Saturday, April 12, 2008


Even If there was a violation(s) of law in regard to the conduct of that Mormon sect, due process is still a viable constitutional concept in the operation of jurisprudence in these United States of America.

Evidence against an individual or individuals should have been presented to a grand jury and a true bill sought from that body. The law does not permit guilt by that an entire group of people is stripped of their constitutional
rights - and their personal and real property siezed, and/or occupied.

And, the state taking custody of their children should also have been proven by evidence and/or witnesses proving an abuse scenario in a court of law which
might justify the state being awarded custody of the child or children. To exercise the heavy hand of the law without operation of law should be condemned by every citizen in this country...unless,of course, you agree that an individual or group should be punished as guilty simply upon accusation, or by biased heresay from someone like that Laurie Allen (who is trying to sell her book about her supposed grief during her time in that mormon sect).

Of course, she has a bone to pick with her ex-husband(who is still a member of that sect). And, the truth of her allegations have not been made with penalty of perjury...under oath in a court of law or ,at least, by sworn affidavit. Otherwise she is happy to recount all sort of revelations to the press. Why not? The more publicity she gets the better it is to sell that book.

But, now that those officials have taken that action sans due process, we are now in the demonization aftermath....attempting to justify their ultra vires action. We are titilated about how the young newlywed bride must consumate her marriage on a bed set up in the temple. That would tend to provide the consummation with a solemn setting. Of course, non-mormon brides usually consumate their marriage vows in a motel room. So, the mormon brides are denied room service and a honeymoon trip. Oh, the horror. Go figure.

Now, we hear that a federal agent had infiltrated into that sect. So, with a credible witness like that, the state certainly had someone who could have testified in a grand jury hearing. Thus, the state could have proceeded to take action on a dejure basis. I would like to read his sworn affidavit outlining his first hand observance of the penal laws that he witnessed being violated....and by whom.

But if we do decide to assign guilt by association, when do we go after other religions with idiosyncrasies. For example,the Jehovah Witnesses do not accept induction into military service, and don't believe in blood trasfusions for their children. Their members teach such practices to their children. So,will the state of Texas round up their kids for foster families? The answer is they are better organized and go to court to protect their rights. A judge might feel thats not a good idea. Much easier to violate the constitutional rights of those groups who have isolated themselves from the outside community(and legal community).

Anyway, if we are to honor the rule of law, I want to see the judge who started this outrage to be censored or disbarred by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. A Federal judge should issue a cease and desist order against the state of Texas...and those children should be returned to their parents - and the church's records returned to them. They are poison fruit now anyway.

By the way, where is that ACLU when there is a prime case of abuse of civil liberties that have been violated. By then, I forget that that group only enters the picture when it can force the practices of any and all religion influences to be removed from the school and elsewhere. Of course, they do go to court to rail against any laws that would attempt to adversly affect illigal aliens


No comments: