Saturday, April 19, 2008

And yet more on the FLDS phone call

Judging by the a recent story in the Deseret News, it now seems almost certain that the phone call was a fake. The story concerns a 33 year old Colorado Springs woman who has repeatedly made phone calls to anti-polygamy activists claiming to be an underage girl in the FLDS named Sarah.

Which raises an interesting question. Before raiding the FLDS compound, did law enforcement agents make any attempt to determine the origin of the phone call that was the basis for the raid? My understanding is that phone company records show the origin of phone calls, so it shouldn't have been hard to do. If they did check and found that the call was from Colorado, did they tell the judge when applying for a search warrant? If they knew and didn't tell, was the warrant obtained by perjury and so invalid?

It also raises a second question. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any serious discussion in the early stages of the story of whether or not the phone call was real, a question that seemed obvious to me from the beginning. Why?

And, finally, Ms Voss, who seems to be the spokeswoman for the Child Protective People, was quoted as saying that several of the girls seized admitted to knowing Sarah but then wouldn't say anything further. If Sarah really was bogus, then Ms Voss was presumably lying. If she did it in court, under oath, she is guilty of perjury. Any odds on her being charged?

29 Comments:

At 4:07 PM, April 19, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least the FLDS girls haven't taken the LBT (low back tattoo) like your whorish slut women in Texas.

And that Texas TV hog with the bug eyes looks like a slut too.

Now for some real info:

It was legal to marry at 14 year in both texas and utah until recently. In utah, at least, the law was changed with the specific intent of persecuting the FLDS, who are great people, at least the few I have met.

I've often said that i would rather have my daughter(s) become the 10th wife of a good man than the first wife of a feminized white meat pussy.

The only difference between a 14 yo and a fifteen year old is one day. Big deal. It is legal to marry a 15 year old in utah right now.

The real lesson here for you Texas swaggerbitches is that DCFS will soon be coming for your children. "Emotional Abuse" is a term so ambiguous that it can mean whatever the slut manhater social work whore wants in to mean. Do you teach your kids that god loves them. Surely, that is emotional abuse--at least to an athiest bitch.

Do you teach your kids not to intermarry with white people. Now, that is politically incorrect emotional abuse for sure.

I still hope those two hogs (Marleigh Meisner and the homely judge) get brain cancer--me and probably phred phelps are praying for it right now.

Pussy, feminzied white men have lost this country and it started when they let their women become disobedient. Suffer you slime.

 
At 4:18 PM, April 19, 2008, Blogger Joe Bingham said...

4:07, you forgot to sign your comment.

Mr. Friedman, please keep the commentary coming. Your thoughts are welcome.

I work in child protective services in Florida. Here, at least, calling in false allegations is a felony, but it's always unlikely anyone will be prosecuted for it, because divulging a caller's identity is also (I believe) a felony. It can go to law enforcement, but without the MSM attention that would come with a name/face, they're unlikely to pursue the lead.

 
At 9:57 PM, April 19, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are the implications of an invalid warrant?

Does that mean they won't be able to prosecute anyone?

What if they base criminal charges on DNA evidence?

Can the FDLS members sue?

Can CPS come to my house for any reason at all now? I mean, if it doesn't matter if they have a valid reason or not, what's really stopping them?

Voss perhaps did not lie under oath, there is the possibility that she got those kids to tell her exactly what she wanted to hear. If she testifies in this case, can she be impeached? Can this be brought up?

 
At 10:08 PM, April 19, 2008, Blogger James A. Donald said...

Latest hot news:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192350.php

The thirty three year old woman who phoned in the false allegation is an Obama delegate.

This is consistent with my observation that in the sixties it was the right that was puritanical, but increasingly it is the left that is puritanical these days.

 
At 6:53 AM, April 20, 2008, Anonymous severin said...

I had the same thought when I first read about the woman caller. However it was also clear from the beginning that this was never about the one girl who supposedly called in. If it had been about her, then the reaction was terribly out of proportion. No I think they knew from the beginning that the call was most likely a fake, but they had been planning a raid on the FLDS in Texas for a long time and were simply waiting for an excuse. The call came and that gave them the excuse they wanted, even if it was illegitimate. It can never be proven that they raided with full knowledge that the original call was a fake, they will claim it was simply poor investigative work.

