polygamist sect hearing in texas decends into farce

[faith pleases God]

quote BP: "If we put as much effort into protecting the rights of the unborn as we do to lament the violation of the rights of cults, pediphiles, criminals and terrorists, we would not be in the position we are in today."

First off, the cultists, pedophiles, criminals and terrorists, are Americans first, and are protected by the US Constitution whether you like it or not.

Secondly, I will continue to use the slippery slope argument until it becomes irrelevant. When a government wants to control it's population, it starts taking very small steps to do that, one of their steps is to oppress the undesirables of society, cultists (fanatics), pedophiles, criminals, terrorists. Once due process is gone, then everyone can fall into those categories, if someone (anyone) suspects them. So, then the burden of innocence falls on the subjects of the state, (who in my opinion, are no longer regarded as Citizens).

Plenty of evidence that the court overstepped its Constitutional authority has been submitted, some of you are failing to see beyond your ideology.

Now, what was the justification for the issuance of the warrant? . . .and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. . . Why wasn't the accuser required to be under oath, or provide a written statement?

Where was the warrant allowed to search, who was supposed to be searched, what things were specifically identified to be searched? . . .and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What rights were violated? . . .The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . .

What makes the search unreasonable? no probable cause. You had the testimony of one unindicted, unverified, unidentified false witness.

What do you think "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" means? Just what this "witness" did. When "justice" is administered under the false testimony of a witness, typically the Judge throws out the case. So no one wins, the victim most certainly loses, but what about the innocent person that was falsely accused? What about the guilty person that was set free because of the false testimony of someone else? No justice for the victim. In order for justice to be just, all the rules have to be followed when it is administered, by all parties. Witnesses must be honest, the State must exercise only what authority it was granted in the Constitution, etc.

There was no justice in this case. The whole deal became a travesty of justice, the only winner here was the state, because it just gained more power over our lives.

very well put.

[faith pleases God]

You've gotten many answers already. Obviously none you like or agree with. But so what? This thread isn't about your question. Besides use your head. A child is the parents' and God's, not the states. This was an abuse on many rights (not gonna list every time quit asking and reread). Sorry you can't see that.

You should have edited some more..........................."besides use your head" maybe you should try that. This wasn't about abuse on many rights???? what does that mean, (not gonna list every time quit asking and reread) could you be alittle more rude???? Sorry you can't see that, see WHAT that your post doesn't make any sense to begin with.

Calm down. Be nice. I could have been more polite. I'm sorry.

[Ovedya]

When a government wants to control it's population, it starts taking very small steps to do that...

Can you give me an example of this? Because, to my knowledge, those countries that are oppressive today got thee through violent means: The Communist movements in China and Korea, the change to Socialism in Russia, the takeovers of governments in Cuba and in Central and South America, all were accomplished through violent means.

...one of their steps is to oppress the undesirables of society, cultists (fanatics), pedophiles, criminals, terrorists.

Define "oppression," and please describe why any government would actually want such groups to flourish in society.

Once due process is gone, then everyone can fall into those categories, if someone (anyone) suspects them. So, then the burden of innocence falls on the subjects of the state, (who in my opinion, are no longer regarded as Citizens).

No such thing exists in the United States of America. Due process of law is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In order for our government to deny due process of law to any citizen they would have to first get rid of the Constitution. As it stands, with regard to this sect, they are being given their due process rights.

Plenty of evidence that the court overstepped its Constitutional authority has been submitted, some of you are failing to see beyond your ideology.

Now, what was the justification for the issuance of the warrant? . . .and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation. . . Why wasn't the accuser required to be under oath, or provide a written statement?

"Supported by oath or affirmation" refers to the agency requesting the warrant, not the accuser. Therefore, no Constitutional violation exists.

[Ovedya]

Where was the warrant allowed to search, who was supposed to be searched, what things were specifically identified to be searched? . . .and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I would assume that the places and persons to be searched would have been included on the warrant. What are you looking for here, a copy of the search warrant?

What rights were violated? . . .The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . .

An "unreasonable" search and seizure would have been one in which there was no warrant served. There was a warrant served. Therefore, no "unreasonable" search and seizure.

What makes the search unreasonable? no probable cause. You had the testimony of one unindicted, unverified, unidentified false witness.

Actually that's not the entire truth. The probable cause also included the facts that: 1) They had done searches of the ranch in the past and had uncovered similar evidence, and, 2) They had arrested and indicted the leader of that sect, Warren Jeffs, for arranging marriages between adult males and underage girls. So the FLDS was on the FBI's radar, and on the state of Texas' radar long before this particular incident. They had sufficient probable cause.

