Sickening

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Sure, I do. They're suspected. The question you keep ignoring is why you ignore evidence against suspected child molesters and abusers but assume the social workers are guilty of criminal actions without any evidence? Also why would you insinuate that former FLDS members are guilty of lying without any evidence.

And suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. Have any suspects been charged with any crime? Have any suspects been indicted? Have any suspects been arrested? Have any suspects been jailed? Are any suspects scheduled for arraignment? Are any suspects scheduled for trial?

The answer to ALL of the above is "No, and Hell no!"

The courts, three of them, have declared that CPS operated outside of the law and had no right to seize those children. Did they break the law? Yes, and Hell yes. You may find the breaking of the law under color of authority acceptable; but I do not.

You keep accusing me of insinuation when all I have done is suggest that the possibility of their lying lies with the realm of possibility.

Why the hypocrisy Jim?

There is no hypocrisy in declaring the truth.

Try to follow me on this one. I will type s-l-o-w-l-y.

Suspects.

Suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt.

What have they disagreed with me about Jim?

You say that CPS operated within the law. The courts, three of them, have declared that CPS operated outside of the law.

Suspects of crimes lie as well. What's your point?

Nice try at a segue but I never said they don't.

The questions once agains again. Why would you insinuate that victims are lying while proclaiming innocence for the suspects. Why not just wait and see.

Again, the "victims" MIGHT be lying. It is not outside the realm of possibility.

REMEMBER. THIS CASE STARTED WITH A LYING "VICTIM", WHO PERPETRATED A HOAX.

Why would you proclaim social workers guilty of criminal actions to increase their budget without any evidence? Why the hypocrisy Jim?

You really need to get yourself a dictionary.

CPS did engage in criminal enterprise by taking those children. The courts have declared that they operated outside of the law. That is a crime. Any time you operate outside of the law you are engaging in a criminal act. The only thing that varies is the degree of that act.

Where's this vigilantism you accused me of?

You have refused to declare them innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You want to take the current "evidence", regardless of its veracity, truthfulness, or constitutionality, and simply declare them not innocent. What else can you be saying by THOSE insinuations?

Why for Jeffs would you stress alleged on 13 yr olds when 14 yr old molestation has already been proven? Is 13 where you personally draw the line?

I stressed the word "alleged" because the discussion was about his being convicted. There was the insinuation -- your word -- that he had been convicted of several charges when he has only been convicted of one. He is alleged to have committed other crimes but allegations are not convictions; and he remains innocent of those allegations until convicted in a court of law.

Again, you will never get that through all of those emotions bouncing around in your head. The law is not about emotion. It is about getting to the truth of the matter and making a determination of guilt or innocence based on a trial finding of the evidence, not on emotional impact.

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

You keep accusing me of insinuation when all I have done is suggest that the possibility of their lying lies with the realm of possibility.

How is that different than suggesting that the accusations of child molestation or abuse lies within the realm of possibility?

There is no hypocrisy in declaring the truth.

Yep, the hypocrisy is when you act like the accused are innocent while ignoring evidence while at the same time insinuating that victims are lying and social workers acted criminially to increase their budget with no evidence.

I've made that clear several times now.

Suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt.

Except if they're social workers then you declare them guilty of acting criminally to increase their budget with no evidence right?

What was your point anyway?

By the way, as an aside, the Constitution does not explicitly cite any presumption of innocence.

You say that CPS operated within the law. The courts, three of them, have declared that CPS operated outside of the law.

Where did I say that Jim?

Nice try at a segue but I never said they don't.

No segue Jim. I was asking you what your point was.

Again, the "victims" MIGHT be lying. It is not outside the realm of possibility.

So might the suspects. Point?

CPS did engage in criminal enterprise by taking those children. The courts have declared that they operated outside of the law. That is a crime. Any time you operate outside of the law you are engaging in a criminal act. The only thing that varies is the degree of that act.

Jim lets go over this carefully. Not only did you declare them guilty before any court findings but you also declared them guilty of acting criminally to increase their budget with no evidence.