Severin

 
At 7:43 AM, April 20, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

What amazes me is David's obsession with whether a government agency was wrong, rather than the other basic question of whether there is something being done wrong to children by the FLDS.

It's that darned libertarian NAMBLA logic again: overlook gross crimes for the sake of principled consistency.

And any of you who claim government conspiracy to persecute FLDS have got to be crazy. Do you really think any Texas official would think (after Waco) that this would be a career-enhancing move? That it could be done without a fuss from loons like you? That it could be done without a media circus?

 
At 12:26 PM, April 20, 2008, Blogger Joe Bingham said...

"It's that darned libertarian NAMBLA logic again: overlook gross crimes for the sake of principled consistency."

That's not a fair characterization of anything I've read in this discussion. Can you point out where anyone's suggested overlooking gross crimes? Or any crimes?

Instead, DF's suggested (I think; he hasn't been pointed) that we should be concerned about some of the assumptions in the MSM coverage and child welfare's talking points in the case.

 
At 12:59 PM, April 20, 2008, Blogger David Friedman said...

I found a second report confirming the news story linked to in the post. This one is from The Times (U.K.):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/
us_and_americas/article3776483.ece

They have an explicit quote from Ms Voss, apparently in court testimony:

“We learnt that a few of the girls know of the Sarah we were looking for and that she’d been seen last week and she had a baby,” Ms Voss said.

Which suggests that she is at best an unreliable witness--someone who hears what she wants to hear--and may well be a deliberate liar.

 
At 10:48 PM, April 20, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

Mr. Huben,

That is going way over the line. Marriage and sex within marriage with young but postpubescent was common in this society and still is in most of the world including many industrial societies, such as Canada where the age of consent is 14, and most of Europe where the age of consent varies between 13 and 15. NAMBLA always was and still is about sex between adults and prepubescent children.

In the current case under discussion marriage to, and sex with an otherwise consenting female of 14 years or over was legal in most US States over most of US history.

The recent trend toward infantilization of young people is, IMHO and that of a number of other people including people from other industrial nations, doing far more harm than good.

 
At 6:06 AM, April 21, 2008, Blogger John Fast said...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (or once a day if it's a 24-hour clock). Mike Huben is right that "the other basic question of whether there is something being done wrong to children by the FLDS."

Mike (and anyone else), do you think that removing these children from their families and putting them in foster care will make their lives better or worse (in the long run)?

Mike also asks whether "any Texas official would think (after Waco) that this would be a career-enhancing move?"

As far as I know, no government official was ever even prosecuted for what happened at Waco, much less convicted. Instead, Bill Clinton was re-elected, his wife was elected to the Senate and is now running for President, and Janet Reno ran for governor of Florida.

I assume, Mike, that you are ignorant of these minor facts; presumably the alternative is that you don't consider them to be examples of "career enhancement." Either way, you tell me. :-D

 
At 8:45 PM, April 21, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

John,

It should be pointed out that the Waco tragedy was 100% a US federal government show, even if it was in Texas, and some Texas Law enforcement officers who were on the site wrote scathing attacks on the BATF and FBI over the events.

Read "The Ashes of Waco: an investigation" By Dick J Reavis

One thing that tends to make Texas law enforcement officers a bit more polite, and a bit less inclined to use excessive force, is that under Texas state law killing a police officer in self defense is a valid legal defense if the officer was using excessive force.

As you can see no one was killed or even shot in this incident.

 
At 10:01 AM, April 22, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

montestruc, you need to read carefully, not just let your knee jerk at the sight of the word NAMBLA.

14 is child marriage, whether or not the girl is pubescent.

Here is the United Nations Population Fund Child Marriage Fact Sheet. It says:

Married adolescents are typified by:

Large spousal age gaps
Limited social support, due to social isolation
Limited educational attainment and no schooling options
Intense pressure to become pregnant
Increased risk of maternal and infant mortality
Increased vulnerability to HIV and other STIs
Restricted social mobility/freedom of movement
Little access to modern media (TV, radio, newspapers)
Lack of skills to be viable to the labour market


It's like our own little slice of the third world in Texas. Maybe you think that these people are entitled to rear daughters like veal calves so that they can be ordered into marriages with much older men. I think it's a gross crime.

john fast: Yes, even a normal education and upbringing in an orphanage is better than this criminal abuse of parental privileges. And if you think that Janet Reno losing an election is an example of the career enhancement of Waco, I have no idea where you're coming from.

 
At 2:51 PM, April 22, 2008, Blogger David Friedman said...

Mike writes:

"14 is child marriage, whether or not the girl is pubescent."

That may be your judgment. Marriage at 14 is legal, with consent of the parents, in several states, and sex at 14 was legal throughout the history of Canada until this year.

 
At 3:57 PM, April 22, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

David, your reverence for miscellaneous state decrees of legality is awe inspiring.

It's too bad you don't have more reverence for the relevant laws. Marriage before 16 requires a court order in Utah, Arizona, and Texas (the relevant states. Age of consent is 18 in Arizona, 17 in Texas, and 16/18 in Utah.

But of course, the fact that archaic practices such as adolescent or child marriage have gone on in the past doesn't justify them in our modern society any more than slavery is justified by its long history.

Why don't you address the relevance of the "Child Marriage Fact Sheet" above, rather than pursuing this NAMBLA logic yet again?

 
At 8:30 PM, April 22, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

copy of a reply I made to a post on Huffingtonpost.com

I think it fits Mr Hubers comments well.

FLDS are not catholics, tons of evidence and proof of child molestation of little kids by catholic priests exist. That is malum in se, to use the Latin legal term, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that includes those who obstructed justice. The Church should pay damages for it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Marrying a girl old enough to have kids, who does consent, and knows about your other wives, but may be under legal age of consent, is malum prohibitorum in the USA. It is bush league religious bigotry to assert that this is the same sort, or level of crime as what the Catholic priests who molested many thousands of little children did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

The allegations that the women do not consent, or are being abused, are pretty much shown to be lies on their face, as with the police all in the having custody of all of the kids, the women are not accusing the men of anything and are verbally attacking the police and judges for violations of their rights, not thanking them.

What real truth do you mean? That society does not approve of polygamy? They are well aware of that. They do not give a tinker's damn, and they should not.

People who think they have the right to dictate how other should live, should grow up and get a clue.

 
At 4:13 AM, April 23, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

montestruc, it's pathetically funny how you undo your pompous analysis with your own final sentence.

"People who think they have the right to dictate how other should live, should grow up and get a clue."

Wikipedia says:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. This concept is a part of the "value consensus model" explanation of the origins of the criminal law.

In other words, you disapprove of the basis of malum in se, even though you were claiming it was justifiable.

Please, address the Child Marriage Fact Sheet.

If you check the Malum prohibitum Wikipedia page: "violation of such licensing rules, by virtue of the peril the conduct creates, arguably prevents such prohibitions from being merely malum prohibitum." In other words, there is no sharp line between the two, and your point is NOT conclusive.

 
At 7:30 PM, April 23, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

Dear Mr Huben,

I am not telling people how to live, I am telling people to not use force on others to make them conform to their social values.

Libertarianism is all about that the initiation of the use of force is WRONG, and should be resisted.

I welcome the concept of malum in se, and if you think that "statutory rape" can conceivably be called malum in se, then you need to read the definition again, you failed to understand it.

The definition of "too young" after the young woman in question is capable of becoming pregnant, is always a matter of legislation, and so is malum prohibitorum *by definition*.

The argument that problems caused by people breaking malum prohibitorum rules makes the distiction invalid, is like the famous "we had to destroy the village to save it" it is about as bogus as anything ever is. It is an evasion by government supporters to shift blame off themselves.

 
At 7:45 PM, April 23, 2008, Blogger David Friedman said...

Since Mike seems to have assumed the burden of defending the seizure of the FLDS children, I have a question for him.

I can see some argument for removing teen-aged girls from the ranch, on the theory that they are at risk of being forced into polygamous marriages, although one would think that if "forced" was being used literally it would be sufficient to tell they had the right to leave if they wanted and provide them with a phone number to call if they needed help.

The part of the raid that seems to me impossible to justify is the seizure of children most of whom were not teenaged girls, about half of whom (presumably) were boys, and so who were at no risk of the only sort of child abuse that there seems to be any evidence for.

The only defense I have seen, by a spokeswoman for the child protective people, comes down to the claim that the boys have to be taken away because otherwise they will end up as loyal FLDS members and as such might force teenage girls to marry them. That position is flatly contrary to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, since what is being objected to is not anything illegal being done but the teaching of the parents religion to the children. It is justifying the raid as a way of suppressing a religion.

