Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[Wolf DeVoon]

Shayne, I agree. Did you think that I said that more and more government intrusion should be added until there is zero crime? I don't think I said that anywhere.

The question you asked presumed "there oughta be a law to prevent this". No law should violate due process. Involuntary search and seizure should be based on probable cause--there was none. No law should treat a group of people like a herd of cattle, ignoring whether or not certain individuals might have done something wrong and targeting them if there is evidence that they did but leaving the others free.

This issue is not complex at all, it is black and white simple: All citizens have the right of due process. There's no gray area where they don't.

Shayne

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry. You get an 'F' on due process. Has nothing to do with probable cause, and if it did, there was ample cause to take the men to jail for conspiracy (like Jeffs), which CPS didn't because CPS does not have criminal jurisdiction. Due process starts in front of a judge; it includes procedural and evidenciary rights; it includes the right of appeal; in most cases it guarantees trial by jury.

Enough pontificating, Shayne. You don't know what current law provides, and you have the stupidest ideas about what an objective philosophy of law might and ought to provide. Join the blocked list. Adios, Mr. Know-It-All.

DeVoon

[sjw]

... Laure has just totally, grossly, egregiously misrepresented me....

Huh? How so?

Sigh.... The relevant part you ignored was Michael's statement: "just because a person is opposed to young girls being forced into polygamous marriages and says so, he is accused of being an instrument of statist enslavement".

I never accused somebody of being a statist just because they are opposed to young girls being forced into marriage. On the contrary, I'm against that too! That statement of Michael's is totally ridiculous and uncalled for! And I can't fathom how you can't see it! Bizarre!!! Please explain.

Shayne

[sjw]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry. You get an 'F' on due process. Has nothing to do with probable cause, and if it did, there was ample cause to take the men to jail for conspiracy (like Jeffs), which CPS didn't because CPS does not have criminal jurisdiction. Due process starts in front of a judge; it includes procedural and evidenciary rights; it includes the right of appeal; in most cases it guarantees trial by jury.

Enough pontificating, Shayne. You don't know what current law provides, and you have the stupidest ideas about what an objective philosophy of law might and ought to provide. Join the blocked list. Adios, Mr. Know-It-All.

DeVoon

I'm no legal scholar and never claimed to be, but Wolf here can't see the forest in the trees, getting himself wrapped around the axle because I used the phrase "due process" to refer to the fact that it is wrong to search/detain people without good reason. He also can't grasp that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc., then it's a duck: CPS may not officially have criminal jurisdiction, but I saw the equivalent of SWAT teams forcibly removing those people, exactly as if they were criminals.

Shayne

Edit: PS: I object to Wolf tossing in this "conflicting moral purposes between men/women" garbage, claiming he'll explain, and then when a few people ask him to, he doesn't. He does this repeatedly: flinging around these grand assertions and when called on them, refusing to elaborate on them.

Edited April 25, 2008 by sjw

[Mikee]

"No law should violate due process. Involuntary search and seizure should be based on probable cause--there was none. No law should treat a group of people like a herd of cattle, ignoring whether or not certain individuals might have done something wrong and targeting them if there is evidence that they did but leaving the others free.

This issue is not complex at all, it is black and white simple: All citizens have the right of due process. There's no gray area where they don't."

Shayne: I agree with this. I have been outraged and saddened by the events in Texas. Thank you for speaking about it.

[sjw]

Thanks Mikee.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne, I agree. Did you think that I said that more and more government intrusion should be added until there is zero crime? I don't think I said that anywhere.

The question you asked presumed "there oughta be a law to prevent this". No law should violate due process. Involuntary search and seizure should be based on probable cause--there was none. No law should treat a group of people like a herd of cattle, ignoring whether or not certain individuals might have done something wrong and targeting them if there is evidence that they did but leaving the others free.

This issue is not complex at all, it is black and white simple: All citizens have the right of due process. There's no gray area where they don't.

Shayne

Excellent points Shayne. The only problem is that I know some folks that live one county away and the "rumor" which is really not a rumor is that the DA had an undercover in that compound for three years and if that is true, it is lights out.

The sad part is that the State of Texas when this does get to the Supreme Court will have serious problems for not using the less intrusive methods open to them which would have included a serious outreach program visibly "available" in view of the edge of the compound's property.