So once again. WHY THE HYPOCRISY JIM? Why do you find it reasonable to declare social workers guilty of crimes before any trial with no evidence but ignore evidence and assuming innocence for suspect child molesters?

Jim? You going to answer this one ever?

You have refused to declare them innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You want to take the current "evidence", regardless of its veracity, truthfulness, or constitutionality, and simply declare them not innocent. What else can you be saying by THOSE insinuations?

I'm saying they are suspected of certain things and going to wait until all the evidence is in evaluated before declaring them guilty or innocent.

How the fuck is that vigilantism Jim? Seems true and reasonable to me.

I stressed the word "alleged" because the discussion was about his being convicted. There was the insinuation -- your word -- that he had been convicted of several charges when he has only been convicted of one.

Where did I do that Jim? Also, you seem to have totally ignored the question, I'll ask again:

When you were responding to BeardofPants why did you stress "alleged" offenses against 13yr olds when an offense aginst a 14yr old had already been proven?

Again, you will never get that through all of those emotions bouncing around in your head. The law is not about emotion. It is about getting to the truth of the matter and making a determination of guilt or innocence based on a trial finding of the evidence, not on emotional impact.

Emotions? WTH are you talking about? You're the only one virtually yelling and screaming here with the big colored fonts and bold text. I'm going to have to suggest that you calm your emotions at this point.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

REMEMBER. THIS CASE STARTED WITH A LYING "VICTIM", WHO PERPETRATED A HOAX.

Just 'cause they havn't found her doesn't make it a hoax...or say that she was lying. It just means that:

a) She hasn't come forward yet
b) she has come forward but is being kept safe by the prosecution
c) she may be a construct used to place a complaint against the FLDS peeps.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

I stressed the word "alleged" because the discussion was about his being convicted. There was the insinuation -- your word -- that he had been convicted of several charges when he has only been convicted of one. He is alleged to have committed other crimes but allegations are not convictions; and he remains innocent of those allegations until convicted in a court of law.

Wrong.

2007 article

CNN) -- A Utah judge Tuesday sentenced polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs to two consecutive prison terms of five years to life for his conviction on two counts of being an accomplice to rape, a court spokeswoman said.

The consecutive sentences mean Jeffs will serve at least 10 years. The exact amount of time he serves will be determined by the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole in the future.

Jeffs, 51, the "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or FLDS, was convicted in September.

He was accused of using his religious influence over his followers to coerce a 14-year-old girl into marriage to her 19-year-old cousin.

Fifth District Judge James Shumate ordered that Jeffs be remanded immediately to the Utah State Prison near Salt Lake City, and fined him about $38,000.

Just imagine if he'd been where he should have been. In jail.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

How is that different than suggesting that the accusations of child molestation or abuse lies within the realm of possibility?

I never said that they lie outside of that realm. I merely wish to wait for the evidence to be presented in a court of law instead of on page B-1 below the fold.

Yep, the hypocrisy is when you act like the accused are innocent while ignoring evidence while at the same time insinuating that victims are lying and social workers acted criminially to increase their budget with no evidence.

I've made that clear several times now.

I keep saying that you simply don't get it; but I retract that. You simply refuse to accept the law and jurisprudence. They get in the way of your preconceived idea of how people who are suspected of a crime are handled.

The accused ARE innocent. Your problem is that there are no accused in this case. Suspicion does not guilt make. They are NOT guilty of anything until they are so declared in a court of law.

CPS acted outside of their lawful authority and that is a crime.

CPS' budget is determined by the number of children they seize. Are you trying to say that if they seize 10 children last year and 400 this year that they will not use that increase to justify a budget increase?

Except if they're social workers then you declare them guilty of acting criminally to increase their budget with no evidence right?

What was your point anyway?

By the way, as an aside, the Constitution does not explicitly cite any presumption of innocence.

No, but you might find THIS interesting.

Where did I say that Jim?

By implication -- your word. I say that they operated outside of the law. The court says they operated ooutside of the law. You dispute that. By implication, you believe they operated within the law.

