converts were not always deeply evangelized." But they -- and their children and grandchildren -- have since experienced racism in various forms, and in the aftermath of the civil rights era they are less inclined to accept second-class status in church or society.
"The racism's not as blatant now," said Dennis, "not insults, just a kind of shunning that said you're not welcome here. So folks are saying, the heck with it! If you don't want us, we'll go our own way."
I find no fault with the Catholic Church nor the Latter Day Saints OR the FLDS. I feel patience is in order.
The first two groups seem to be struggling to address this issue so good for them.
The FLDS are where they were 100 years ago so if the best indicator of the future is the past....then we can expect the FLDS to begin to address this issue in upcoming years. This will probably begin with the removal of Warren Jeffs from his position of power within their structure.
I have the greatest respect for the Catholic Church as well as the Latter Day Saints. My point is that ALL religions have done OR are doing what the FLDS are currently being accused of.
It makes me think of the words of another prophet from long ago who told a bunch of religous people that were trying to judge and moralize
"Let whoever is among you that is without sin, cast the first stone."
Wow, now theres a thought!
Ciara
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,814
- Reaction score
- 11
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Glow. I see Catholicism as a Religion but the FLDS as a cult.
As for those other mad eejits trying to get The Bible changed, dont even get me started on that:bang:If they dont like it they dont have to look at it.
As for those other mad eejits trying to get The Bible changed, dont even get me started on that:bang:If they dont like it they dont have to look at it.
Glow
Active Member
LOL on the term mad eejits - although I am sure each side would claim that about the other.
As far as how you OR myself or anyone else "sees" things - that is neither here nor there.
What matters are the facts. Opinions (including mine) are like belly buttons - everybody has one.
The facts are different. They are the reality. The reality is that the FLDS have not done ONE thing (yet) that hasn't been done before by a recognized religion.
Just a little over 2000 years ago Peter (the first Pope) was part of a ragged little band of men following that "man" I quoted at the end my post above. They were considered a cult also. And yet today? You yourself are a follower of what is now one of the worlds largest religions. What changed?
Time. Just time. The mere passing of time. That is why it is better to go on the facts than on opinion. (in my opinion)
As far as how you OR myself or anyone else "sees" things - that is neither here nor there.
What matters are the facts. Opinions (including mine) are like belly buttons - everybody has one.
The facts are different. They are the reality. The reality is that the FLDS have not done ONE thing (yet) that hasn't been done before by a recognized religion.
Just a little over 2000 years ago Peter (the first Pope) was part of a ragged little band of men following that "man" I quoted at the end my post above. They were considered a cult also. And yet today? You yourself are a follower of what is now one of the worlds largest religions. What changed?
Time. Just time. The mere passing of time. That is why it is better to go on the facts than on opinion. (in my opinion)
Ciara
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,814
- Reaction score
- 11
Hey..my opinion is a fact to me:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
I dont know enough to argue the points as eloquently as you do I just know that I see the FLDS as a cult and in no way similar to modern day Catholics.
Whatever about the past, we are talking about today.
I dont know enough to argue the points as eloquently as you do I just know that I see the FLDS as a cult and in no way similar to modern day Catholics.
Whatever about the past, we are talking about today.
The reality is that the FLDS have not done ONE thing (yet) that hasn't been done before by a recognized religion.
The abusive Catholic priests did not stand on the altar abusing children while the whole congregation watched, approved, and took photos. Quite to the contrary, Catholics worldwide were outraged when the abuse surfaced, and demanded that it be prosecuted.
Glow
Active Member
Who me? I just post eloquent links :blushing:
Glow
Active Member
Natalie Malonis has filed a motion to seal the report filed last Friday by Teresa Jeffs CASA . . . Malonis says, in motion, that its in Teresas best interests now that it has already been fully disclosed in the major press to cover it up.
Whats Malonis up to? Why leave the report wide open to be picked over on the weekend only to seal it now?
Click on the link to access a full copy of Malonis motion.
http://iperceive.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/malonis-motion-to-seal.pdf
Whats Malonis up to? Why leave the report wide open to be picked over on the weekend only to seal it now?
Click on the link to access a full copy of Malonis motion.
http://iperceive.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/malonis-motion-to-seal.pdf
Glow
Active Member
From Brooke Adams blog-
In Texas: grand jury and not so public records
I am sitting outside the Schleicher County Courthouse once again, trying to piece together what is going on from afar. The word is that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will be here today. If so, he has not yet arrived.
The panel entered a smaller building a few minutes ago. Apparently, the proceedings will take place in an auxillary building that has air conditioned. Good idea, since it is supposed to be about 100 degrees today.