What do you think "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" means? Just what this "witness" did. When "justice" is administered under the false testimony of a witness, typically the Judge throws out the case.

I'm afraid that you have it wrong. When the testimony of a witness on the stand proves to be a lie, then the credibility of the argument for the case is damaged. Although the "witness" in this situation turned out to be not credible, the situation at the compound turned out nevertheless to be exactly as the witness charged. it seems as if you are arguing that the willful commission of a crime should be ignored because of a single witness who turns out to be not credible. Despite the accuser's having lied about herself, her testimony with regard to the happenings at the compound were true, and coordinated with what the FBI and the State of Texas already suspected.

So no one wins, the victim most certainly loses, but what about the innocent person that was falsely accused?

Who was that?

What about the guilty person that was set free because of the false testimony of someone else?

Who was that?

In order for justice to be just, all the rules have to be followed when it is administered, by all parties. Witnesses must be honest, the State must exercise only what authority it was granted in the Constitution, etc.

Thus far no rules have been broken. You are simply misinterpreting the law.

[His_Own]

When a government wants to control it's population, it starts taking very small steps to do that...

Can you give me an example of this? Because, to my knowledge, those countries that are oppressive today got thee through violent means: The Communist movements in China and Korea, the change to Socialism in Russia, the takeovers of governments in Cuba and in Central and South America, all were accomplished through violent means.

...one of their steps is to oppress the undesirables of society, cultists (fanatics), pedophiles, criminals, terrorists.

Define "oppression," and please describe why any government would actually want such groups to flourish in society.

Ovedya, you bring a refreshing voice in this thread. Thank you for your willingness to engage in rational debate.

As to your first question, actually, in the last century, the a formula which JustinM alludes to for destroying free societies has developed and been successfully used multiple times, I first learned of it from the Christian right, but now even the left agrees. Of all those who present this case, Naomi Wolf seems to present it best. The two best presentations are

1. a 47 min talk entitled: Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America. go to youtube.com and search on Naomi Wolf

2. a 28 min interview on google: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=4721859480918954376

Question 2: The best way to get a solid definition of oppression would be to do a word study from the Bible. If you need help with that, please PM me. It is like the issue of our free will with our Father. No, he does not want evil to flourish, neither should any people, but without respecting the person to make their own choices, thus allowing the possibility of evil, you are left with only robots or slaves, not a free man or free society. The "governments" that desire to take over start with the "undesirable elements", because societies are more tolerant of ungodly treatment for the fringes. But, it is like a drug; once a society begins to accept the ungodly, it gets easier, and easier to include more and more people who receive this treatment.

Once due process is gone, then everyone can fall into those categories, if someone (anyone) suspects them. So, then the burden of innocence falls on the subjects of the state, (who in my opinion, are no longer regarded as Citizens).

No such thing exists in the United States of America. Due process of law is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In order for our government to deny due process of law to any citizen they would have to first get rid of the Constitution. As it stands, with regard to this sect, they are being given their due process rights.

As to the constitution, it has little application to us at this point. There are four levels or types of law:

1. The Law of the Creator - sometimes called Natural Law

2. Contract Law

3. Common Law

4. Man-made/Government/"state" Law

We have been asleep as this "government" has replaced our Constitutional Rights (level 4) with Contract Law.

For more detail, go to http://www.bengraydon.com/freedom.html, click on the Q2 Power Point, the discussion of law starts at slide 41. FLDS was incorporated in the 1940's. That contract takes them out of #4 and puts them at #2. Pretty much, the "government" can do whatever it likes because of that. So, the Constitution is not applicable here. What is sad, is that most of us also have these contracts which make the Constitution and common law irrelevant, but we do not recognize it.

The ONLY law that can "Trump" Contract Law is the Law of our Father. We'd best start learning it and how it applies to these situations!!

Edited May 15, 2008 by His_Own

[Ovedya]

Ovedya, you bring a refreshing voice in this thread. Thank you for your willingness to engage in rational debate.

As to your first question, actually, in the last century, the a formula which JustinM alludes to for destroying free societies has developed and been successfully used multiple times...

This is what I'm asking about. You say it's been used "multiple times," but where? Where is the example we can look to? I know that some have argued we are trending toward Nazi Germany in the 20s, but frankly I just don't see that. I'll watch those two videos when I have the time. I have heard of Naomi Wolf.

