Sickening

You want sickening? This is sickening.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370147,00.html

Kids Fed 'Silly Pills,' Forced to Perform Sex Shows in Shocking Abuse Case
Monday, June 23, 2008

MINEOLA, Texas — In the windowless front rooms of a former day care center in a tiny Texas community, children as young as 5 were fed powerful painkillers they knew as "silly pills" and forced to perform sex shows for a crowd of adults.

Two people have already been convicted in the case. Now a third person with ties to the club, previously known in town only as a swingers group, is set to go on trial Monday not far from Mineola, population 5,100.

"This really shook this town," said Shirley Chadwick, a longtime resident of Mineola. "This was horrible."

Patrick Kelly, 41, is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, tampering with physical evidence and engaging in organized criminal activity.

In all, six adults have been charged in connection with the case, including a parent of the three siblings involved.

Jurors this year deliberated less than five minutes before returning guilty verdicts against the first two defendants, who were accused of grooming the kids for sex shows in "kindergarten" classes and passing off Vicodin as "silly pills" to help the children perform.

...

The one-story building where prosecutors say four children — the three siblings, now ages 12, 10 and 7, and their 10-year-old aunt — were trained to perform in front of an audience of 50 to 100 once a week has been vacant since the landlord ousted the alleged organizers in 2004.

...

According to a Mineola police report, the department first investigated a complaint in June 2005 in which the siblings' foster mother said one of the girls described dancing toward men and another child saying that "everybody does nasty stuff in there."

In the second trial, Child Protective Services caseworker Kristi Hachtel testified, "I've seen a lot and I never in my wildest dreams imagined this. They were preyed upon in probably one of the most heinous ways possible."

The children are now doing better, the welfare agency said.

[more]
Click to expand...
 
It certainly is sickening... but your title to that post implies that the seriousness of this story makes the FLDS story a non-issue.
 
According to a Mineola police report, the department first investigated a complaint in June 2005 in which the siblings' foster mother said one of the girls described dancing toward men and another child saying that "everybody does nasty stuff in there."
Click to expand...

GODDAMNIT!!!! THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!! Quick, call you congressman. The man will fix it. The man fixes everything.
 
Inkara1 said:
It certainly is sickening... but your title to that post implies that the seriousness of this story makes the FLDS story a non-issue.
Click to expand...

The FLDS story IS a non-issue. The courts ruled -- in three different rulings -- that CPS did not have the authority to take those children.

No one has yet answered my question on what is the difference between a polygamist who calls his lovers his wives and the open marriage proponents -- with one wife and many lovers -- who call their lovers their lovers?

Consenting adults laws allow the latter while the bigamy laws disallow the former. HOWEVER --- the polygamist is not truly married in the eyes of the law other than his/her declaration of a spiritual union. So aren't they simply exercising an open marriage that is sanctioned by their church but not the government? Why do the consenting adults laws not come into play when it concerns polygamists?

Anyone got any answers?
 
Age is the difference in this case. It seems, unless everyone who has left the FLDS church and has talked to the media is telling the exact same set of lies (not likely), were marrying these girls way underage, some as soon as they hit puberty. If a man is "married" to multiple wives according to his church, but legally only has paperwork filed for one wife or no wives, there's not much we can do except to say that's kind of icky and creepy, since in the eyes of the law he's basically in your "latter" situation. As an aside, if he's only legally married to one of his wives, but has several other "wives," that makes things a little complicated for tax purposes, legal wills, etc.

If someone is actually arrested for bigamy, the only ways for there to be a real case would be if 1) the guy intentionally filed legal paperwork for a second marriage without the first marriage ever being annulled or dissolved, or 2) if the state had specific laws against polygamy, which would have to outlaw adultery as well (which having a wife and other lovers would technically be). Otherwise, the guy would just be able to claim the "jimpeel's 'latter situation' defense" to be off Scot free.
 
Inkara1 said:
Age is the difference in this case. It seems, unless everyone who has left the FLDS church and has talked to the media is telling the exact same set of lies (not likely), were marrying these girls way underage, some as soon as they hit puberty. If a man is "married" to multiple wives according to his church, but legally only has paperwork filed for one wife or no wives, there's not much we can do except to say that's kind of icky and creepy, since in the eyes of the law he's basically in your "latter" situation. As an aside, if he's only legally married to one of his wives, but has several other "wives," that makes things a little complicated for tax purposes, legal wills, etc.

If someone is actually arrested for bigamy, the only ways for there to be a real case would be if 1) the guy intentionally filed legal paperwork for a second marriage without the first marriage ever being annulled or dissolved, or 2) if the state had specific laws against polygamy, which would have to outlaw adultery as well (which having a wife and other lovers would technically be). Otherwise, the guy would just be able to claim the "jimpeel's 'latter situation' defense" to be off Scot free.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a well thought answer to the questions.

