Deseret News | Reader comments: Federal lawsuit filed over FLDS trust

Reader comments
Federal lawsuit filed over FLDS trust

C.W. | 2:03 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

Bizarre - If the FLDS would have just taken minimum steps to answer for themselves 4 yrs. ago they wouldn't have all these problems now.
At the end of all this, the FLDS will have spent every penny that they earned on attorney fees. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands they are spending to defend their "Prophet" from child abuse charges.
I wonder if Bruce Wisan will do as well trying to duck the subpoena servers as Warren Jeffs did for years?

big bad john | 4:41 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

if you do not have a debt on it what bisiness is it to any one what is on the property. or what gosse on there

Gal50 | 4:51 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

The problem is that the FLDS are not even practicing their religion as it was originally laid out with several men running the organization. Rulon Jeffs eliminated them and somehow Warren Jeffs seized power when Rulon died. So, the UEP is managed by whomever is in power.

While this fight is couched in religious terms, it is about Warren Jeff's reclaiming power and control. He will be able to allocate trust assets as he sees fit. He will once again be able to kick people out of their homes because the trust owns the home.

Comments continue below

big bad john | 5:59 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

why do they need to practice it if they know it ????

Interloper | 7:16 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

The claims being made by the FLDS leaders are utterly frivolous. The impact of the reformation of the trust is actually to help rank-and-file members by preventing the leadership wasting the trust's assets. The only people who will benefit from the filing of this complaint are Rob Parker and his fellow attorneys for the FLDS leadership. This is easy money for them.

uncannygunman | 7:58 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

They may very well have a point. Think about it, it would be pretty easy to go into civil court and "prove" that the mainstream LDS Church, or the Catholic Church, or any church, is objectively a fraud taking advantage of people's superstitious beliefs. While I may be all for that, I don't think the Constitution is.

This is always the problem with "freedom of religion." Some silly humans think it should apply to all religions.

Anonymous | 8:01 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

Interloper, there was a law review article which concluded the UEP takeover was probably unconstitutional.

No way is this frivolous.

zxcvbnm | 8:35 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

Even at its worst.....a member of the flds managing flds assets for the flds religion is and was the intention of the flds people.
If Jeffs is the crook....or Parker becomes a crook....the crooks running the show now will be gone.
Perhaps the present flds members will come up with a management plan that will avoid a single man with control of the assets. Perhaps Parker was sent on the present mission by a new group within flds.
In any case, it is their money to waste as they see fit.

Joey | 9:38 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

Common law Bigamy laws -- laws that prohibit "purporting" to marry more than one person -- are unconstitutional at a more fundamental level than mere freedom of religion. They are un-Constitutional on their face because these laws prohibit free speech, namely the act of "purporting." Moreover, they unconstitutionally prohibit free association and the right to privacy. Rod Parker should take note from Tom Greene's failure to appeal bigamy convictions on religious standing alone. Common law Bigamy statutes must be appealed on the basis of free-speech violations.

Anonymous | 10:14 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

FILED

OR

FAILED

DISPOINTED | 11:35 p.m. Oct. 6, 2008

FLDS IS REPEATING AND USING IMPROPER AND INADMISSABLE RELIGIOUS PHRASES/JARGON INSIDE THE ULTRA-SECULAR FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM.

flds women need more rights | 5:04 a.m. Oct. 7, 2008

I truly think the answer to this problem lies with empowering the flds women. Let them know their rights. Let them know the men that impregnated them are legally responsible for supporting those children whether the women stay with them or not. Let the state come in and let them know they have shelters for abused women to help them. Let them know that they have more than one choice:"follow FLDS doctrine or go to HELLL". FLDS cult is a such a tragedy of human rights. It truly brings me to tears.

Joey | 6:18 a.m. Oct. 7, 2008

Single moms depending on government and living in slums is a tragedy of human rights and brings ME to tears.

Go for it! | 7:33 a.m. Oct. 7, 2008

The part about appealing the Utah law prohibiting polygamy may be the real kicker in this suit. If pursued, all the way to the US Supreme Court they may be successful.

re more rights | 9:32 a.m. Oct. 7, 2008

Many flds have posted on this site and are quite aware of the "services" offered by government. The women prefer their life.
Not a single flds member from YFZ has left the church. Those that are living outside the ranch were forced by the state to leave and as soon as their leases are up will most likely move back.
The members of the church don't want or need help and have said as much on numerous occasions.

Think!!!!! | 10:11 a.m. Oct. 7, 2008

flds women need more rights:

Sounds like you people will NEVER listen!! There are not any gates on the towns that lock the women in. The women have their own car (most of them) with the keys in their pocket EVEN over the night time when everyone else in the family are asleep!!?? Rights? The FLDS women are more free that most of the regular American population!! because they are not bound by the chains of traditions like Christmas Holidays and fake story tales, Easter Bunny and all that garbage!! WOW--It would be nice if family members didn't expect a present for every occasion under the sun!! and then sit and gripe about not getting what they wanted!!!

