Deseret News | 3 FLDS men indicted by grand jury surrender in Texas

Reader comments
3 FLDS men indicted by grand jury surrender in Texas

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Still laughing | 3:50 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

oh brother.

Yea. No hatred here - arrest all the FLDS people and throw them in jail.

Sheesh.

Who will be the next victim of the ANTI-FLDS people when this victim has been beaten bloody and stomped into the mud by your hatred?

Good grief.

Oh. I know. You're all good little Christians and this is how you show your love.

common sense | 10:37 a.m. Oct. 1, 2008

According to the Schliecher county district clerk, the Ninth man indicted two months ago, has NOT turned himself into authorities...
I thought Willie Jessop said they would all turn themselves in????
Where and Who is the Ninth man?

zxcvbnm | 2:22 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

This is about religion. Address Jeffs OK....convicted of performing a wedding. Call it murder, rape or j-walking. He performed a wedding at which both parties said yes.
Jeffs is in severe depression and much of what he says at the moment is about as credible as listening to a can of tuna.
Every "spiritual union" was a religious ceremony not a civil ceremony and in many cases consumation of the "spiritual union" has not been proven.
Now......lets talk about the religious practices of the flds that enrage everyone.
Put the name Smith in the place of Jeffs and in almost every instance we still have religious persecution.
Smith had his 13 year old bride.......prove consumation....prove Smith was not a man of God.
Kinda turns the tables back on a bit of religious introspection now doesn't it.
Do we have perverts or "priests". If we have priests we have religious freedom to contend with. If it is a religious practice the practice is protected by our laws. Jeffs may be a nut....but that nut got his inspiration from the BOM and Bible......darn good RELIGIOUS texts in anyones eyes.

Comments continue below

Flds Lost Cause | 4:09 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Find a new respectable life and quit abusing women. They did not ask to be your slaves, nor to be raised into slavery.

Johnny Utah #9 | 6:23 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Re: zxcvbnm | 2:22 p.m

I think a 17 year old girl with three children is proof enough that the "spiritual union" was consummated.

Being a "man of god" as you say does not give you the right to marry and have sex with a 13 year old girl. Prove he was a man of god. I could proclaim all day that I'm a man of god, that doesn't give me the right to abuse children.

And what about Jeffs? He's now admitted that he's a false prophet. By your rationale, he wasn't breaking the law because he was a man of god? Is that what you're saying?

Religious freedom is over ridden when you break federal laws. If that's not the case I should be allowed to practice VooDoo and have human sacrifices. Right? Why not? It's part of my religion. Or try to practice Rastafarianism, and grow and habitually smoke marijuana. I can do that right? No, but that should be my religious freedom.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

The Bible and the BOM mean nothing to me, and are not justification for breaking state and federal laws in anyone's eyes.

Anonymous | 9:07 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Jeff Barlow Jeffs....another scary guy!

John Pack Lambert | 9:32 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

If they only have records showing that the younger Mr. Jeffs was married in 2007 then on what grounds are they indicting him for actions in 2006. They may have grounds for that indictment, but I do not see any evidence of such so far.

John Pack Lambert | 9:40 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

One more time,
When did 15-year-olds become little girls? Beyond that, Texas has no evidence of a relationship with someone under 16 as far as I can tell.
It is illegal. I am not going to say this situation is better than others. I am not convinced it is. However, I am also not convinced that Texas has adequately pressed charges of statutory rape.
When was the last time Texas pressed a charge of statutory rape where there was no objection from the "victim" or there parents.
I also have major issues with them using record they seized in the raid. They got permission with the warrent to search for "Sarah" not to search for records. They should have at least had to present a clear case for obtaining these records and obtained them under the clear auspices of a criminal probe instead of child protection actions.
On the other hand I am sick and tired of people claiming that Utah is more tolerant than other states. If these people had moved to many states sexual relations with 17 year olds and even 16 year olds in some cases would not be criminal.

John Pack Lambert | 9:47 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

To Andrea,
Your line "forced to have sex" is not supported by any evidence related to Texas. The only person who claims to have been forced to have sex is Ms. Wall of Utah.
The issue in Texas, as with most of this issues in Arizona and Utah involves children who are considered to be to young to make choices. Why they have an unfettered right to an abortion at age 14 but no right to make a decision about having sex is one of the results of overbearing judicial activism that has destroyed some historic laws in the United States.
Be that as it may, you have chosen rhetoric that has no place in this discussion. The whole issue is not about force, but about inapropriate conduct.
If there is a mistake that Texas made it was indicting the young Mr. Jeffs. This is the case the FLDS should try to run to the supreme court. Since the age differential is only six years, this will not be seen as an unthinkable marriage. The fact of the matter is that if this had been the first marriage for Mr. Jeffs he would not be prosecuted.

John Pack Lambert | 9:50 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

To Johnny Utah #9,
You need to brush up on statistics.
A great many of teenage mothers have children by older men. In fact the younger the teen mother is, the older the father tends to be.
While it is true there are teen pregnancies where the father is also a teenager, there are also a large number of teen pregnancies where the father is in his twenties or even older.
If I remember correctly the average age of people accused of statuory rape in Rhode Island is 29. This is in a state where 17 year olds have full consent rights. So there are many 16-year-olds and younger who are inpregnated by men in their 30s.

John Pack Lambert | 9:58 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

To Tigerlily #9,
Actually an 18-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old is illegal, and in many states a 17-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old and even more likely at 14-year-old is illegal.
A 19-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old constitutes statutory rape in almost every state. Normally an 18-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old constitutes statutory rape in most states. An 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old in Texas is a prosecutable crime. A 16-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old is illegal in many states.
So a lot of sex between teens is in violation of state laws. Many of the most noted statuory rape cases have involved prosecution of high school seniors for sexual relations with high school freshmen. They get so noted, because they either involve down right sickening attempts of the parents of the seniors to influence judicial proceedings or they illicit protests from large groups of people who think the whole prosecution is unfair. However, there have been laws broken in all cases, even if people think the laws are unwise or poorly written.

Johnny Utah #9 | 11:22 p.m. Oct. 1, 2008

Re: John Pack Lambert | 9:50 p.m

Thanks for the input. Obviously statutory rape is a problem everywhere, I never said it wasn't.

As you said: "A great many of teenage mothers have children by older men. In fact the younger the teen mother is, the older the father tends to be."

And guess what? Those men are statutory rapists too.

Thanks for reiterating my point though. These men having sex with girls under the age of 18 are statutory rapists and need to be prosecuted. Nuff' said.

tigerlily | 12:06 a.m. Oct. 2, 2008

Johnny utah: your statement about the 17 year old with three kid would be proof had they found anyone like that. the youngest they found was 18. i'm 17 year olds with three kids could be found in our world too. the freedom of religion is never over ridden as youput it. it is a constitutional right for anyone to have the freedom to worship as they please

Johnny Utah #9 | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 2, 2008

tigerlily | 12:06 a.m

OK, so they've found an 18 year old with three kids?

Do the math, she had to have been impregnated at least two and half years earlier so she was 15 and a half at first conception. So that means she somebody had sex with her when she was 15 or 16, and I doubt it was a 16 year old boy. So there's your proof of statutory rape.

Once again, it makes no difference if girls in "our world" are having children by older men, it's still statutory rape in ANY world you live in.

And you're right about one thing. "It is a constitutional right for anyone to have the freedom to worship as they please"

That is, until it violates state and federal laws.

If that's not the case, Then how were these men arrested for bigamy? It's their religion to marry more than one wife. Right? Because it's against the law, so is statutory rape. Freedom of religion is not a freedom to do what ever you want.

tigerlily | 12:15 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

she was an 18 year old pregnant with her first. bigamy is against the law. they can't prosecute for polygamy because its part of their religion to have more than one wife. polygamy they only have one legal wife the rest are no more than mistresses because there is no other marriage certificate

John Pack Lambert | 1:23 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

To tigerlily,
Since Smith vs. Employment Division heavily relied on Reynolds Vs. United States, it appears that under current supream court doctrine a person may be prosecuted for polygamy.
Whether this ought to be the case is another question, but it seems it would be the case.

tigerlily | 2:25 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

John Pack Lambert:: where i live the age of consent is sixteen. a 16 year old can marry with parents permission.(sex with ones spouse is not illegal no matter what the age is) teens having sex is not illegal unless there is quite an age difference.
there has never been anyone convicted of polygamy

Re: tigerlily | 12:15 p.m | 2:39 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

"she was an 18 year old pregnant with her first"

And do you believe it was her first? A lot of the kids lied or didn't say anything when asked about who there parents were. I believe they did this to protect the under 18 mothers because they knew the fathers would be arrested.

tigerlily | 3:00 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

when she was taken (texas asummed she was younger) she had no other kids with her nor did she claim any of the other children other than the baby she had while in state custody.

zxcvbnm | 3:52 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

So an 18 year old in State custody had a baby......big deal. She willingly had a baby......big deal.... CPS says she had more than one child and was not an adult as well.
The same CPS had the WOMAN listed as a child.

The fact remains that after all the dust settled the only two persons pregnant were adults.
There have been reports of Jeffs having a baby with a 12 year old.....haven't seen proof and no 12 year old is in custody other than Merriann and she is not pregnant.
There are no pregnant teens held by CPS......none

tigerlily | 4:51 p.m. Oct. 2, 2008

yes cps had her listed as a child which she wasn't. cps assumed that with many of the women. they assumed another one was a minor when in fact she was 27. reports of jeffs having a baby with a 12 year old is probably false. there were all kinds of people being held by cps when this whole things started.

zxcvbnm | 11:24 a.m. Oct. 3, 2008

Yep sports fans..........no pregnant teens as reported by CPS pretty much means no pregnant teens.

The 37 year old and 27 year old pregnant teens weren't pregnant teens and the 18 year old teen was an adult.

So..........no pregnant teens still pretty much means no pregnant teens.
No pregnant teens were seen by Voss because.....you guessed it......there were no pregnant teens.
The 15 year old held by CPS is not pregnant...guess what.....not a pregnant teen.
Teresa the once pregnant teen isn't pregnant and she claims to be a virgin.....with doctor reports to prove it.
304 non suited children aren't pregnant teens......and the boys that were thought to be molested weren't pregnant...lol.....and weren't molested.
So folks, just where is the "evidence" of the pregnant teens that Voss used as grounds for the second warrant......
Perhaps the teens were just a little bit pregnant.......but lets not go there.

Ex-FLDS Woman | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 3, 2008

I can tell you first hand that sexual and mental abuse among women runs rampant within the FLDS communities. The women are kept quiet through intimidation and fear of being ousted from their community and family. These men will do anything to keep the real truth from the outside world. If speaking out means losing everything, do you think you could do it? It's very sad.

Deb Lee | 3:29 a.m. Oct. 5, 2008

I hope that Keith Dutson is acquitted. He is only 23. He only had one wife, and his wife is currently 18. Keith may not have known that Texas had changed its marriage laws when he married her. Ignorance of the law is a legal defense. The Dutsons are a family now, and they probably love each other. Laws should not used to destroy young families.

Living in Bliss | 4:33 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

"Ignorance of the law is a legal defense." ???

Where do you live? try using that to get out of ticket sometime...."I didn't know the speed limit was 25 officer" or "I've never heard of statutory rape"

Ignorance of the law is definitely not a legal defense.

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.