Question 2: The best way to get a solid definition of oppression would be to do a word study from the Bible. If you need help with that, please PM me. It is like the issue of our free will with our Father. No, he does not want evil to flourish, neither should any people, but without respecting the person to make their own choices, thus allowing the possibility of evil, you are left with only robots or slaves, not a free man or free society. The "governments" that desire to take over start with the "undesirable elements", because societies are more tolerant of ungodly treatment for the fringes. But, it is like a drug; once a society begins to accept the ungodly, it gets easier, and easier to include more and more people who receive this treatment.

Frankly I don't see how the Bible applies here. I understand that as believers we should look to the Bible. However, we're talking about oppression of government against the people. Sure there are examples in the Bible, but a Biblical definition of what Justin is describing wouldn't apply to his argument, as I see it. Seems to me that governments should use whatever legal disposal is at their means to make sure that groups that seek to cause harm to the American way of life are not allowed to flourish unchecked; and that individuals who cause harm to others, or who conspire to do so, are not allowed the freedom to harm others.

As to the constitution, it has little application to us at this point. There are four levels or types of law:

1. The Law of the Creator - sometimes called Natural Law

2. Contract Law

3. Common Law

4. Man-made/Government/"state" Law

We have been asleep as this "government" has replaced our Constitutional Rights (level 4) with Contract Law.

For more detail, go to http://www.bengraydon.com/freedom.html, click on the Q2 Power Point, the discussion of law starts at slide 41. FLDS was incorporated in the 1940's. That contract takes them out of #4 and puts them at #2. Pretty much, the "government" can do whatever it likes because of that. So, the Constitution is not applicable here. What is sad, is that most of us also have these contracts which make the Constitution and common law irrelevant, but we do not recognize it.

The ONLY law that can "Trump" Contract Law is the Law of our Father. We'd best start learning it and how it applies to these situations!!

I don't agree with Mr. Graydon's interpretation of the Constitution. In that presentation he admits to not being a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, so I don't have the ability to determine the validity of his argument. I would think, though, that an attorney versed in Constitutional law would disagree that the Constitution was established as a form of contract between the government and the states.

The first part of that slide presentation sets the reader up for the impartation of a conspiracy theory. The Rothschilds are first mentioned on slide 18. This doesn't lend much credibility to the author as far as I'm concerned. I am not at all convinced that there is a "behind the scenes" conspiracy by one a few elite rich families in the United States to gain control - eventually - of the whole world.

[Axxman]

Still doesn't answer my question. Can you or anyone else provide positive proof, not just rhetoric, that anyone's constitutional rights have been violated? Not just which rights or a description of the rights in question but an evidential description which would convince a person, ignorant of the circumstances we are discussing, that rights have been violated. An evidential description is like - the police entered the house without a warrant, arrested the suspect and did not read them their Miranda rights. Then you provide legal proof. Everyone knows what legal proof is, right.

edit

Hey Brother...

The "legal proof" is what the gov't must provide...not the presumed innocent. Especially when the presumed innocent still have not been charged...let alone indicted...with ANY crime. In fact, the person that the original warrant was issued for has already been told that no charges are going to be filed against him since he doesn't even live in the compound. I don't know what exactly you are looking for. If you have a warrant for a specific thing then you CANNOT start looking at other things when the objuect of your warrant eludes you. That is illegal and unconstitutional on EVERY LEVEL.

Also, your description of evidential is off-base. A) Police do NOT need a warrant to enter a house. B) Police don't read Miranda Rights to the majority of arrested people. Things like warrants and miranda rights were NOT instituted to give the gov't power...they were instituted to protect the citizens. When police start using warrants to give themselves power...they are violating rights. This is why the warrants HAVE TO BE specific and detailed.

Another thing...due process. I have seen murderers walk out of custody because of a lack of evidence. I have seen guys arrested for child molestation walk out after just a few hours of questioning. Why is this??? Because even the WORST criminals in our society have the 5th and 14th amendment on their side. It is absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the gov't to deprive these people (or the children) in ANY WAY...IN ANY WAY...without due process of law. And just so we are clear...due process of law is NOT having a court hearing to see if you can get your kids back. These people haven't had ONE court hearing to determine a SINGLE charge against them. There have been no indictments, grand juries convened, or even a simple presentment of charges!!! And yet these people (and their children) have been forced to give DNA samples, been forbidden to return to their homes, and children removed and scattered over 268,000 square miles!