No segue Jim. I was asking you what your point was.

You introduced an entirely new aspect into the conversation. That's a segue.

So might the suspects. Point?

Yes, the suspects might lie but the the suspects are not trying to agendize the lie. Those who lie, such as perpetrating a phone hoax against an entire group of people, have an agenda.

Jim lets go over this carefully. Not only did you declare them guilty before any court findings but you also declared them guilty of acting criminally to increase their budget with no evidence.

They operated outside of the law. The courts, three of them, agree with me. As with any bureaucracy, CPS' budget depends on how busy they are. "Busy" means taking children.

So once again. WHY THE HYPOCRISY JIM? Why do you find it reasonable to declare social workers guilty of crimes before any trial with no evidence but ignore evidence and assuming innocence for suspect child molesters?

Jim? You going to answer this one ever?

Asked and answered.

CPS operated outside of the law. That is a criminal act. The degree of that crime might be in question but the fact that it occurred is now in the public record in decisions handed down by three courts. There is clear and convincing evidence that they operated outside of the law. Yes, they have not been charged with any crime or indicted but that does not mean that no indictments will not come down later. Those who are supposed to enforce the laws should be held to a higher standard.

In the case of the FLDS types, there have been no charges filed against anyone. CPS is a big part of the allegations against them. There are allegations which could bring some -- that's SOME -- of them before the bar. You, however, have painted the entire membership with a broad brush based on some purported evidence which apparently only you have seen.

Did you miss the part in the news reports which stated quite clearly that there are numerous monogamous marriages within the church? Yeah, thought so.

I'm saying they are suspected of certain things and going to wait until all the evidence is in evaluated before declaring them guilty or innocent.

How the fuck is that vigilantism Jim? Seems true and reasonable to me.

If you cannot declare them innocent until proven guilty, pursuant to the canons of law, then you do not believe in what you just posted.

Question: Was O.J. Simpson guilty or innocent of killing his wife and Ron Goldman?

Where did I do that Jim? Also, you seem to have totally ignored the question, I'll ask again:

When you were responding to BeardofPants why did you stress "alleged" offenses against 13yr olds when an offense aginst a 14yr old had already been proven?

Because the allegations in reference to the thirteen-year-old were just that -- ALLEGATIONS. The charges -- That's CHARGES -- involving the fourteen-year-old were presented to a court and were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.

Anyone can make allegations. Whether those allegations lead to an indictment, and whether that indictment leads to a trial, and whether that trial leads to a conviction is the point.

Emotions? WTH are you talking about? You're the only one virtually yelling and screaming here with the big colored fonts and bold text. I'm going to have to suggest that you calm your emotions at this point.

I can stress my point with fonts and colors when I am trying to get something through someone's thick head. That is why those tools are available on this board as well as most others. It does not indicate emotion any more than "emoticons" indicate emotion. If you find fonts and colors offensive, perhaps you should petition the board ops to remove those functions.

You want the SUSPECTS convicted based 0n your beliefs that they are already guilty based on evidence which only you have seen.

Answer me this: If some of the FLDS types are charged and tried, but are found "not guilty" by a jury of their peers after presentation of all of the evidence, are they guilty or innocent in your mind?

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

I keep saying that you simply don't get it; but I retract that. You simply refuse to accept the law and jurisprudence. They get in the way of your preconceived idea of how people who are suspected of a crime are handled.

The accused ARE innocent. Your problem is that there are no accused in this case. Suspicion does not guilt make. They are NOT guilty of anything until they are so declared in a court of law.

CPS acted outside of their lawful authority and that is a crime.

CPS' budget is determined by the number of children they seize. Are you trying to say that if they seize 10 children last year and 400 this year that they will not use that increase to justify a budget increase?

I'm going to keep repeating this and I suppose you're going to keep avoiding answering it. But here it goes:

In the case of the suspected child molesters you have repeatedly acted as if they are completely innocent and ignored all evidence to the contrary.

In the case of the former FLDS members you have insinuated that they are lying.

In the case of the CPS you declared them guilty of criminal acts to increase their budget with no evidence and before any court hearing.

So once again, why the fucking hypocrisy Jim?

By implication -- your word. I say that they operated outside of the law. The court says they operated ooutside of the law. You dispute that. By implication, you believe they operated within the law.

Faulty logic again Jim. Where did I dispute that exactly?

You introduced an entirely new aspect into the conversation. That's a segue.

No, you said victims lie and I said that suspects lie as well. Thus showing that you had no point.

Yes, the suspects might lie but the the suspects are not trying to agendize the lie. Those who lie, such as perpetrating a phone hoax against an entire group of people, have an agenda.

That's just retarded. Suspects have an agenda to not get convicted.

They operated outside of the law. The courts, three of them, agree with me. As with any bureaucracy, CPS' budget depends on how busy they are. "Busy" means taking children.

So, once again, you declared them guilty before any hearing and with no evidence. Why the hypocrisy Jim?

Child molesters depend on access to children and staying clear of the law.

Asked and answered.

CPS operated outside of the law. That is a criminal act. The degree of that crime might be in question but the fact that it occurred is now in the public record in decisions handed down by three courts. There is clear and convincing evidence that they operated outside of the law. Yes, they have not been charged with any crime or indicted but that does not mean that no indictments will not come down later. Those who are supposed to enforce the laws should be held to a higher standard.

In the case of the FLDS types, there have been no charges filed against anyone. CPS is a big part of the allegations against them. There are allegations which could bring some -- that's SOME -- of them before the bar.

Still blind to the point aren't you. No charges have been filed against CPS, no charges have been filed against the FLDS members. Yet you declared one guilty of criminal acts based on budgets before any hearing and with no evidence and yet you declare the other one innocent while ignoring all evidence before the trial.

This is plainly hypocrisy and nonsensical double standards and try as you might you can't weasel out of it.

You, however, have painted the entire membership with a broad brush based on some purported evidence which apparently only you have seen.

Where the fuck did I do that? What is the matter with you that you need to just keep making up shit and responding to it as if it actually happened?

Did you miss the part in the news reports which stated quite clearly that there are numerous monogamous marriages within the church? Yeah, thought so.

What on earth makes you think I missed that? Really Jim.

If you cannot declare them innocent until proven guilty, pursuant to the canons of law, then you do not believe in what you just posted.

I'll declare them suspects, which they are.

Question: Was O.J. Simpson guilty or innocent of killing his wife and Ron Goldman?

He was found innocent. Did he do it? I have no idea.

Because the allegations in reference to the thirteen-year-old were just that -- ALLEGATIONS. The charges -- That's CHARGES -- involving the fourteen-year-old were presented to a court and were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.

You missed the point. What was the significance of you stressing "alleged" offenses against 13yr olds when he's already proven to be a child molester? Why would you stress that he's "alleged" to be an even bigger child molester?

I can stress my point with fonts and colors when I am trying to get something through someone's thick head.

Is that how we get through your thick head? You need colors and big letters?

They do nothing for your points. What you need is to apply a little logic and reasoning.

You want the SUSPECTS convicted based 0n your beliefs that they are already guilty based on evidence which only you have seen.

You're saying things that you made up as if they actually happened again. Let me try some colors and big letters for you:

Jim, where did I say I want suspects convicted based on my beliefs? WTF.

Answer me this: If some of the FLDS types are charged and tried, but are found "not guilty" by a jury of their peers after presentation of all of the evidence, are they guilty or innocent in your mind?

Innocent and free to go.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Innocent and free to go.

Gee, an honest answer finally. That's one in a row. Keep it up.

The FLDS people have not been charged with any crime.

The courts -- THE COURTS -- found that CPS operated outside the law. That was their official determination not mine. I agree with that detrermination.

As to the rest of your nattering and insensibly idiotic rants, we're done. I have answered your questions time after time and you insist that I haven't. It is time to stop wasting keystrokes on you. Save any depricating response you might post as it will not be answered.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Just 'cause they havn't found her doesn't make it a hoax...or say that she was lying. It just means that:

a) She hasn't come forward yet
b) she has come forward but is being kept safe by the prosecution
c) she may be a construct used to place a complaint against the FLDS peeps.

They have determined that the calls came from the phone of a woman in Colorado Springs who has a past history, including a conviction, of making these types of hoax phone calls.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=597641&postcount=132

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=597644&postcount=135

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

The courts -- THE COURTS -- found that CPS operated outside the law. That was their official determination not mine. I agree with that detrermination.

Jim, it's simple really if you pay attention.

You declared the CPS guilty of criminal acts based on budgets before any court hearings and without any evidence. So don't fucking talk about what the COURTS did again because like I said you declared them guilty before any hearings.

Now go back and pay attention to the italics and bold parts one more time. Got it? Ready?

Ok, now answer the question for the first time finally-> Why the hypocrisy and double standard?

See what I'm asking you? I'm asking why YOU not the COURTS declared the CPS of criminal actions based on budgets before any hearings and with no charges filed?

You see I'm asking this because that is what your whole argument has been for the FLDS members and if you have two completely different standards that makes you a hypocrit again.

But you can't answer that question because you have been acting like a hypocrit and you know it. So you just start some pathetic insults and make excuses for avoiding the matter just like when you got called out on things earlier in the thread.

Of course you can't back up the accusations you made about me either because you just made up shit that I never said so you could disagree with your own invented crap. We'll come back to that bullshit later though.

Just focus all your attention on this one simple question:

I'm asking why YOU not the COURTS declared the CPS of criminal actions based on budgets before any hearings and with no charges filed?

Now remember this was before any hearings that you declared this so don't start making excuses again.

Proceed.

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

They have determined that the calls came from the phone of a woman in Colorado Springs who has a past history, including a conviction, of making these types of hoax phone calls.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=597641&postcount=132

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=597644&postcount=135

Holy shit. From your own link "We're not confirming that the local arrest is related to the Ranger's investigation of the FLDS property,"

Are you declaring her guilty before the fact? Damn Jim.

 

[Gonz]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

In the case of the suspected child molesters you have repeatedly acted as if they are completely innocent and ignored all evidence to the contrary.

Reasonable.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[spike]

Yeah, seems the only people that Jim presumes innocent are suspected child molesters. Everyone else is guilty as soon as he says they are.

 

[MrBishop]

For nearly 10 years, the FLDS withstood government pressure and refused to make any public concession on its marriage practices. That changed Monday when the polygamous sect released a four-paragraph statement vowing to abide by marriage age laws in all states. Spokesman Willie Jessop read the declaration, saying it had been issued by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Asked who authorized it, Jessop said, "Joseph Smith." He also said he was unaware if FLDS leader Warren S. Jeffs had any hand in crafting the statement. Here is the statement:
* The church's policies regarding marriage have been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. Indeed, much of the misinformation circulating on this subject seems designed intentionally to fuel the flames of prejudice against the church.
* The church's practices in this regard continue a long tradition of marriage in this country that would have been found to have been unremarkable in 19th century America. In the FLDS church all marriages are consensual. The church insists on appropriate consent, including that of the woman and the man in all circumstances.
* Nevertheless the church is clarifying its policy toward marriage. Therefore, in the future, the church commits that it will not preside over the marriage of any woman under the age of legal consent in the jurisdiction in which the marriage takes place. The church will counsel families Advertisement

​

that they neither request nor consent to any underage marriages. This policy will apply church-wide.
* The church believes in purity, cleanliness, and innocence. Our children and families are the cornerstones of our lives and our religion. We hope that this modest clarification in policy will alleviate recent concerns and allow the church and its families to reside in peace among our neighbors.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9462175

 

[MrBishop]

