The acts are the same. Only the word is different. The word and the legal consequences.

Strange world we live in, isn’t it?

[I thought of calling the column, “It’s Reno Time”—also a line from that SNL segment]

If Jeffs faced his charges and was found guilty with little or no corroborating evidence, we would slam the State just as we’ve done in the Ramse and Duke cases.

[You seem to think that “slamming” the powers that be will indeed bring about a fair dispensation. That’s right, girls, hit the Renos of the justice system with your powder puffs; you go girl! Here’s some more reading for those who shun facts and analysis for good faith: “‘Mad Dog’ Sneddon Vs. Michael Jackson“/”Convicted for Fearing Conviction“. If it happened to them, just imagine yourself in The Machine] I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.

I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.

Therefore there is a logical basis for the charges against Jeffs. For one, it is reasonable to assume that Jeffs knew that the underage children he was marrying off to adults would be pressured into sex. Secondly, the Government is pursuing Jeffs rather than the “parents” who would theoretically be indictable, because it is Jeffs who is the figurehead of the subversive illegal club and the easiest to target. By removing Mother Ant, you kill or cripple the colony. Not to mention the extraneous reasons for charging Jeffs which include his community’s lifelong abuse of the Welfare system (he’s wealthy but he doesn’t spend his own money on his families). While some of these things may not be “criminal” by law, it gives impetus for law officials to target Jeffs and his illegal conduct in order to help rectify all that is wrong with his illegitimate institution. I certainly hope evidence isn’t fabricated to see this thru, but if the allegations are true and the evidence is real, everything else should follow.

Urging a teenager under the threat of being an outcast and being condemned to Hell if the she does not capitulate is complicit to rape under these very specific circumstances. These teens are cut off from the outside world and are not exposed to alternative beliefs or options.

The claim that he was “dangerous” and putting him on the FBI’s most want list is indeed outlandish. I cannot justify all of these actions and you’re right that the law appears to be taking a backseat. But one must also ask why did Jeffs run and go into hiding if he was innocent? Perhaps if he had followed the legal route to begin with, not only would be appear less guilty, but the media frenzy and FBI wouldn’t be gunning for him in the same way.

[Oh yes, those who trust in the law are NEVER imprisoned unjustly. Doesn’t happen. Why don’t you do a Google search to find out how often people are imprisoned unjustly. The Duke rape case is a good recent example of why running is the most natural, intuitive response if one is, like Jeffs (and myself—and almost any other intelligent person I know), distrustful of the state. Read edifying books such as Constitutional Chaos or The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Trample the Constitution in the Name of Justice]

A conviction should be hard to come by if there is only a single allegation being made by one accuser with little evidence to support the claims. By the same token, it is this lack of transparency within polygamist communities that is one of its greatest problems. Reasonable people should and will question what goes on behind closed doors in Jeffs odd empire, because many of those who live in it may be too young and afraid to speak for themselves. Or even lack the awareness to do so. [They’d be far better off in the state’s foster-care system of institutionalized abuse, right?!]

I don’t particularly have anything against voluntary polygamy. I’ve heard some arguments for polygamy and/or polyamory that sound good theoretically, though I don’t know how well it would work for the bulk of the human race… one of them is that if a man is not restricted to one woman only, then he is less likely to insist that only gorgeous women are good enough. The couple of men I’ve known who were in that lifestyle *claimed* that because they didn’t have to limit themselves to just one woman, they were more likely to consider those of us who don’t look like movie stars.

I can kind of see that point, but I don’t think I personally would be happy being one of a man’s harem. OTOH, in my younger years maybe I could have gone for more than one boyfriend. 😉

Too bad they aren’t as interested in protecting citizens’ right to be left alone.

Cheers from the ozone layer

[Welcome back; I’ve missed you on BAB]