Attorneys for the FLDS Church have filed papers challenging the continuing execution of the search warrant at the group's YFZ Ranch near San Angelo, Texas. Some 401 children have been removed from the ranch and placed into temporary state custody. (See prior posting.) Today's Deseret Morning News reports that 12 attorney have been hired to represent the Church in a hearing scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. The Church argues that the search is illegal because authorities had insufficient "probable cause" for the search warrant that was issued. Attorneys particularly argue that irreparable injury would be caused by any search of the FLDS temple at the ranch. They contend: "The temple is one of the holiest sites in the community to the religious denomination living there. Members ... consider it a desecration of one of their holiest sites for a non-member to enter the temple. Similar to the concept of unringing a bell, how would law enforcement propose to undesecrate the temple in a community should the search later be found to have been illegal?"
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
14 comments:
A real church should not be "too holy" for people to enter when it comes to questions of illegality which no church should defend --such as the forced marriage and impregnating of a youth. The girl who can't be found is probably with the perp in Arizona --getting sacrificed for the cause of covering his debauchery.
So where did they get all their money to hire 12 lawyers???
I've been looking for this warrant and would love to examine it. I'm also interested in finding out what further legal justification the state had for removing the 400 children from the compound. That seems like the more drastic action. Any information anyone has, please share.
Well, to be fair, the mainstream Mormon church does not permit just anyone to enter its temples. Only members of the church in good standing, that is, equipped with a document called a "temple recommend", signed, I believe, by a bishop, are permitted to enter a temple. That is not to say that legitimate law enforcement considerations should not override religious rules where necessary, but it isn't just cults that restrict access to holy places.
trentonjack,
I would look at the Salt Lake Tribune website. They have been following this story pretty closely. I've wondered about the warrant myself. I don't believe FLDS members had advanced knowledge of the raid, so it's unlikely they removed the girl because she called the police (unless someone caught her calling, but there doesn't seem to be evidence of this). Since they can't find evidence of the girl, her husband or the baby, I wonder if someone from the community called the police and made up a story in order to afford probable cause to enter the compound. But who knows, only time will tell.
Also, billposer makes a good point, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does restrict access to their temples to worthy members (FYI, temple recommends must normally be signed by a bishop and what's called a stake president). I've never heard of Mormons restricting legitimate law enforcement or regulatory access to their temples.
As for barb, many polygamists groups are actually quite wealthy. They live on the cheap because they mostly eschew modern consumerism. They tend to own large amounts of land, and do well with investments. Also, they often designate certain individuals to gain training in job fields so they can use that knowledge to better the community. For example, they will send out individuals to become lawyers, doctors, etc. (this may explain why they have twelve lawyers). Many might not agree with their practices (I don't), but they are, for the most part, intelligent and organized people.
As for myself, I think the authorities are taking their opportunity to drive these people out of Texas. My wife's family lives within a couple hours of the compound, and the FLDS are, let us say, not liked in those parts. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Marco
I am from Texas. The search warrent was issued based on 3rd party hearsay . Here is a link so you can look at the affidavit the judge used as the sole reason to issue. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0408081texas1.html
The alleged complainant has not been located or identified. The accused "husband" has been verified as having been out of the state, in fact for years. Seems like this is a setup witch hunt.
Here is a link to the nearby large town newspaper so you can take follow a bit more closely
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/08/pervasive-pattern-of-sexual-abuse-alleged-in-to/
Texas here again. It is now reported CPS is set to petition the court to DNA all children and mothers. It's unclear about the men. Additionally all men are still being held under guard on the ranch.
A 3rd party report of that nature would get a court order, would it not? an anonymous caller says she is being held prisoner for sex purposes? I think the law would go in to investigate such a call just to be sure. How do they know this man is really living away from the cult --proof? or is that hearsay from cult members covering his can?
You couldn't just pussy foot around on such an investigation for fear of the girl's safety and possible weapons stored --another Branch Davidian possibility. If you just go ask questions, the girl would be exposed and subject to danger. You have to take control long enough to discern the facts of the matter --if possible. I think the authorities did the right thing.
Barb; From meda accounts the one accused was verified as being in the State of Arizona by his parole officer. The complaintant stated that she had been baaten and impegnated by him on a spacifc day (easter I belive). If he has credible witnesses that he was out of state at that time, and authorities can not find any evidence. where do we go from there. Is this just a fake call from someone that wants there land (1700 acres) or dislikes them? FYI this is oil country. the county this property is in had over one millon barrels of oil pumped in the 1980 and 1990. At one time oil represented 60 to 70 % of property tax tax revenue.
Has anyone ever heard of STATUTORY RAPE??? I am baffled that this FLDS group has gotten away from this law for so many years. Everyone of these men and the men in other FLDS cities are pedifiles and need to under go criminal law suits and become registered sex offenders for statutory rape. Their children, especially the young boys, need to under go counseling to learn what age is acceptable in America. The law in almost all 50 states is that no man over 18 can have intercourse with a girl less than 18 years old. Why is this not the topic??? Why is any normal human questioning this rade??? These children might have a chance to understand that the world is not evil.
The law in almost all 50 states is that no man over 18 can have intercourse with a girl less than 18 years old.
Whoa there, Tex! You might want to check what the law actually is before you make statements like that. Ages vary by state, but in NY at least the age is 17. And, some states have made exceptions for married couples and allow marriage at younger ages (not sure if any of those laws are still in force). You also stated the law in a sexist manner (unintentionally, I'm sure).
Questioning the legality of the raid isn't necessarily being protective of these cultists. If the raid is illegal they might not be able to use evidence of rape or abuse in a court, which would let these people go free. You don't want that, do you? Things like that have happened before, and will happen again.
He was not with his parole officer on the day of the abuse, which was allegedly Easter. He is already a convicted child molester. I heard them say that the parole officer was sure he was staying in his state --like how would he know where the guy was between visits to the officer??? DUH! He's not wearing a monitor, after all.
When real violations of law are discovered and thrown out for technicalities, that is a flaw in the law --more than a flaw with law enforcement.
Guilt is guilt --no matter what mistakes were made in finding out about it. And the guilty should be held more accountable than those who made mistakes in apprehension of criminals.
Barb, if you made that an official position police would simply ignore the law. They wouldn't bother with search warrants when they knew they'd get the arrest anyway.
Keep in mind that "innocent until proven guilty" also lets criminals get away. But. . . perhaps you don't believe in that either... I certainly have no indication you do...
Sometimes guilt is common knowledge --and the proof is plainly evident. You still give the guy his day in court and his attorney--but I detest those Law & Order judges on TV who throw good evidence out for no good reasons. I hope it's not really that bad.
Post a Comment