Essentially, I believe the Court will reverse in part the actions of the State of Texas, but the damage to the "non-molested children", who are over 16, will be devastating.

The Court will rule that the State of Texas overstretched its powers and violated sections of the establishment and due process clauses.

And it will be too late for a lot of innocent folks.

Adam

[sjw]

Excellent points Shayne. The only problem is that I know some folks that live one county away and the "rumor" which is really not a rumor is that the DA had an undercover in that compound for three years and if that is true, it is lights out.

Thanks. If they had an undercover, leaving aside the question of whether that itself was legitimate, then they should have said so by now, and they should have been very specific to the public about who is getting charged with what crime. They have a responsibility to the rest of us to make it clear that they are following proper procedure.

Shayne

[Selene]

Excellent points Shayne. The only problem is that I know some folks that live one county away and the "rumor" which is really not a rumor is that the DA had an undercover in that compound for three years and if that is true, it is lights out.

Thanks. If they had an undercover, leaving aside the question of whether that itself was legitimate, then they should have said so by now, and they should have been very specific to the public about who is getting charged with what crime. They have a responsibility to the rest of us to make it clear that they are following proper procedure.

Shayne

correct

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I never accused somebody of being a statist just because they are opposed to young girls being forced into marriage.

Shayne,

I have let this go on long enough. I don't have time to babysit you. I made a full-fleshed out hypothetical in my examples that cover all sides and I was not speaking about you. Not even by insinuation. You took that and ran with it all by yourself, hollering "me... me... me... look at me everybody!!!"

And you forgot to read. Incredible as it may seem, I am interested in the ideas and not in Shayne.

btw - I deleted a previous post of yours where you crossed the respect line with me. Please stay focused on the ideas. All this personal crap is approaching my limit.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Due process starts in front of a judge; it includes procedural and evidenciary rights; it includes the right of appeal; in most cases it guarantees trial by jury.

Wolf,

To be fair, due process is a phrase used a lot on TV cop programs as a conflict point. Usually, the situation is that the police uncover evidence that the bad guys were doing bad things, but the police violated some law or other in carrying out their search, thus the evidence is not admitted in court. I have an impression that this is the layman's understanding of the term "due process" as applied to police invasions.

But I am interested in one aspect. For the police to invade the premises of the Yearning for Zion Ranch, this would have had to start with an order from somewhere. Isn't it a judge who issues such an order? Thus I can understand that if a judge issued an order based on one thing and it was totally false (which seems to be the present case), very compelling evidence of wrongdoing would have to be right there in front of the police to justify their action in light of the wrongful breach of residence.

I heard the defense lawyers talking about this on TV—that the problem was not the intrusion based on a hoax, but whether evidence of wrongdoing was visible once the police were inside, or whether they went looking for wrongdoing outside the pretext for entry based only on assumptions. If the state proves the first hypothesis, the state has a solid case. If the defense proves the second hypothesis, the cult wins practically hands down and it will even be difficult for the DNA testing results (the present testing that has been ordered, not any future testing) to be considered by the court.

Is my understanding of this correct?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Or what you just said? Plus a little more flesh out?

It was already too much flesh out. Anyone who reads the actual words is going to see the ridiculous distortions, the clear failure of due diligence.

I for the life of me do not understand why people do as Laure (and Michael) just did. It pisses me off that I have to waste my time reading it and responding to it. It's total BS.

Shayne

You are where you want to be, responding, pounding and damning. Ain't it swell? But how long a forum to be on? Don't you understand that if Michael HAD to continuously deal with you on this level he'd shut down OL? And that he doesn't have to shut down OL because he doesn't have to continue on with this? He moderated Bob Kolker after fair warning--two posts since I think. With all that Michael is doing and wants to do he might not even extend that much to you; he hates moderating people. If you can't tell he's really pissed, I can. Want to be a martyr? Unsung? There is a forum that you can do what you want to do: AtlantisII on Yahoo Groups. Left libertarian now. You are warned, though, they'll fillet you like a fish.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

There is a forum that you can do what you want to do: AtlantisII on Yahoo Groups.

Here's the direct link to the Home page; I think you have to be a member to read posts.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

For the police to invade the premises of the Yearning for Zion Ranch, this would have had to start with an order from somewhere. Isn't it a judge who issues such an order?

Not necessarily. CPS doesn't need a search warrant. They aren't cops (bizarre, I know).

I can understand that if a judge issued an order based on one thing and it was totally false... compelling evidence of wrongdoing would have to be right there in front of the police to justify their action in light of the wrongful breach of residence.

Maybe you mean unreasonable search in the sense of a 4th Amendment 'preferred freedom.' If the sheriff or state police or FBI served a search warrant, they were acting within current law. Nothing requires them to say ooops, sorry, never mind, we were mistaken.

(Houston Chronicle, Apr 24) After executing the search warrant April 3, officials said they saw what they believed to be underage pregnant girls and began removing children and women from the ranch. An affidavit for a second, broader search warrant alleged that investigators found evidence that underage girls were "spiritually married" to older men and forced to have sex. One young mother told investigators that she was 15 when she gave birth to her first child. Texas law prohibits children under 16 from being married. CPS investigators said those practices put all girls at risk of sexual abuse and all boys at risk of becoming men who abuse minor girls.

If the state proves the first hypothesis, the state has a solid case. If the defense proves the second hypothesis, the cult wins...

Most likely, children over 12 will get to vote with their feet, maybe get court appointed case workers to keep tabs on them. Children under 5 will stay with their mothers. I don't know whether the men will be indicted or charged. Probably not. Texas can't legally force anybody to undergo DNA testing or polygraph or waterboarding, which violates the 5th Amendment prohibition of forcing self-incriminating testimony. Prosecutors normally can't force wives testify against husbands, either. Big mess, no matter how it proceeds.

W.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

Thanks Ellen and Brant for the pointer, I'll check it out.

For the record, this will be my last post to OL. My reason for leaving is that my posts are being deleted not only without any reference to what posting guideline I violated, but without any notice at all or even the courtesy of sending me back my deleted message for possible editing to make it conform. For me, showing up in a thread and noticing that something I'd posted is missing is completely unacceptable.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Still talking about Shayne and why the world is against Shayne and how the people on OL are evil (in this case, only me for now) and, still, ignoring the ideas in the thread. Here is the last expression of your literary genius which loss you so sorely lamented.

(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Apr 24 2008, 11:47 PM) btw - I deleted a previous post of yours where you crossed the respect line with me.

Yeah well there's several posts in this thread that crossed the line of respect with me (including this post of yours), and I think you had plenty of opportunity to delete those posts too. It's not in good taste to be helping yourself out on that point and leaving those without the delete button no such alternative.

Please stay focused on the ideas. All this personal crap is approaching my limit.

You should be saying that to yourself for this post of yours, and to several others in this thread for their initiation of personal attacks. In other words, I totally reject your admonition in the sense that I'm already focussed on ideas, it's you and the others who keep getting this thread off track.

As for your other points, I think you're so off base it isn't even worth stating why.

Shayne

There. It is preserved for posterity. I hope you make good use of it.

Now, whether you post here again or not is up to you. For the present, you are on moderation. I have asked you to stop the hostility several times and you consistently and belligerently refuse. So no more snarky comments are going through, although the intelligent parts will still get through if you make any. I'm sorry, but after you have called people the vilest moral names possible time and time again because of some comment they write, I have no sympathy for you when they finally respond in kind.

I am tired of nonstop personal attacks polluting and shutting down discussions. I've had it. A flare up or two is one thing, but the nonstop snarkiness you have presented thread after thread is too much. OL is for finer things.

Now, about those fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights... (more to follow later...)

Michael

[william.scherk]

I think you Americans will do right by the kids and the sect, ultimately, though there will be more heartache.

Ah, William:

(a) That prognostication sounds amazingly rose-colored glasses to me;

Call me Pollyanna, then. Seriously, doing right by the kids and the sect, ultimately, means separating out the rights of the parents, the rights of the children and the right of the state to interfere in child-rearing. Ultimately, any allegations of abuse or incipient abuse will be scrutinized and adjudicated. I just don't see all those kids remaining in state custody. The history of the Short Creek raid in 1953 gives us an idea of the likely outcomes -- as I understand the history, the community was made whole again after some gulty pleas.

Regarding the heartache, it took up to two years for the Short Creek families to be reunited.

(b ) Who are the "you Americans" to whom you refer (as if all Americans thought alike or something of the sort)?

I would better have written "American justice" -- I meant that the likelihood of a just outcome is high in your country. Whatever the defects of the raid, the tip-off, the response of the media, the details of the custody arrangements, the grotesqueries of Texas child protection actions. Intense scrutiny helps maintain just outcomes, I hope.