This is America. Since when do we allow the gov't to punish first...ask questions later? It may give people a fuzzy feeling to think they are standing up for the kids in this situation...but the fact of the matter is that the gov't is violating the rights of the kids too. Yes, we should protect children...but not at the expense of their rights, or MINE! The gov't royally messed this up.

[Rick-Parker]

Axxman, I believe we have had this conversation before. I see no need to restate my opinion. We are just diametrically opposed on this issue and will probably remain that way. Good talking to you, though.

[His_Own]

Ovedya, you bring a refreshing voice in this thread. Thank you for your willingness to engage in rational debate.

As to your first question, actually, in the last century, the a formula which JustinM alludes to for destroying free societies has developed and been successfully used multiple times...

#1 This is what I'm asking about. You say it's been used "multiple times," but where? Where is the example we can look to? I know that some have argued we are trending toward Nazi Germany in the 20s, but frankly I just don't see that. I'll watch those two videos when I have the time. I have heard of Naomi Wolf.

Question 2: The best way to get a solid definition of oppression would be to do a word study from the Bible. If you need help with that, please PM me. It is like the issue of our free will with our Father. No, he does not want evil to flourish, neither should any people, but without respecting the person to make their own choices, thus allowing the possibility of evil, you are left with only robots or slaves, not a free man or free society. The "governments" that desire to take over start with the "undesirable elements", because societies are more tolerant of ungodly treatment for the fringes. But, it is like a drug; once a society begins to accept the ungodly, it gets easier, and easier to include more and more people who receive this treatment.

#2 Frankly I don't see how the Bible applies here. I understand that as believers we should look to the Bible. However, we're And, talking about oppression of government against the people. Sure there are examples in the Bible, but a Biblical definition of what Justin is describing wouldn't apply to his argument, as I see it. #3 Seems to me that governments should use whatever legal disposal is at their means to make sure that groups that seek to cause harm to the American way of life are not allowed to flourish unchecked; and that individuals who cause harm to others, or who conspire to do so, are not allowed the freedom to harm others.

As to the constitution, it has little application to us at this point. There are four levels or types of law:

1. The Law of the Creator - sometimes called Natural Law

2. Contract Law

3. Common Law

4. Man-made/Government/"state" Law

We have been asleep as this "government" has replaced our Constitutional Rights (level 4) with Contract Law.

For more detail, go to http://www.bengraydon.com/freedom.html, click on the Q2 Power Point, the discussion of law starts at slide 41. FLDS was incorporated in the 1940's. That contract takes them out of #4 and puts them at #2. Pretty much, the "government" can do whatever it likes because of that. So, the Constitution is not applicable here. What is sad, is that most of us also have these contracts which make the Constitution and common law irrelevant, but we do not recognize it.

The ONLY law that can "Trump" Contract Law is the Law of our Father. We'd best start learning it and how it applies to these situations!!

#4 I don't agree with Mr. Graydon's interpretation of the Constitution. In that presentation he admits to not being a lawyer. I am not a lawyer either, so I don't have the ability to determine the validity of his argument. I would think, though, that an attorney versed in Constitutional law would disagree that the Constitution was established as a form of contract between the government and the states.

The first part of that slide presentation sets the reader up for the impartation of a conspiracy theory. The Rothschilds are first mentioned on slide 18. This doesn't lend much credibility to the author as far as I'm concerned. I am not at all convinced that there is a "behind the scenes" conspiracy by one a few elite rich families in the United States to gain control - eventually - of the whole world.

#1. Where - is answered during her talk and the interview, in the link which you omitted from the quotation. Germany, Italy, Rome (Nero), Russia (Stalin) and others are a few examples where some of these tactics were implemented. She explains it better and with more details than is appropriate in a forum; and people usually receive better from a third party resource. I, too, started studying after multiple people mentioned "This is just what Germany did." Reading the history of Germany between the wars is chillingly similar to our own country, I would encourage a study of how Hitler took power. And, I am not suggesting that I agree with her on everything. But, she gives one of the best presentations I have seen.

#2 He IS the Law giver, He covenants (contracts) with us. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israelite Nation, Aaron, David, etc. have specific covenants which He honors. His very nature is love, mercy and justice. His laws express to us a means of walking in His love, mercy and justice with Him and with others; without that law, we easily get confused on how we should treat each other. ANY man-made law, 'executive order', etc. that is not "in sync" with His law is a law that does not express His love, mercy and justice perfectly. It is a step away from Him and towards the enemy. We, His people, are to be salt, so that our national laws express, as much as is humanly possible, His nature.

#3 The problem with this, is that "governments" tend to take on a life of their own. What began as a way to come together for self-defense, becomes the duty of a 'government' to "protect" its people, then duty to "provide", then to "care", and finally, because the people are now so dependent on them, it becomes a duty of "self-preservation" in the name of the "people." This encourages a people to take their eyes off of their Heavenly Father to meet their needs, and begin to trust and rely on their "government" ('Big Brother'). Not good. When a people give their government free reign to do whatever it deems necessary to preserve itself, without opposition, you have tyranny, at best. Historically, those governments get paranoid and/or power hungry, and declare even peaceful Christians, whose only crime is obeying His Law, to be enemies of the state, fit to be thrown to the lions, burned at the stake, sent to the gas chambers.

#4 I also do not agree with all that he says, which is in part the reason I mentioned starting at slide #41. It is not my intention to discuss "conspiracy theories", those discussions tend to be emotional, divisive and counter-productive. He calls us to unity (not to think alike, but to respect and love) But, taking even the most basic overview of law:

There is the Law of the Creator and the many laws of man.

When you have to make a choice, which do you choose to follow?

The majority of the reason that we do not see the many inconsistencies between His Law and the "laws" of this nation is because we have had 'separation of church and state' drilled into our heads. For man to stand up on a soapbox and holler out to the Almighty One of Israel, the King of kings, the Judge of the Universe, that "This is an area that is all mine, you have nothing to do or say about it" would be hilarious, if it weren't so serious. How arrogant have we become that we think we, the created ones, can take anything that He created (Law) and modify it to the point that His Law no longer applies!! His Law is just like gravity (an example of His physical Law) - It is true whether you believe it or not!!! We cannot break it - but it can surely break us! Just try jumping off a cliff without taking another point of His Law (like aerodynamics by using a hang-glider) into consideration! Unless He intervenes, you don't get up again. Seems to me, that not only have we jumped off the cliff, we don't even recognize that our face is about to hit the ground.

May He open our eyes. May we fall on our faces in repentance, before it is too late.

Thank you, again for your questions. These are things I have been struggling with. As I write, I am writing as much to me as to you, so, please, if you feel I am being too hard, it is not meant to offend. He loves His sheep so much!! Praise Him.

Edited May 16, 2008 by His_Own

[faith pleases God]

Still doesn't answer my question. Can you or anyone else provide positive proof, not just rhetoric, that anyone's constitutional rights have been violated? Not just which rights or a description of the rights in question but an evidential description which would convince a person, ignorant of the circumstances we are discussing, that rights have been violated. An evidential description is like - the police entered the house without a warrant, arrested the suspect and did not read them their Miranda rights. Then you provide legal proof. Everyone knows what legal proof is, right.

edit

Hey Brother...

The "legal proof" is what the gov't must provide...not the presumed innocent. Especially when the presumed innocent still have not been charged...let alone indicted...with ANY crime. In fact, the person that the original warrant was issued for has already been told that no charges are going to be filed against him since he doesn't even live in the compound. I don't know what exactly you are looking for. If you have a warrant for a specific thing then you CANNOT start looking at other things when the objuect of your warrant eludes you. That is illegal and unconstitutional on EVERY LEVEL.

Also, your description of evidential is off-base. A) Police do NOT need a warrant to enter a house. B) Police don't read Miranda Rights to the majority of arrested people. Things like warrants and miranda rights were NOT instituted to give the gov't power...they were instituted to protect the citizens. When police start using warrants to give themselves power...they are violating rights. This is why the warrants HAVE TO BE specific and detailed.

Another thing...due process. I have seen murderers walk out of custody because of a lack of evidence. I have seen guys arrested for child molestation walk out after just a few hours of questioning. Why is this??? Because even the WORST criminals in our society have the 5th and 14th amendment on their side. It is absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the gov't to deprive these people (or the children) in ANY WAY...IN ANY WAY...without due process of law. And just so we are clear...due process of law is NOT having a court hearing to see if you can get your kids back. These people haven't had ONE court hearing to determine a SINGLE charge against them. There have been no indictments, grand juries convened, or even a simple presentment of charges!!! And yet these people (and their children) have been forced to give DNA samples, been forbidden to return to their homes, and children removed and scattered over 268,000 square miles!

This is America. Since when do we allow the gov't to punish first...ask questions later? It may give people a fuzzy feeling to think they are standing up for the kids in this situation...but the fact of the matter is that the gov't is violating the rights of the kids too. Yes, we should protect children...but not at the expense of their rights, or MINE! The gov't royally messed this up.

I agree entirely. Well said.