Jim - the indictments are in... looks like a case is brewing after all

ELDORADO, Texas - Hours after signing an order releasing FLDS children from state custody, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther arrived at the Schleicher County Courthouse in Eldorado to swear in a grand jury that may be considering indictments related to the polygamous sect.
By the end of the day, 18 indictments had been issued, although no details were immediately available. The number was more than the usual; typically, five to 15 indictments are returned, a court clerk said.
Walther arrived at the Eldorado courthouse at 12:30 p.m., accompanied by two bailiffs and her clerk. She left an hour later.
Allison Palmer, the deputy district attorney for Tom Green County, also was at the courthouse. Palmer has been leading the office's investigation into the sect and appearing at related hearings.
Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran was unavailable because he was meeting with the D.A.'s office, a spokeswoman said.
In a story published Saturday bythe Los Angeles Times, Doran indicated that criminal charges were pending, while downplaying reports that FLDS members had requested voter registration forms and could influence county elections.
"Once we begin impaneling some grand juries and the criminal case comes to light, we'll see the tide turn once again," he said.
It could be days before the focus of any of Monday'sindictments are known; the county's policy is not to release information about indictments until they are served.
News of the grand jury's meeting circulated among members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, creating concern about returning to their homes on the YFZ Ranch, several attorneys said.
A raid of the ranch that began April 3 led to the removal of about 450 children, who were eventually placed in shelters throughout Texas. Walther signed an order on Monday morning that allowed them to be returned to their parents immediately while Child Protective Services continues an abuse investigation.
Last week, Arizona and Texas authorities collected DNA samples from Warren S. Jeffs, the sect's leader. He is jailed in Kingman, Ariz., awaiting trial on charges related to marriages he conducted between underage girls and older men.
The search warrant said the evidence was needed as part of a new investigation of four spiritual marriages between Jeffs and girls who range in age from 12 to 15.
In Texas, the Attorney General's Office is awaiting results from 599 DNA samples collected six weeks ago, mostly from FLDS adults and children living at the YFZ Ranch, just outside Eldorado. The state had said it needed the results to match parents and children. A spokeswoman for the office did not return a call from The Salt Lake Tribune on Monday.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9462174

 

[Gonz]

to swear in a grand jury that may be considering indictments related to the polygamous sect

A grand jury can indict anyone for anything, real or imagined. Ask Tom DeLay

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Or Jefferey Dahmer.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

So. I wanna ask a question at this point.

Let's play us a little game of what if.

What if the good law abiding folk on this grand jury hear this testimony and return indictments against this presumed innocent shitbag.

Then say a criminal court jury hears the rest of the evidence (remember, the grand jury only hears what portion the DA thinks is necessary to get that indictment and NO MORE). Let's further say that this criminal jury finds our presumed innocent piece of subhuman filth guilty. Heck, let's take it one further...let's say testimony comes out during trial that he molested 287 teeniebopper girls, 14 bulldozers, a passing ocelot, and no less than 232 key lime pies. Last Tuesday. Before lunch.

(This is the portion of the post where HomeLAN, God bless him, would point out that ocelots are not native to the area, but I digress...)

What argument are y'all gonna make then? He got shafted, pardon the pun? Bias from the media? Price of sweet taters in Norway? Bush's fault? Denigration of freedom of religious expression here in the land of the three and home of the naive? I'm honestly curious. A handful of y'all are so vested in your arguments that backing out gracefully ain't really all that much of an option at this point. You've pitched your tent on this waste of DNA's innocence. If that gets shattered whatcha gonna do? Acquiesce? Ignore? Precisely what flavor of spin have ye in mind good and gentle people? Cuz I think you oughta start gettin one ready. His shit's about to impact an oscillating air circulation mechanism by my calculations. Give him a month in prison and he'll know exactly, in excruciating detail, just how much having a high hard one rammed somewhere it ain't supposed to be hurts. He'll be able to pass an oxygen tank without feeling a thing. None too damn soon either. Is it "fair"? Is it "cruel and unusual" (threw those in for you peelie in anticipation of your reply) punishment? Yep. And he earned every bone-jarring second of it too. And when he's using hemhorroid pads the size of beanbag chairs just to walk across his cell I hope he thinks of all those little girls he traumatized.