I can see how this would be seen as a bit Pollyanna-ish.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The history of the Short Creek raid in 1953 gives us an idea of the likely outcomes -- as I understand the history, the community was made whole again after some gulty pleas.

Quick reply (haven't time for longer at the moment and I see you're on line, wanted to ask this question):

I don't know what the Short Creek raid was; do you have a good link?

Notice the DATE, 1953. Surely you don't suppose the State child "care" bureauracracy has gotten better since then???

Did you look at the material on Grigg's blog?

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/...hild-abuse.html

Even if he's being selective and slanted, I find the report anything but conducive to hopes of good outcomes for the children.

Ellen

___

Edited April 25, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The history of the Short Creek raid in 1953 gives us an idea of the likely outcomes -- as I understand the history, the community was made whole again after some gulty pleas.

William,

This is what I was trying to get at with other words. The problem is in the nature of that community. It was not only made whole again, it was made stronger. I am watching some interesting videos on this cult and I will post links to them later.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here are some links.

The first is a CBS video (about 37 minutes):

BUST-UP IN BOUNTIFUL

I am not a fan of the reporting style, which is strongly predisposed to be accusatory, states allegations as fact, etc., but much of this material is fascinating.

Here are two equally fascinating Wikipedia articles:

Short Creek raid

Warren Jeffs

From what I am able to discern, Jeffs is particularly nasty piece of work.

Michael

[Selene]

I think you Americans will do right by the kids and the sect, ultimately, though there will be more heartache.

Ah, William:

(a) That prognostication sounds amazingly rose-colored glasses to me;

Call me Pollyanna, then. Seriously, doing right by the kids and the sect, ultimately, means separating out the rights of the parents, the rights of the children and the right of the state to interfere in child-rearing. Ultimately, any allegations of abuse or incipient abuse will be scrutinized and adjudicated. I just don't see all those kids remaining in state custody. The history of the Short Creek raid in 1953 gives us an idea of the likely outcomes -- as I understand the history, the community was made whole again after some gulty pleas.

Regarding the heartache, it took up to two years for the Short Creek families to be reunited.

(b ) Who are the "you Americans" to whom you refer (as if all Americans thought alike or something of the sort)?

I would better have written "American justice" -- I meant that the likelihood of a just outcome is high in your country. Whatever the defects of the raid, the tip-off, the response of the media, the details of the custody arrangements, the grotesqueries of Texas child protection actions. Intense scrutiny helps maintain just outcomes, I hope.

I can see how this would be seen as a bit Pollyanna-ish.

William:

Please accept my apology, in advance, I did not fully realize that you were a Canadian.

"I meant that the likelihood of a just outcome is high in your country."

A stunning statement to me because I keep forgetting how non-Americans see us. You are correct, we will "sort this out".

"Intense scrutiny helps maintain just outcomes, I hope." - I think that is a fine statement of this country.

The sad narrative of this case is that all of the individual federal citizens at the compound have had their "human rights" violated.

I have been, and still am, conflicted about the limits of the state in a free society.

This case will bring this "infection" in our society to a head.

I hope, but am not hopeful of the outcome on this particular fact pattern case.

This is not the same culture as the case you cited in 1953.

Thank you for the insight.

Adam :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[william.scherk]

The history of the Short Creek raid in 1953 gives us an idea of the likely outcomes -- as I understand the history, the community was made whole again after some gulty pleas.

Quick reply (haven't time for longer at the moment and I see you're on line, wanted to ask this question):

I don't know what the Short Creek raid was; do you have a good link?

Notice the DATE, 1953. Surely you don't suppose the State child "care" bureauracracy has gotten better since then???

Michael gave a couple of good links, and Slate has a good piece -- you can also consider some recent history of the FLDS community in and out of their old HQ. This is a sect led by god's prophet Jeffs, and a ranch whose people moved to the YFZ ranch under his command. This is the guy who actually does the apportioning of brides and is otherwise the law. he tells them who marries whom, who must leave the church, the man who took his own modest cut of the brides (70).

It's a loaded question if CPS bureacracies are 'better' than they were fifty years ago. Rephrased to 'is child abuse investigation and prosecution better,' I would have to say yes, at least in Canada, and at least in the sense of justice achieved for victims in cases such as Mount Cashel. There is more chance now of a child being rescued from abuse.

