Comments about ‘Warren Jeffs allowed to represent self, says nothing’

And when he loses his case he can claim "incompetent legal counsel".

Its embarassing to see Texas having to deal with this guy when Utah and/or Arizona law enforcement SHOULD have dealt with him 10 yrs. ago.

Thank you Texas.

There is the old adage in criminal trials that describes a person who represents himself at trial: "He has a fool for a client."

Now this trial should really turn interesting! He is going to be asked questions by prosecutors, and without any legal guidance as to how he should answer, Mr. Jeffs will defintely prove the accuracy of the above adage!

Congratulations to the judical system in Texas for refusing to let Mr. Jeff's latest stalling attempt to succeed.

The guy claims to be a prophet, then he denounces himself as one, then he claims it again??? Well let God support him or denounce him, and allow him to defend himself. Here we go again in the justice system, everyone wants to judge him and convict him before the trial has even started or finished. VERY SAD!!! You all want to honor the Constitution of the United States, but nobody wants to follow it??? I don't get it?

Jeffs: "You're all fired! I'm going to represent myself!"

Judge: "Why?"

Jeffs: "Nobody else is capable of making a good defense."

Judge: "Um....Okay."

Jeffs: "Oh, by the way, I'd like to postpone the trial."

Judge: "Why?"

Jeffs: "Well, I need time to find somebody to help me make a good defense! Duh!"

Judge: *facepalm

Fitness Freak | 10:37 a.m. July 28, 2011
Salt Lake City, UT

Its embarassing to see Texas having to deal with this guy when Utah and/or Arizona law enforcement SHOULD have dealt with him 10 yrs. ago.

Fitness, Utah seems to have a habit of not dealing with things. The Brian David Mitchell case comes to mind. Is this a budgetary decision? Let someone else pay for the trial and incarceration?

Be careful when you move to Texas to avoid Utah prosecutors.

CougarKeith:

I'll help you get it. The Constitution states that the the judge and jury presume the accused innocent unless proven guilty. The rest of us may believe or assert whatever we want.

Perhaps he thinks he is like Jesus...a lamb being brought to the slaughter...he opened his mouth not. What a fool. May justice be served by putting you behind bars for life Mr. Jeffs.

CougarKeith:

I'll help you get it. The Constitution states that the the judge and jury presume the accused innocent unless proven guilty. The rest of us may believe or assert whatever we want.

Another huge pass along of misinformation that news outlets continue to accept, that we, the LDS church, don't "practice" polygamy anymore..

Our church history in our doctrine that there is an eternal principle of polygamy. It was put ON hold for Utah to become a state. It is still an eternal principle and teaching. Any educated mainstream Mormon can affirm that.

Fact: my father was allowed to marry another woman in the temple after my mother divorced him civilly, but remains his wife on church record... and he has both on his church record that are HIS in the afterlife. And guess what? If my mother were to come back into the church, she wouldn't be allowed to be "sealed" to another man.

I believe the Church is half lying when we try to make good PR by saying we "banned" polygamy.

I am not anti-Mormon. I am in the high counsel of my stake. I am simply stating the facts that can't be ignored.

them thar Texan boys will do what gotta be done ! Utah and Arizona need to watch this so they can learn how to things the right way the first time

Mike L...to give your story some traction, you might want to use the word 'council'.

Mike L,

Church leaders don't make decisions about who will actually be married to whom in the next life. As a policy, a man can be "sealed" to more than one woman, but the the "sealing" in the temple is only a promise. In the case of your father, he has been "sealed" to two women. In the next life, will he be actually married to both of them? We don't know. God will decide that.

On another note, polygamy is a policy not a principle. Eternal marriage is the principle. Polygamy and monogamy are policies that apply the principle to our lives. Yes, Brigham Young and other church leaders in the 19th century spoke of polygamy as if it were an eternal principle, but they were trying to justify their practice of something that was radically different from normal social relationships. If polygamy is an eternal principle, then LDS had better leave the LDS church and become active members of a church practicing polygamy. On the other hand, if polygamy is a policy and eternal marriage is the principle, we should expect polygamy to be practiced at times and not at other times.

He who acts as his own lawer has a fool for a client.

Mike L:

"I believe the Church is half lying when we try to make good PR by saying we "banned" polygamy."

When we talk of banning polygamy, we are talking about not allowing a man to be married to more than one wife at the same time. A man cohabitating with more than one wife at a time is in fact excommunicated, as I am sure a high councilor would know. There is no lie there. Current church law unequivocally reflects that and enforces it.

Now, as to plural marriage in the eternities, that is another story. Let me give you an example. My wife's grandfather survived two spouses, both of whom he is sealed to. In the eternal scheme of things, he is a polygamist. However, he had only one wife at a time on this side of the veil. In the eyes of the law, he is not a polygamist. There is no lie.

This idea that a man can be sealed to more than one woman, but not cohabitating with both on this earth is where the anti's accusations of polygamy against the LDS Church come from.

The church had no choice but to ban polygamy, unless it wanted all of its polygamist members rounded up and sitting in a jail cell.

The church never "banned" the practice of polygamy...it was "discontinued" which means it may very well be practiced again.

Mitt, John, and Harry just have got to be loving these discussions. Such a feast for the voters!

Go ahead and argue over semantics. The fact remains that the LDS Church does not sanction plural marriage here on earth and excommunicates anybody who enters into or performs plural marriage as well as anybody who supports polygamists. This is a churchwide policy. Mormons who live in countries where plural marriage is legal may not enter into such a marriage, or they will lose their membership in the church.

The media does a disservice to society by referring to Warren Jeffs as a Mormon fundamentalist. Some people confuse the LDS Church, commonly known as the Mormon Church, with various organizations of polygamists who reject the LDS Church.

I believe the attorney general of Utah also does a disservice by refusing to prosecute those who enter into plural marriages. I suspect it's because he believes the government never should have persecuted 19th century Mormons who practiced their religion.

I hope the efforts continue to shut down these religious sex encampments.