Authorities Search FLDS Temple on Compound. 416 Children Displaced

Via the Huffington Post and first published in Deseret News, Dallas News, and The Smoking Gun photographs showing Warren Jeffs holding and kissing two different young girls. Mister "I will stick my tongue down the throat of a 12 year old girl" Jeffs is/was the leader of the YFZ Ranch.

Photographs

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

(link)
(link)

IDGAS said:
Via the Huffington Post and first published in Deseret News, Dallas News, and The Smoking Gun photographs showing Warren Jeffs holding and kissing two different young girls. Mister "I will stick my tongue down the throat of a 12 year old girl" Jeffs is/was the leader of the YFZ Ranch.

Child Protective Services can keep in its care an infant born to a polygamist sect member this month...

Last week, the agency released several photographs, including one showing sect leader Warren Jeffs holding a 12-year-old girl he purportedly married in July 2006 and kissing her on the lips.

[sect attorney Rod] Mr. Parker said the infant's parents, Louisa Bradshaw Jessop and Dan Jessop, decided not to keep fighting for the child's release, because a Texas Supreme Court decision affecting all 450 or so sect children removed by CPS from the sect's West Texas ranch is expected shortly.

On Tuesday, the Jessops signed an agreement with state lawyers, saying that the 12-year-old girl shown with Mr. Jeffs lived in the same building with the couple at the sect's Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado.

When shown the photo of his sister with Mr. Jeffs, Dan Jessop said, "There's everything wrong with that." Later, though, when asked if the photo showed sexual abuse, he said, "I do not consider a girl kissing a man sexual abuse." (emphasis mine May 27, 2008 link)

Photographs

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

(link)
(link)

Gross. That first one says One year anniversary. Was she twelve when those pics were taken? That would make her 11 when they got married.

Having an 11 year old daughter, I think I'm gonna puke.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone over 18 at that ranch is guilty of the same charges as Jeffs. Every single one of them knew what was going on. It's not like they kept their perversions secret from each other. That's why it was necessary to vacate the entire compound. They are all criminals. I'm sorry, but your religious freedom does not cover child rape.

But, but, but it's freedom of religion man, why do you hate God so much?????

4th amendment? Bah! Who needs it?

Clearly not the USA. Wait, who else would use it?

There needs to be some big, huge national roundtable about this kind of horsecrap. A new generation of Schoolhouse Rock with somebody sufficiently gnarly telling young'uns "YOUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT WATERBOARD PEOPLE" might make for a nice start.

Well we already lost the notion "innocent until proven guilty" so I guess getting rid of the 4th amendment was bound to happen.

It's playing out the way one would've expected from the outset. Even if there were a favorable ruling for the State it'd be fought and overturned. This is as it should be. I've no doubt about that. I mean, you've got to start somewhere. As a baseline, as the bare minimum of minimum standards, certain laws and actions should be Constitutional or we've got nuthin'.

At the same time, I'm equally concerned with human rights and in particular children's rights. There's a worldwide problem with human trafficking, more often than not, the trafficking of women and minors. It's a concern I feel I'll turn my attention to more fully in some concrete way in the years to come.....but I digress. Even here, children are essentially treated as chattel with little, if any legal voice, the poor little bastards.

The sort of discussion I'd be interested in seeing or having on the FLDS subject is more of a "think tank" type of discussion of how to effectively tackle the problem. It is a problem. We know something has occurred with at least a few of the influential elders at the helm. It's a vague and distressing feeling, but not enough to make a case on. These leaders have been very shrewd in their strategies to subvert police investigations, shrewd in leading their little lambs astray.

For me the more interesting discussion would be to try and puzzle out a strategy or avenue for making a solid case against individual cultic abusers, which would hold constitutional water. It's not like I've got answers, but it might be an interesting project to put our minds to if anyone is interested. It might be fun to scheme.....or maybe not. I know we're all busy and this may not be very realistic or the right venue.

There are a lot of things floating around in my head at the moment, so pardon me while I put them out there. Things which fall on both sides of the argument. Some are more obvious some less so. It's all sort of free-from and hasn't taken shape yet, plus I am not in a place where I can cruise the net and research right now.

Like most of us here, I've not done and in depth comparative analysis of all religions and am not all knowing. Hell, I'm not even religious, but I do believe wholeheartedly in your right to practice yours. I don't want to engage in activities which are tantamount to the persecution of any group for their beliefs. I am however for out scheming schemers and trying to beat them at their own game. I'm interested in trying to figure out what the next step is.

one consequence of freedom is the existence of those who will abuse it. groups like the FLDS are, and will remain, a facet of our society so long as our society retains any reasonable level of freedom. the simple fact is that if people choose to hole themselves up together and not talk to outsiders, they can do pretty much anything they want to each other and nobody is likely to find out. we, as a society, value our individual privacy, and it is that individual privacy which allows groups like the FLDS to flourish. it seems to me that any steps we take towards preventing such reclusive subgroups from forming are, by necessity, steps towards stripping away our ability to remain private citizens.

Yeah, I see your point. I find myself conflicted. Definitely worth giving some more serious thought.

At least I used a spoiler.

no. by my argument, that man abused his right to individual privacy. in the US and most of the first world, we are largely free from surveillance and monitoring. that freedom can be exploited, but i don't believe that means that freedom should be taken away.

correct--individual freedom does not convey the right to do terrible things to people without consequence. it merely conveys the ability to do terrible things to people, frequently without consequence if one is careful.

the same laws that protect you from having your house searched without due cause, from having your phones tapped just because the gubmint feels like it, from being detained indefinitely without charge--these laws also protect groups like the FLDS. it is very, very difficult to reduce the amount of protection that groups like the FLDS derive from these laws without also reducing the amount of protection that everyone else derives from these laws.

the things such groups can do to people are terrible. and velvet_petal makes a very good point--this issue of privacy versus protection extends beyond insular cults, and into such areas as human trafficking and every other criminal endeavor. but we need to always keep in mind the price of protecting ourselves from such abuses, and balance it against the benefit.

Speaking of the Fourth Amendment:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/23/scotus.searches/

And this has what to do with child rape?

Oh yeah.....gubbment baaaaaad....

Bring it

Or maybe that we have been talking about the 4th amendment and how the government raid on the compound was a violation against it, but never mind that go on trolling and continually stating "gubbment baaaaad".

Sometimes the image in the mirror isn't too pretty. Sorry you can't handle that.

It's all good. I trust the government and law enforcement officials not to abuse their power.

I did. Where u at?

It is extremely complicated, and terrbily sad for the mothers, who it appears may be complicit, or may be in the dark. Or denial.

In an ideal situation the mothers would have had supervised visits off-site with their children.

Religion or organized crime?

5 more arrested