Did you look at the material on Grigg's blog?

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/...hild-abuse.html

Even if he's being selective and slanted, I find the report anything but conducive to hopes of good outcomes for the children.

I understand that the fellow has a beef with CPS. The many and lurid tales of Texas horror in the foster-care system are awful. What this means for the FLDS children and their mothers I don't know. In any case, it is the gruesome experiment of Jeffs most recent years that has led to a confrontation with government. Above and beyond the law these folk are not.

It has been a war against sexual convention for the FLDSers for a long time. Jeffs' mistake was in thinking he could establish a moon colony of sorts, where the practices he has ordained and administered would continue without ethical oversight from outside. The travails of the FLDS are many: check out one of the results of the FLDS breeding program at this Arizona Times story from 2005. This story is part of the series well worth reading. One item of note is the ill-effects of inbreeding.

Excerpt:

FLDS marriages, Wyler and other community experts say, are an extension of a breeding program that began with Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith in the 1830s. The early Mormon Church practiced polygamy until 1890, when leaders abandoned the practice as a condition for Utah to gain statehood. The FLDS was formed by Mormons who refused to give up polygamy.

Warren Jeffs, like Joseph Smith before him, has emphasized the importance of obedience among members of the church. Jeffs is following a long-established practice -- started by Smith 170 years ago -- of excommunicating those who do not strictly adhere to church leaders' commands.

"The 'gene' that Warren is really selecting for," Wyler says, "is the 'obedience gene.'

"Joseph Smith was also selecting for the 'obedience gene.' He was kicking people out, too, who weren't obedient.

"I hate to talk like this about my own genealogy," Wyler says, "but, literally, they are keeping all the breeding stock -- the women, the [strictly faithful] men -- and weeding out the disobedient men."

The ultimate goal of the breeding program, Wyler says, is to create the perfect race.

"Remember how Hitler was trying to breed a perfect race?" he says. "Warren Jeffs is also trying to breed a perfect race."

The widespread presence of the fumarase deficiency gene in the bloodlines of the founding families of Colorado City is going to make reaching any such goal extremely difficult.

The few dissenters in the community say the serious genetic problems that are beginning to surface are an indication that the closed FLDS society could eventually collapse.

"Maybe it will just self-destruct," historian Bistline says of the fundamentalist church he quit 20 years ago because of a dispute over religious doctrine and property ownership. "In the meantime, the taxpayers have to pay the bills."

[Edit: fixed the URL to "Forbidden Fruit" link of story on fumarase deficiency among the FLDS flock.]

Edited April 26, 2008 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

The history of the Short Creek raid in 1953 gives us an idea of the likely outcomes -- as I understand the history, the community was made whole again after some gulty pleas.

Quick reply (haven't time for longer at the moment and I see you're on line, wanted to ask this question):

I don't know what the Short Creek raid was; do you have a good link?

Notice the DATE, 1953. Surely you don't suppose the State child "care" bureauracracy has gotten better since then???

Michael gave a couple of good links, and Slate has a good piece -- you can also consider some recent history of the FLDS community in and out of their old HQ. This is a sect led by god's prophet Jeffs, and a ranch whose people moved to the YFZ ranch under his command. This is the guy who actually does the apportioning of brides and is otherwise the law. he tells them who marries whom, who must leave the church, the man who took his own modest cut of the brides (70).

It's a loaded question if CPS bureacracies are 'better' than they were fifty years ago. Rephrased to 'is child abuse investigation and prosecution better,' I would have to say yes, at least in Canada, and at least in the sense of justice achieved for victims in cases such as Mount Cashel. There is more chance now of a child being rescued from abuse.

William,

Yes, it was a loaded question. And I apologize for the loadedness. I was trying to catch you while you were on-line, hoping for a quick link re the Short Creek story. By the time my post appeared, you'd signed off; thus I edited the post to somewhat ameliorate the loadedness.

What I originally wrote was:

Notice the DATE, 1953. Surely you don't suppose the State child "care" nightmare has gotten better since then???

As I see things, far from there being -- in the U.S. at any rate -- "more chance now of a child being rescued from abuse," there's instead far more chance of:

(a) abuse charges being invented;

(b ) a child being subjected to abuse, once the child is taken under the "protection" of current Child "Protective" Services here. Sorry, I can't use the "protection" and "Protective" without the scare quotes. I've heard so many horror stories, more and more it seems to me in almost geometrically increasing number.

Thank you (and Michael also) for the links.

This story is upsetting me in ways more complicated and multifold than I can write about. Jeffs himself, I agree with Michael's assessment, sounds -- and I even mean literally sounds (there was a voice snip on either a link Michael posted or a link which was linked to that) -- a "particularly nasty piece of work." The voice sounds like carefully cultivated worse than "Elmer Gantry."

BUT...

CPS in the U.S. are themselves a horror story. And the way this whole thing was handled leaves no hope I can see of anything except painful, and long-drawn-out, difficulties in the lives of the women and children. I'm seeing the whole thing as nothing short of a nightmare.

Ellen

[The edit is for a punctuation detail, not content.]

___

Edited April 26, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Mikee]

What allows these atrocities (by the state of Texas and the so called "CPS" agencies) to be perpetrated is the circulation of stories like the pure inventions repeated by William. There is no basis in fact in any of it. Simply someone with an ax to grind making up slander. If you believe that the Mormon church engaged in selective breeding for an "obedience gene" then you ought to believe that the moon landing was a hoax or that the US government blew up the WTC.

I spent time as a child as a ward of the state, both in an orphanage and various foster homes. Then my father managed to get us placed with relatives who happened to be Mormons. I was subsequently raised in the church until I refused to go when I turned 15. There was no "requirement" to be obedient, either for myself or my sister. When I refused to go to church my uncle asked "Why?" I said I don't believe the stories are true, I don't have any faith. He said "okay". That was it. But the people in the church on average were the nicest and hardest working people I've ever known. My father and uncle were raised in the LDS church in Utah. My great-grandfather brought his family to Utah from Sweden with the help of the Mormon church. He was able to eventually own his own farm here in the US. There were no opportunities in Sweden, farmers were unable to own their land they could only rent and make a subsistence living. A great many people emigrated to the US with the help of the church and made lives for themselves. After repaying the church many of them left the church and went their own ways, like many of my relatives. "Breeding for obedience", what a crock. Incidentally, there were a great many single women who were converted and came to Utah, so many that the balance of men to women was upset, there were many more women than men to marry which was actually the reason for the early decision to adopt polygamy. My grandmother was the child of a man with three wives and thirty-six children. Blame the success of the Mormon missionaries overseas coupled with the desires of many hardy souls to immigrate to the United States. These people are not given to obedience.

[Brant Gaede]

Mormon missionaries are the only people wanting to convert me (plus census takers) who knock on my door I don't drive off with a whip.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

As I see things, far from there being -- in the U.S. at any rate -- "more chance now of a child being rescued from abuse," there's instead far more chance of:

(a) abuse charges being invented;

(b ) a child being subjected to abuse, once the child is taken under the "protection" of current Child "Protective" Services here. Sorry, I can't use the "protection" and "Protective" without the scare quotes. I've heard so many horror stories, more and more it seems to me in almost geometrically increasing number.

My hit parade of outrage with overweening therapy and child protection actions came in the 90s, the heyday of recovered memory and satanic ritual abuse 'cults of healing,' when false memories, therapy inculcated molest charges, and family destruction abounded. Was a time not so long ago that a spate of daycare ritual abuse cases and other moral panics degenerated into witchhunt. That's my background, an interest in the power of rumour, belief, closed systems, myth, delusion and fear. Horror stories that have abated to a great degree. No more are there fresh cases of these kinds.

CPS in the U.S. are themselves a horror story. And the way this whole thing was handled leaves no hope I can see of anything except painful, and long-drawn-out, difficulties in the lives of the women and children. I'm seeing the whole thing as nothing short of a nightmare.

There is a long story here, one that began with Joseph Smith (blood ancestor to prophet Jeffs). The dream of Zion visited upon his people by the Jeffs regime has become a nightmare. I see the side of those opposed utterly to the tactics of the raid, and I respect those opinions here that are derived from 'hands-off' principles. The nightmare of authoritarian control, banishments, separations, expulsions and family-planning has become more so under the rule of Warren Jeffs.

The pain to come for children and families is due to the ugly paterfamilias and his plans.

I understand your revulsion all round, Ellen. This round of state versus Jeffs will not be without further heartache.