Suppose a court decided that all communists should have their children taken away from them, since otherwise they would teach their children that it was right to steal from the rich, to overthrow the government by violence, and the like. Do you think that would be a legally legitimate act?

If not, do you have any defense for the seizure of four year old boys, infants, or for that matter teenage boys?

 
At 4:17 AM, April 27, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

Why should I address your questions when you haven't addressed the Child Marriage Fact Sheet, David? You haven't even adopted the fig leaf of "I reject their beliefs and practices and think they are wrong, but will defend their rights to do so."

First, we've got plenty of historical precedents for such a "legally legitimate act" with separation of aboriginal children from their parents into boarding schools or adoptive families in the USA, Canada, and Australia. A form of cultural genocide, and it's gradually becoming acknowledged as a historic wrong. That's MUCH harsher than the (so far) temporary state custody.

Second, if the state is going to interfere, even for legitimate reasons, then it must assume responsibility for the affected children. Before it could release any children to parents, it must ascertain that they ARE the parents. FLDS practices of polygamy, reassignment of wives and children to other polygamous families, and child marriage make this difficult even before we start asking what legal documents concerning birth, parentage or guardianship exist. That goes for boys too.

Third, your statement:
it would be sufficient to tell they had the right to leave if they wanted and provide them with a phone number to call if they needed help
is ignorant on its face. Teenagers are not little autonomous adults, even if they are not in a cult. And you're assuming that cult believers are in some sense "free" to do that, rather than trapped by an inculcated belief system. Such wishful libertarian thinking about freedom is weak even for competent adults, but outright wrong for children and cults.

Fourth, your statement:
flatly contrary to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion
seems ignorant of the "compelling interest" test. Here again, you're engaging in NAMBLA logic.

 
At 4:31 AM, April 27, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

Oh, and finally I have a few questions for you, David.

I presume you uphold the right of parents to ritually mutilate the genitals of their male children in infancy as part of their culture or religion?

What about the rights of beggars to mutilate their children to make them more piteous looking and thus increase begging income?

By what libertarian principle would you allow/disallow this? How would a line be drawn?

Are physical mutilations the only harms? Can't parents harm their children developmentally and psychologically? I can provide all sorts of extreme examples, but I think you get my idea.

 
At 4:34 AM, April 27, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

montestruc:

Repetition and declaration don't make your illogic any more sound.

 
At 12:09 PM, April 27, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

Mr. Huben

David should not address the so called marriage fact sheet as it is argument from authority and answer of it could be inferred as acceptance of that supposed authority. And that should be obvious to anyone even you.

The acts of separation of aboriginal children from their parents were acts of cultural genocide, as you admit, and monstrous, not proper legal precedent for any honorable court.

Your failure to address my arguments which are based on facts of history and human biology is interesting in that you insist that your arguments from authority (of the UN, a body without elected representation, thus not even having a fig leaf of democracy to give it the appearance of legitimate authority) be treated with greater respect that arguments from fact.

I gather that you are an Authoritarian in fact if not an acknowledged one.

 
At 2:37 PM, April 27, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

montestruc, your ignorance of argument is awesome.

My citing the Child Marriage Fact Sheet does not comprise a logical fallacy due to argument by authority. If you check the Wikipedia page on Appeal to authority, it says "there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

And it's a simple fact that the checklist I cited applies to the FLDS. (Except arguably the bit about susceptibility to HIV.)

Your statement "not proper legal precedent for any honorable court" is ridiculous: these HAVE historically set legal precedents, and your notion of "honorable court" is based on nothing but your own authority.

I did address your arguments. If you don't accept my answers, that's your problem.

As for your pop psychological evaluation of me as "authoritarian", allow me to return the favor: you're an ignorant loon spouting ideology and incapable of reasoned argument. Not to mention unaware of the irony that you are posing as a psychological authority.

 
At 6:17 PM, April 27, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

The "Child fact sheet" is not a statement of facts it is a statement of opinions by an unelected UN body spending our tax money to meddle in the private affairs of individuals around the world and promote their own bigoted opinions as to how things ought to be run. [Anyone who holds an opinion as to “how things ought to be run” as to the marriage customs of other cultures, and thinks he has the right to impose the “correct” way, is wrong from the get go, so long as that culture has been in existence for many generations, their system obviously works for them, and so is none of your damn business.]