Alan Futrell, a defense attorney representing Teresa Jeffs is here. So is Richard Wright, the Las Vegas attorney who has assisted with Warren Jeffs' cases in three states.
Speaking of Teresa Jeffs, I stopped by the Tom Green County Courthouse yesterday. Apparently, publicly filed documents are only public if Judge Barbara Walther decides they are. I asked a clerk whether there had been any filings in the FLDS case. Nope, she said. None that Walther has authorized for release.
Actually, a number of motions were filed last week in preparation for a hearing that was supposed to take place Monday involving Teresa and her now well-known attorney Natalie Malonis. Among the documents were responses from two attorneys that Malonis asked to be barred from contact with Teresa, including Futrell. The filings also include the CASA report that detailed three marriages involving underage girls at the YFZ Ranch in 2006.
When I asked specifically about that report, the clerk said that Walther had not authorized its release. Maybe not, but that has not kept it from making its way into the public forum.
In Texas: grand jury and not so public records
I am sitting outside the Schleicher County Courthouse once again, trying to piece together what is going on from afar. The word is that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will be here today. If so, he has not yet arrived.
The panel entered a smaller building a few minutes ago. Apparently, the proceedings will take place in an auxillary building that has air conditioned. Good idea, since it is supposed to be about 100 degrees today.
Alan Futrell, a defense attorney representing Teresa Jeffs is here. So is Richard Wright, the Las Vegas attorney who has assisted with Warren Jeffs' cases in three states.
Speaking of Teresa Jeffs, I stopped by the Tom Green County Courthouse yesterday. Apparently, publicly filed documents are only public if Judge Barbara Walther decides they are. I asked a clerk whether there had been any filings in the FLDS case. Nope, she said. None that Walther has authorized for release.
Actually, a number of motions were filed last week in preparation for a hearing that was supposed to take place Monday involving Teresa and her now well-known attorney Natalie Malonis. Among the documents were responses from two attorneys that Malonis asked to be barred from contact with Teresa, including Futrell. The filings also include the CASA report that detailed three marriages involving underage girls at the YFZ Ranch in 2006.
When I asked specifically about that report, the clerk said that Walther had not authorized its release. Maybe not, but that has not kept it from making its way into the public forum.
Glow
Active Member
It’s pretty clear that Natalie Malonis was behind last Friday’s leak of the CASA report (actually filed by the Jeffs’ guardian ad litem) that allegedly discloses Jeffs’ personal diary entries and photos reporting on her “marriage” to Ray Jessop. Malonis, after (apparently) approving of the leak to serve her own political objectives, suddenly moved Monday to “seal” the leaked CASA report. Deseret News reports this morning (July 22):
On Monday [July 21], Malonis filed papers seeking to have the report prepared by the Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) sealed, saying, “The report and attachments contain sensitive information pertaining to allegations of sex abuse of a minor.”
Malonis acknowledged that the timing was a little late but said she was trying to protect her client. “It would prevent any further dissemination, at least from the court,” she [said] Monday night.
“Trying to protect her client”? A “little late”? “Further dissemination at least from the court?” What’s really going on here?
It’s all part of a cynical, illegal plan, coordinated by the State of Texas, aided and abetted by a nationwide crime syndicate that Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer calls an Empire Built on Taking Children. Their immediate objectives? Salvage the power of Texas CPS, defend the child-snatching industry, get rid of pesky Jeffs’ defense attorney Alan Futrell, and run the FLDS out of the State by inflaming the public with sensationalistic slices of data no matter how unreliable. This has been the CPS pattern from the beginning.
But why, if you want the public to see all this stuff, would you move to seal it after first revealing it? Because, arguably, the leak was illegal and violated Malonis’ duties to represent the best interests of Teresa Jeffs. By moving belatedly to seal it, Malonis gives the CPS-collaborator Texas courts an excuse to let Malonis off her own legal hook. More on the hook, below.
On Saturday, July 19, the Houston Chronicle reported:
Vicki Vines, a clerk with the Tom Green County District Court clerk’s office said she did not know if the CASA report had been filed by mid afternoon Friday.
But Natalie Malonis, the girl’s court-appointed attorney, confirmed the report had been filed with the court in San Angelo.
“I hate that it’s come to this but hopefully now my client and I can get our relationship away from public scrutiny and back on track and start going forward.”
So, Friday, she confirmed the filing but failed — deliberately — to have it sealed at that time. “I hate that it’s come this”? Relationship? Is that what Jeffs’ referred to in her June 18 letter to Judge Walther? This is what Malonis calls a “relationship”?
This is the same Malonis who asked Judge Walther, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune on July 15, to hold a hearing originally scheduled for Monday, July 21, to determine whether Malonis should be sacked as Teresa’s attorney. That hearing was inexplicably cancelled last Thursday, July 17.
But Saturday’s Hou Chron reportage, together with today’s report in the Deseret News, shows that Malonis not only knew of the CASA report leak in advance but had a clear motive to encourage it. From today’s Des News:
The evidence cited in the CASA report came from law enforcement and Texas CPS, the group said. The report urged the judge not to remove Malonis from representing Jeffs.
“The circumstances of this case certainly necessitate the attorney ad litem’s substituted judgment for her client,” it said.
Based on photographs, marriage records, letters and cards, CASA said it concluded that Teresa Jeffs was involved in an “intimate relationship” with her purported husband, 34-year-old Raymond Jessop.
The blue text, above, is the key to the whole business. Malonis had the CASA file the report to support Malonis bid for the legal power to literally speak not for Teresa Jeffs but in place of Teresa even when doing so goes against Teresa’s expressed desires. Teresa now becomes, in essence, Malonis’ ventriloquist doll.
Texas law only allows an attorney ad litem (Malonis) this power — called “substituted judgment” — in special circumstances outlined in the slides below. These were presented to some of the FLDS kids’ AALs during their anti-FLDS training on April 11-12, 2008, in San Angelo:
Keeping Malonis on the case is vital to Malonis, Judge Walther, and the entire Texas CPS establishment. So far, they have made complete horse’s a– of themselves. Teresa is the key to their rehabilitation. She can put FLDS people in jail, but only if she cooperates as a witness. Teresa is a linch-pin in the anti-FLDS grand jury proceedings in San Angelo. If Judge Walther had been forced to sack Malonis in favor of a less-CPS-compliant ad litem, Walther would have lost a big ally in browbeating Teresa.
But Malonis and Walther could have tag-teamed behind closed doors without leaking the CASA report. Why the leak? In part, because Malonis and Walther both desperately needed political cover to keep Malonis on the case. In addition, the leak serves the broader purpose of generally inflaming the public against the FLDS. I mean, who wants to stick up for “people who” (notice the stereotyping here) marry off their teens to each other?
Everyone knows that CPS, Malonis and Walther have an anti-FLDS agenda. Without the leak, their PR hole sinks deeper. This leak gives a thin film of legitimacy to their religiously-motivated vendetta against 500+ men, women and children by persuading the public that “abuse” must have occurred somewhere at the YFZ Ranch and, therefore, everyone on the Ranch is fair game for CPS.
Malonis’ next move will likely be to sack Teresa’s criminal defense counsel, Alan Futrell, with whom Malonis was sparring last week, claiming Futrell was acting “without authority” in representing Jeffs before the grand jury. All Malonis has to say — assuming that she can justify “substituted judgment” — is, “I speak for Teresa, now, and I say Teresa no longer wants Futrell to represent her.” Done. Well, it may not be quite that easy. But that’s the theory.
more at link
http://iperceive.net/natalie-maloni...client-i-hate-that-its-come-to-this/#more-601
On Monday [July 21], Malonis filed papers seeking to have the report prepared by the Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) sealed, saying, “The report and attachments contain sensitive information pertaining to allegations of sex abuse of a minor.”
Malonis acknowledged that the timing was a little late but said she was trying to protect her client. “It would prevent any further dissemination, at least from the court,” she [said] Monday night.
“Trying to protect her client”? A “little late”? “Further dissemination at least from the court?” What’s really going on here?
It’s all part of a cynical, illegal plan, coordinated by the State of Texas, aided and abetted by a nationwide crime syndicate that Georgia State Senator Nancy Schaefer calls an Empire Built on Taking Children. Their immediate objectives? Salvage the power of Texas CPS, defend the child-snatching industry, get rid of pesky Jeffs’ defense attorney Alan Futrell, and run the FLDS out of the State by inflaming the public with sensationalistic slices of data no matter how unreliable. This has been the CPS pattern from the beginning.
But why, if you want the public to see all this stuff, would you move to seal it after first revealing it? Because, arguably, the leak was illegal and violated Malonis’ duties to represent the best interests of Teresa Jeffs. By moving belatedly to seal it, Malonis gives the CPS-collaborator Texas courts an excuse to let Malonis off her own legal hook. More on the hook, below.
On Saturday, July 19, the Houston Chronicle reported:
Vicki Vines, a clerk with the Tom Green County District Court clerk’s office said she did not know if the CASA report had been filed by mid afternoon Friday.
But Natalie Malonis, the girl’s court-appointed attorney, confirmed the report had been filed with the court in San Angelo.
“I hate that it’s come to this but hopefully now my client and I can get our relationship away from public scrutiny and back on track and start going forward.”
So, Friday, she confirmed the filing but failed — deliberately — to have it sealed at that time. “I hate that it’s come this”? Relationship? Is that what Jeffs’ referred to in her June 18 letter to Judge Walther? This is what Malonis calls a “relationship”?
This is the same Malonis who asked Judge Walther, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune on July 15, to hold a hearing originally scheduled for Monday, July 21, to determine whether Malonis should be sacked as Teresa’s attorney. That hearing was inexplicably cancelled last Thursday, July 17.
But Saturday’s Hou Chron reportage, together with today’s report in the Deseret News, shows that Malonis not only knew of the CASA report leak in advance but had a clear motive to encourage it. From today’s Des News:
The evidence cited in the CASA report came from law enforcement and Texas CPS, the group said. The report urged the judge not to remove Malonis from representing Jeffs.
“The circumstances of this case certainly necessitate the attorney ad litem’s substituted judgment for her client,” it said.
Based on photographs, marriage records, letters and cards, CASA said it concluded that Teresa Jeffs was involved in an “intimate relationship” with her purported husband, 34-year-old Raymond Jessop.
The blue text, above, is the key to the whole business. Malonis had the CASA file the report to support Malonis bid for the legal power to literally speak not for Teresa Jeffs but in place of Teresa even when doing so goes against Teresa’s expressed desires. Teresa now becomes, in essence, Malonis’ ventriloquist doll.
Texas law only allows an attorney ad litem (Malonis) this power — called “substituted judgment” — in special circumstances outlined in the slides below. These were presented to some of the FLDS kids’ AALs during their anti-FLDS training on April 11-12, 2008, in San Angelo:
Keeping Malonis on the case is vital to Malonis, Judge Walther, and the entire Texas CPS establishment. So far, they have made complete horse’s a– of themselves. Teresa is the key to their rehabilitation. She can put FLDS people in jail, but only if she cooperates as a witness. Teresa is a linch-pin in the anti-FLDS grand jury proceedings in San Angelo. If Judge Walther had been forced to sack Malonis in favor of a less-CPS-compliant ad litem, Walther would have lost a big ally in browbeating Teresa.
But Malonis and Walther could have tag-teamed behind closed doors without leaking the CASA report. Why the leak? In part, because Malonis and Walther both desperately needed political cover to keep Malonis on the case. In addition, the leak serves the broader purpose of generally inflaming the public against the FLDS. I mean, who wants to stick up for “people who” (notice the stereotyping here) marry off their teens to each other?
Everyone knows that CPS, Malonis and Walther have an anti-FLDS agenda. Without the leak, their PR hole sinks deeper. This leak gives a thin film of legitimacy to their religiously-motivated vendetta against 500+ men, women and children by persuading the public that “abuse” must have occurred somewhere at the YFZ Ranch and, therefore, everyone on the Ranch is fair game for CPS.
Malonis’ next move will likely be to sack Teresa’s criminal defense counsel, Alan Futrell, with whom Malonis was sparring last week, claiming Futrell was acting “without authority” in representing Jeffs before the grand jury. All Malonis has to say — assuming that she can justify “substituted judgment” — is, “I speak for Teresa, now, and I say Teresa no longer wants Futrell to represent her.” Done. Well, it may not be quite that easy. But that’s the theory.
more at link
http://iperceive.net/natalie-maloni...client-i-hate-that-its-come-to-this/#more-601
Glow
Active Member
Sorry, for the delay in posting, this news came out Tuesday afternoon.
FLDS spokesman gets subpoena
FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop was apparently handed a subpoena this morning calling him to appear before the Schleicher County Grand Jury.
Jessop was pulled over in Eldorado and handed the summons. He approached media waiting outside the courthouse but would not confirm he has been called as a witness or why he was stopped.
Jessop is in the courthouse now with defense attorneys Richard Wright of Las Vegas and Bob Switzer of San Antonio.
A handful of FLDS women also have been called to testify today.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/
FLDS spokesman gets subpoena
FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop was apparently handed a subpoena this morning calling him to appear before the Schleicher County Grand Jury.
Jessop was pulled over in Eldorado and handed the summons. He approached media waiting outside the courthouse but would not confirm he has been called as a witness or why he was stopped.
Jessop is in the courthouse now with defense attorneys Richard Wright of Las Vegas and Bob Switzer of San Antonio.
A handful of FLDS women also have been called to testify today.
http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/
Online statistics
- Members online
- 126
- Guests online
- 396
- Total visitors
- 522