Then there's the other possibility. He might walk. Stranger things have happened, have they not Orenthal James? In that case, then my contentions have failed to be proven. Just remember, not guilty is not the same as innocent. He'll answer for it eventually. God knows how many more young girls will be violated before that day arrives, but it will arrive. Helluva life to live, huh? Knowing you're gonna answer for all those girls...gives me chills thinking about it and I didn't touch 'em. And y'know, being a self-proclaimed prophet and all, you'd think he'd be quite aware of that coming judgment. Kinda makes you wonder which part of his life is real...the religious man or the pedophile...the messenger of God he claims to be or the pervert he's been proven to be already. At any rate, should he walk, I'd be willing to bet he'll walk smack into a lot of trees. Cuz he'll be looking over his shoulder every miserable day of his miserable life.

Nope, I don't envy him one bit either way.

 

[Gonz]

I don't believe that either of us (I know I'm not) is defending the people, specifically, involved in this. We are both bothered by the governments strong arming yet another bunch of social misfits (so far, without tanks & firethrowers). These imbeciles have a ro\ight to follow & practice any religion they chose. Somebody, making false accusations, brought the state down on their head. Merited? So far, the higher courts say no. Children that were not at risk were removed from their paretns. Children that had little liklihood of being at risk were removed from their parents. Children that may have been at risk were taken from their parents, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Was there evidence before the phone call? Was there an ongoing investigation? Has anyone been arrested? Are they using the grand jury to harass?

Jsy as soon as Texas is finished with Branch Davidiians & these folks, they're considering Southern Baptists & Jews.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

I don't believe that either of us (I know I'm not) is defending the people, specifically, involved in this. We are both bothered by the governments strong arming yet another bunch of social misfits (so far, without tanks & firethrowers). These imbeciles have a ro\ight to follow & practice any religion they chose. Somebody, making false accusations, brought the state down on their head. Merited? So far, the higher courts say no. Children that were not at risk were removed from their paretns. Children that had little liklihood of being at risk were removed from their parents. Children that may have been at risk were taken from their parents, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Was there evidence before the phone call? Was there an ongoing investigation? Has anyone been arrested? Are they using the grand jury to harass?

Jsy as soon as Texas is finished with Branch Davidiians & these folks, they're considering Southern Baptists & Jews.

See, I don't believe we as citizens are free to practice any religion we choose. Ask your neighborhood rastafarian about that one.

Like all other freedoms, they are not designed to be abused. And I'm sorry...boinking liitle girls thre years removed from playing with paper dolls is not a right of religious expression. To follow your argument further, if this is allowed, what's next? Virgin sacrifice?

Please tell me you're not arguing that unless A B and C happen according to due process then no crime has been committed.

Lemme clue you in on something. This is common knowledge in my line of work and sometimes I forget that most people don't know this. Convicted felons retain SOME of their rights. They can't vote, can't own guns, etc. But they have certain rights even after the gavel falls. Groovy. Sex offenders have fewer than anybody. It is commonly understood that these people have no right to confidentiality for instance. That's why registers work. I don't have to get their authorization before I utilize otherwise withheld information about them. Right? Wrong? Not up to me. Not my call. For example...I can waltz into a convicted sex offender's home at any time, with or without search warrant, and search their residence, so long as they are home. IF they are allowed a computer, and almost none are, I can seize the hard drive and its contents. Try that with your local crack dealer. Point being, when your weapon of choice is your wang, your forfeit more than other criminals forfeit.

I have no idea if the DA is using the grand jury to harass this creep, and I don't care if they are. He is a convicted sex offender. He is where he is because of prior behavior on his part. If someone called in a hoax call and that led to the discovery of his little Romper Room harem, so be it.

As for Southern Baptists, allow me to repeat: I am most definately Southern, and I am undoubtedly Baptist, but one thing I ain't is a Southern Baptist.

 

[Gonz]

The difference between these idiots & most other pedophile cases...evidence & charges.

I am all for the slow humiliating & agonizing mutilation of pedophiles. The state has failed in every step on this.