Reader comments
FLDS girls to attend classes on underage marriage

Page:
< Previous
1
2

John Pack Lambert | 11:02 a.m. Oct. 13, 2008

To Gigi13,
So am I to understand that once CPS accuses you, even if it is merely because you live on the same ranch where a non-existant girl was abused by a man who has never lived at the ranch and at the time of the raid was hundreds of miles away, in a state that is not even ajacent to Texas, you remain a criminal indefinantly.
I do not sense any use of the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra here. CPS has never demonstated abuse of any kind by the vast majority of the parents. Ever accusation of physical abuse remains unproven. The only alleged case of sex with a child under 14 involves a man who is currently in prison, and had been for some time when the tanks rolled in.
There is nothing in this case to justify CPS oversight for the vast majority of cases. The SCOT should have desuited all cases and forces CPS to start over by requesting oversight of specific children. The blanket granting of oversight at the beganing was wrong, so they should have to demonstarate on a case by case basis why any of these children are in danger.

John Pack Lambert | 11:09 a.m. Oct. 13, 2008

To Rico,
You are mixing rules. As far as I have been able to tell, Texas having the age of consent for sexual relations at 18 goes back quite some time.
What Texas changed was the age at which a child can marry with merely parental and not judicial consent.
The problem is that there is an inconsistentcy embodied in the laws. This is why they have only charged men with underage sexual relations and have not charged mothers and fathers with unlawful consent to have children married.
In Texas a parent has a legal right to allow their 16 year old child to get married. However, that child does not have the right to consent to sex until age 18, but if they have gone through a marriage with proper parental approval and legal recognition they can then consent to sex. If you are age 15 or 14 you need the consent of a judge to get married.
Thus parents have clear and undoubted rights to grant consent for a 17-year-old child to have sex. However, if the adult spouse does not first enter a legal marriage he is violating the law, and subject to prosexution.

INCULCATION | 2:53 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

====

Reader comments: FLDS girls to attend classes

TEXAS CPS MAY USE THE FOLLOWING METHODS (IN FULL OR IN PART)

IN THEIR LESSONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE FLDS CHILDREN

OUTLINE (DRAFT) "LIST OF INCULCATION METHODS" AVAILABLE AT:

Comments continue below

AMISH | 2:55 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

DEBATER: 10/13/2008 2:22:00 PM 0

TO: ex_lax_warrior: 10/13/2008 1:45:00 PM

==============================================

"ULTRA-SECULAR/ULTRA-RELIGIOUS FLDS" MUST INVOKE THE "AMISH GROUP:" (A) EQUAL

PROTECTION AND (B) EQUAL RIGHTS IN ULTRA-SECULAR COURTS.

BOILERPLATES: AS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN HERE AND ELSEWHERE.

==

SHOCKED | 3:09 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

Reader comments: FLDS girls to attend classes

INCULCATION METHODS

INCULCATION METHODS MAY OR MAY NOT INLCUDE:

1. SHOCK OF CONSCIENCE

2. CULTURAL SHOCK

I THINK AND BELIEVE THAT SHOKING METHODS ARE ILLEGAL.

BOILERPLATES: AS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN HERE AND ELSEWHERE.

AMISH GROUP GIRL | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

"ULTRA-SECULAR/ULTRA-RELIGIOUS FLDS" MUST INVOKE THE "AMISH GROUP:" (A) EQUAL

PROTECTION AND (B) EQUAL RIGHTS IN ULTRA-SECULAR COURTS.

BOILERPLATES: AS PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN HERE AND ELSEWHERE.

zxcvbnm | 3:45 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

GET IT RIGHT LAMBERT.........THE AGE OF CONSENT IN TEXAS IS 17....was 16.
Marraige with parental/court consent is 16 was 14.
The law changed 09/01/2005.........with the direct purpose of targeting FLDS according ti Hildibrand, the author".
The law was rejected and lobbied against by the East Texas Baptists........then slipped into a CPS funding bill.
ANY 17 year old in texas is free to consent ........ with or without parental permission......just for the record they can drop out of school as well. Thats why CPS isn't messing with 17 year olds who were pregnant after 17......or 16 before 9/01/05.