Some of the absurd unsubstantiated opinions stated by the "fact sheet"

"In fact, however, it (marriage of women below the age the bigots in the UN think is too young) results in lost development opportunities, limited life options and poor health.”

No foundation, no statistics, no evidence given before the statement, just a bald statement given as a conclusion. Later they state that this sort of marriage is found in poorer nations and try to lead people to the conclusion that early marriage causes poverty, but no reason is given to think that one is the causation of the other.

Poverty has many causes, it is better to look as to what causes wealth as that solves problems.

Then they state “Child marriage is a health issue as well as a human rights violation.”

Without first having provided any evidence or logic that it is a human rights violation. In fact I think that the opposite in that what they propose (raising the legal age at which a young woman may marry by a number of years) is a violation of the young woman’s right to freedom of association, and her reproductive freedom as well. The causation of health problems by "child marriage" is also unproven.

“Because it takes place almost exclusively within the context of poverty and gender inequality,”

Factually untrue, marriage of women below 18 was and is not uncommon among many people who could not or cannot fairly be called poor. Factually I cannot name a place where “gender equality” as they appear to mean it exists, so this is an absurd statement.

That it is now less common in western nations has to do with governmental control of and requirement of mandatory public education, where the governments frown on early marriage of young women for a number of reasons all of which basically have to do with loss of , or reduction of control over the lives of citizens by the government.

“Married adolescents have been neglected from the global adolescent reproductive health agenda because of the incorrect assumption that their married status ensures them a safe passage to adulthood.”

As if anything could guarantee “safe passage to adulthood”.

It was and is an argument from authority. You stating otherwise is simply mendacity.

 
At 4:12 AM, April 28, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

montestruc said...
No foundation, no statistics, no evidence given before the statement, just a bald statement given as a conclusion.

Dear idiot: if you had taken the trouble to follow the link I provided, there are referenced and footnoted statistics, charts, and graphs on the United Nations Population Fund Child Marriage Fact Sheet.

However, I notice that you provide no facts nor references for your ravings: you base your whole argument on your own ignorant notions. You're giving us a classic example of somebody accusing others of his own faults.

[I]t is a statement of opinions by an unelected UN body spending our tax money to meddle in the private affairs of individuals around the world and promote their own bigoted opinions as to how things ought to be run.
This fallacy of argument is commonly known as poisoning the well, a form of ad-hominem argument. However, it does a good job of setting the tone for your rant.

 
At 6:28 PM, April 28, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

I don't need to cite statistics, it is well known and acknowledged even by you that the laws regarding legal age of marriage have been changed upward drastically over the past couple of decades.

My point is that it is up to you to prove that our grandfathers were abusing our grandmothers by marrying and fathering children with them at 14. That is after all what you are asserting.

Further I did read the "fact sheet" you cited. It seems that neither you nor the author knows a fact from an opinion.

 
At 2:53 AM, April 29, 2008, Blogger Mike Huben said...

montestruc, by your standards it's up to me to prove that our grandfathers were abusing their slaves because the laws of slavery have changed over the past two centuries. You're ridiculous.

As for your "neither you nor the author knows a fact from an opinion" claim, you've left it totally unsupported. Now you're just making baseless assertions because you have no valid argument.

 
At 10:33 PM, April 29, 2008, Blogger montestruc said...

huben,

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently pointed out in his original draft of the US declaration of independence, slavery was illegal under British law in Britain and British colonies till after King James "prostituted his negative" to make it legal in British North America. He did this in order that his slave trading company could make him more money by selling slaves to British crown colonies as well as to Brazil and Dutch, Spanish, and French colonies in the New World. This was done over the explicit objections of the legislature of Virginia.


Historic British common law is VERY libertarian.

I again state that it is quite clear to me that neither you nor the authors of that "fact sheet" understand the difference between facts and opinion, based on your statements here, and various statements on that "fact sheet".

 
At 9:56 PM, June 03, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a web site stating what I know for fact as a resident of Texas. The legal marrying age of a minor in the state of Texas is 14 years old with consent from his/her parents.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/legal_age_of_consent/index.shtml

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home