Betty J | 7:20 p.m. Oct. 7, 2008

FLDS women's rights? Are you kidding?????

Sure an FLDS woman can leave. But she will leave with only the clothes on her back. She will be leaving her children and anything of any value behind. And she will be shunned by her family.

Now, you know why the FLDS women stay...

zxcvbnm | 9:08 p.m. Oct. 7, 2008

Yep....flds womans rights. The right to follow their religion. The right to be with their husband and children. The right to raise their children and teach them their religious values.
Every woman in america the right to leave.... pack the car and take off with the kids....get child support, work.....and gripe about how good your ex-husband has it.
Freedom is an interesting concept.....choices have to be made. Leave a relatively communal lifestyle and join a capitalist society is one of those choices.

Ask Dan Fischer, the ex-flds millionaire how much child support he gave the mother of his kids.
Ask Carolyn how much government assistance she received before her book sales took off.....she made the choice to leave and did pretty well. Flora has made a pretty good living even after her days as a stripper. Lets not forget Elisa and her million dollar judgement.
It looks like all those who bash the flds for food stamp use will have no problem providing services to ex-flds.
Those flds women know who to call if they decide to leave.........and the phone isn't ringing.

realitycheck | 11:36 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008

re Think!!!! 10:11am
"The FLDS women are more free that most of the regular American population!! because they are not bound by the chains of traditions like Christmas Holidays and fake story tales, Easter Bunny and all that garbage!!"

What??? You are kidding, right? You beat into the womens' brain from birth that the only way they can get to heaven is to "keep sweet" and that the men have FULL control of the women's afterlife - and then you say WE believe in fairy tales?

Christmas and the Easter bunny never kept someone chained to a circumstance - but every one of your women is chained to the FAIRY TALE that the men can make or break their everlasting afterlife.

I strongly suggest you never use FLDS women and Fairy Tales in the same sentence again, since yours is practically the biggest tall tale of all time, and you use it to control and abuse your followers - especially the women and children.

And to those of you saying there are no locks and the women have car keys - FLDS put psycological locks on these people starting at birth.

Of course the women and childern stay.

realitycheck | 11:47 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008

re zxcvbnm 9:08pm

you have absolutely no clue what it would be like to be raised in an environment where you are told on a daily basis that if you don't follow the rules you will go to hell. EVERY DAY. (and the rules are rediculous)

You have no clue what it would be like to know that if you left you would never see your children again - because they also believe they would go to hell - and the FLDS can afford better lawyers. So if you leave, you leave EVERYTHING that makes your life whole.

You have no clue whatsoever.

by the way, I have no clue either - but I guarentee it is not freedom. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

So think before you get all high and mighty about how these people can just leave if they want to. Prisoners can escape too - but very few do.

zxcvbnm | 1:20 p.m. Oct. 11, 2008

Publish your phone number RC and you can start your own foundation to help those poor "brainwashed" flds women. Just don't hold your breath while you wait to answer the phone.
You could support your efforts by writing "Brainwashing" fiction while waiting for the phone to ring.
Why not help Flora with her graveyard research while you wait?

John Pack Lambert | 10:19 a.m. Oct. 13, 2008

I hope a court hears this case and rules specifically on whether or not laws against plural marriage are enforceable. This is a question that needs to be ruled on in light of modern developments.

Peter S. Chamberlain | 5:20 p.m. Oct. 17, 2008

It looks from here as though this suit in federal district court is an attempt to challenge the results of a state court suit, which violates the Supreme Court's Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. The proper procedure would be to ask the Supreme Court to review the final judgment of the highest court of Utah.

The Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Reynolds (1887) upholding Utah Territory law against bigamy (polygamy) against the same First Amendment challenge--which, incidentally, appears to be the first time it cited Jefferson's now-famous "wall of separation" letter--could only be overturned in that Court. To uphold the FLDS "Order" etc., it would also have to hold the states' ages of consent to sex and for marriage unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Anyone who thinks that is going to happen, because of Lawrence v. Texas legalizing adult consensual sodomy, etc., is kidding himself. Thar argument already failed re pornography in Extreme Video. The framers of the First Amendment clearly never intended such a result exempting anyone who claimed to be a religion or self-appointed prophet from general laws, much less to allow such abuse, especially as, under the First Amendment, courts cannot decide issues of religious truth or doctrine.

what? | 11:18 p.m. Oct. 30, 2008

The property belonged to a trust and those who resided or built on the property did so knowing they did not own it and had no claim to it .... Seems black and white it must be far too simple for the courts now days to handle maybe they should sit down and read the constitution and further their education.But they really should already be familiar with it they took an oath to uphold it so are we assuming too much to think they know what it is?

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.