John Pack Lambert | 4:40 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

To zx whatever,
You seem to have a high desire to attack anyone who disagrees with you.
However if you look up and listing of statutory rape laws you will see that in Texas statuory rape is defined as sexual behavior with someone under the age of 18 who is not your spouse.
If your allegations were correct than the whole case involving Natalie Malonis and her 17-year-old "client" (I use quotes, because she definantly does not treat the young lady as such) would not make sense. The desire on Ms. Malonis' part to control the actions of the seventeen-year-old are only legally justifiable in light of the fact that 17-year-olds do not have a clear right to consent to sexual relations in Texas.
There are other states, such as Michigan and Rhode Island, where 17 year olds have such rights without regulation. However, Texas has clear laws that criminalize all sex with a person under age 18 unless it is your spouse. It is true, that depending on the age of the adult involved, the severity of the crime changes, but Texas universally considers all sex by adults with people under age 18 outside of legal marriages criminal.

John Pack Lambert | 4:52 p.m. Oct. 13, 2008

I am sure in the past I read that Texas' age of consent was 18. However, I have looked into the matter again, and I was wrong and the age is 17.
This makes me even more confused. Since under Texas law 17 year olds have unrestricted ability to consent to sex and for such purposes are not considered minors, on what grounds does the state argue that Ms. Malonis 17-year-old client can be excluded from the ranch and needs any protection?
It is 100% legal for her to have sex with any adult she wants to.
On the other hand, Utah has laws that do not create full consent until 18. They assume that while people under that age can at times give consent, if the age difference is to great than there is an inherent level of manipulation and it constitutes rape.
I am now totally at a loss on how CPS justifies its actions, when in fact any 17 year old in Texas has the full and unregulated right to consent.

zxcvbnm | 8:52 a.m. Oct. 14, 2008

RE Lambert....I know the law is a bit confusing........just as everything in this case and yes I guess I come accross as argumentative at times.
It is just that at every turn simple events have been extrapolated into some type of evil by those with a vivid imagination.
These people have been accused of horendous things, much of it based on speculation and gossip and my attempt to understand the events has led me to try and see both sides....there are simple explanations for many of the charges.....but I have come to the conclusion that these people are being persecuted and it has gotten out of hand.
Please forgive my tone at times......
I do get a bit carried away........

Grandpa Phil | 9:50 a.m. Oct. 15, 2008

zxcvbnm, you be as argumentative as you like. You put a lot more thought into your arguments than 99.9% of those who comment in here. Thinking though that Lambert and you see a lot more eye to eye than he thinks. As for being confused, leave that to us old farts............and CPS.

realitycheck | 1:40 p.m. Oct. 15, 2008

as long as they don't have any children, I have no problem with these FLDS people. Put children in the mix and it becomes a mind-controlled concentration camp for kids.

FREE THE SLAVES

tigerlily | 3:23 p.m. Oct. 15, 2008

andrea: 16 and 17 year olds outside the flds community have babies too.

RE: Gramps | 6:23 a.m. Oct. 16, 2008

The real problem with CPS is that there is a large possibility that the CPS "confusion" was not confusion at all.
CPS spent a lot of time and effort "consulting" with ex-flds and went into the homes with a preconceived notion of circumstances that did not exist. CPS would have hauled in the women for j-walking if it had served their purpose.
The investigation promised by Meisner needs to get started NOW........those people were targets and victims of CPS long before "Sarah" made her call. Hildibrand and Doran were not innocent persons reacting to events......someone needs to look into this mess.

realitycheck | 11:20 a.m. Oct. 16, 2008

all this talk about the law misses the point. Yes, the law is mostly on FLDS side - which is why it keeps changing.

The biggest problem with FLDS is they take the law and figure out how they can control and abuse their populace while staying within the law. So you have highly unethical civil-rights violating activity that is legal.

It's like a mini religious concentration camp where the populace is "happy" because that's all they know and they're not allowed to know any more.

You can support that if you want. Personally it turns my stomach.

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.