You are, of course, correct that bigamy does not occur without the filing of fraudulent documents with the legal authority. Simply living with a harem does not qualify.

As for the age issue the girls can be married -- that's MARRIED as in legal with the state with filings and documents -- with the parent's approval at age sixteen. Where these people went wrong was that there was, in some cases, no filings or documents. Not all of the marriages were polygamous. There were, according to all sources, several monogamous marriages as well.

The law for marriage with parental consent was changed in 2005 from fourteen to sixteen. Before that time, these people may well have been within the law marrying off fourteen-year-olds.

It also has to be noted that in the first few days of the investigation, approximately a fourth of the pregnant "children", 8 out of 31, were released after it was determined that they were older than the age of majority. One woman was twenty-seven. CPS simply swept up anyone they determined to be under eighteen regardless of their protestations of being over the age of majority.

On top of that, the person who made the original call to CPS has now been declared by CPS to have never existed and has been removed from their victim files.

Both of the above stated facts, with link, were posted in POST #346. Note especially the part in RED.
 
How? If the initial call was invalid then evidence obtained in connection with that call will be invalid.
 
With a court order or a witness the DNA evidence will be allowed. You think they got something to hide?
 
Evidence obtained from a court order based on false evidence is inadmissable. This entire scenario is based on false information.

Something to hide? Hell, I dunno. If they're as freaky as they seem, it should be easy to gather real evidence. Until then, it's persecution.
 
Any thoughts on this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371581,00.html

Saudi Marriage Official Says 1-Year-Old Brides OK
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Call it marriage, Islamic style.

Saudi marriage officiant Dr. Ahmad al-Mu’bi told Lebanese television viewers last week that it’s permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed.

Al-Mu’bi’s remarkable comments also included an explanation that “there is no minimal age for entering marriage.”

“You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7 or 8,” he said. “But is the girl ready for sex or not?” What is the appropriate age for sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and tradition,” al-Mu’bi said.
Click to expand...
 
What's your point in posting that Jim?

Are you trying to show something worse so that the things the FLDS are accused of seems less by comparison?

Or were you thinking of getting yourself a 1yr old?
 
spike said:
What's your point in posting that Jim?
Click to expand...

That just when you think you can't be any more shocked ...

Are you trying to show something worse so that the things the FLDS are accused of seems less by comparison?
Click to expand...

You would think that, now, wouldn't you?

Or were you thinking of getting yourself a 1yr old?
Click to expand...

Now deny that you just called me a child molester. How typical.
 
jimpeel said:
That just when you think you can't be any more shocked ...You would think that, now, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

I'll ask again. What relevance does the post have to this thread?

I don't suppose you'll answer that though. Right?

Now deny that you just called me a child molester. How typical.
Click to expand...

I called you a child molester? Where?
 
spike said:
I'll ask again. What relevance does the post have to this thread?
Click to expand...

That is not what you asked. Don't you even know what you post here? First you don't know the leaders of your political movement and now you can't figure out what you wrote here.

tsk, tsk.

I don't suppose you'll answer that though. Right?
Click to expand...

I answered what you asked but, as usual, I didn't give the answer you wanted so the answer is unacceptable.

I called you a child molester? Where?
Click to expand...

You wrote: "Or were you thinking of getting yourself a 1yr old?"

What other kind of person would want to "get" themselves a 1yr old? Everyone here knew what you meant and what the inferrence was.
 
jimpeel said:
That is not what you asked. Don't you even know what you post here? First you don't know the leaders of your political movement and now you can't figure out what you wrote here.
Click to expand...

I asked:

What's your point in posting that Jim?

You avoided the question so I rephrased it.

What relevance does the post have to this thread?


I answered what you asked but, as usual, I didn't give the answer you wanted so the answer is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

No you didn't answer Jim. You said "That just when you think you can't be any more shocked ..."

That shows neither a point nor relevance. So would you mind elaborating or just answer the question? Or are you going to try some other lame avoidance?


You wrote: "Or were you thinking of getting yourself a 1yr old?"

What other kind of person would want to "get" themselves a 1yr old? Everyone here knew what you meant and what the inferrence was.
Click to expand...

If you read carefully, I didn't call you anything Jimbo. I threw out a couple possibilities of why you would have posted the article. Now unless your choice of the options is that you are getting yourself a 1 yr old it wouldn't apply to you.

I suppose it makes sense with your answer now "That just when you think you can't be any more shocked ...Jimbo is getting himself a 1 yr old"?


Where are you going to find this 1yr old?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top