Confirmed: Fraudulent Polygamy Cult Tipster is Barack Obama Delegate

[Gunny]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Yup, the State sure has the best interest of the children at heart.

Ohh as to evidence, did he NOT post a link to his story? You don't like the title? Shall we start submitting title of threads for your personal approval? I did not see that listed in the board rules anywhere?

Just trying to ascertain what rules have been broken or are now being added.

Feel free as the Admin to do as you please. Do us the favor though of not claiming things NOT in evidence.

You can title a thread anything you please. And I'll move it where I think it goes based on that title.

A rule was neither added, nor broken. It's an administrative responsibility -- not a punitive one -- to put threads in forums where they belong.

Don't twist my words. The title CLEARLY mentions the fact this woman is an Obama delegate, something completely irrelevant to the topic, trying to make a far-fetched connection with this BS and Obama. It claims she is guilty but there is no evidence of guilt.

And yes I take issue with thread titles, but that's personal. Thread titles such as this one do more of a disservice to the originator than a service.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can title a thread anything you please. And I'll move it where I think it goes based on that title.

A rule was neither added, nor broken. It's an administrative responsibility -- not a punitive one -- to put threads in forums where they belong.

Don't twist my words. The title CLEARLY mentions the fact this woman is an Obama delegate, something completely irrelevant to the topic, trying to make a far-fetched connection with this BS and Obama. It claims she is guilty but there is no evidence of guilt.

And yes I take issue with thread titles, but that's personal. Thread titles such as this one do more of a disservice to the originator than a service.

The article is clear, READ it. You know, actually read the words in the article, you will find the writer has made no attempt to claim Obama supports this nut. However it is FACTUAL that she IS a delegate. And I already provided you evidence of why she made the call, unless you think the abused, raped and imprisoned 16 year old secretly hitched a ride to Colorado, made the call, then hitched a ride back.

 

[Gunny]

The article is clear, READ it. You know, actually read the words in the article, you will find the writer has made no attempt to claim Obama supports this nut. However it is FACTUAL that she IS a delegate. And I already provided you evidence of why she made the call, unless you think the abused, raped and imprisoned 16 year old secretly hitched a ride to Colorado, made the call, then hitched a ride back.

I read the article. It doesn't require an attempt to claim Obama supports the woman. Putting his name in the thread title with hers makes the implication. I cut my teeth writing newspaper articles and I know EXACTLY how that title is being used and what message it's conveys.

You provided ME evidence? Where? You mean factual evidence like phone records, witnesses, a confession? Or an OpEd of why someone thinks she would do it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I read the article. It doesn't require an attempt to claim Obama supports the woman. Putting his name in the thread title with hers makes the implication. I cut my teeth writing newspaper articles and I know EXACTLY how that title is being used and what message it's conveys.

You provided ME evidence? Where? You mean factual evidence like phone records, witnesses, a confession? Or an OpEd of why someone thinks she would do it?

Ohh so if Fred from the new York times says what this fellow said, you do not need to see phone records, witnesses or confessions?

Just admit you do not like this glaring fact and think you can hush it up by moving it. You are of course free to move anything for any reason, but do me a favor? Do not blow smoke up my ass while you do it.

Ohh and the post won't go away cause you moved it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In re CPS, 5 Misc.3d 1020(A), 799 N.Y.S.2d 159 (Table)

You're free to google it. I can't link it because you won't be able to get into my westlaw account. And yes it's only a family court case, but the appellate cases say the same thing and that was the first one I found.

Answer questions, not be forced to deliver DNA. And again that YOU think the family law courts are not unconstitutional is just hilarious. But par for the course based on your previous shown ignorance on the Constitution.

You're a moron...the family law forces someone who's on trial in criminal court to testify in family court about sex abuse charges. if they don't the court is permitted to draw a negative inference.

Do you understand what that means, wanna be lawyer?

I understand you're more out of control than usual tonight, but it's really time for you to sit yourself down and be quiet til you understand the issues.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I read the article. It doesn't require an attempt to claim Obama supports the woman. Putting his name in the thread title with hers makes the implication. I cut my teeth writing newspaper articles and I know EXACTLY how that title is being used and what message it's conveys.

You provided ME evidence? Where? You mean factual evidence like phone records, witnesses, a confession? Or an OpEd of why someone thinks she would do it?

Once again since you missed it.

Update within the post: Like I said, confirmed. WJACTV:

An affidavit made public Wednesday said a phone number Swinton had used previously was used for a call to a Texas crisis center before authorities conducted the raid and removed more than 400 children.

Again, I must assume you think that 16 year old girl somehow got to Colorado and JUST happened to use one of this ladies phones to call Texas from.

Further since they KNEW the number, they KNEW it was OUT of STATE. No way she called from "in the compound" as the Texas authorities claim they assumed. No reason to raid the compound at all since NO ONE in the Compound was making an allegation at all.

The entire premise of the raid was to find a girl they knew could NOT be in the compound to begin with. In other words a bald faced lie.

Even if the call was miraculously from this girl and it is just coincidence she used the same phone, it was IN COLORADO, you know NO WHERE NEAR the Texas Compound. The raid was fraudulant.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here we go, just for you GunnyL, a "real" news source.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_colorado

 

[Care4all]

It's the same thing, dear.
This is the same link I used in another thread, but it's a good article.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm
Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.

Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.

texas law says you can't marry, even with parents permission, before the age of 16....

if there were cases of girls being ''married off'' to the 50 year old guys before the age of 16, and raped by these men in the guise of consumating the marriage, do you think this should be ignored also? is this a;so covered under freedom of religion?

do you think a 16 year old makes the decision of her own free will to marry this 50 year old man, and agrees with full understanding to give up any babies she has with him to their church?

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

texas law says you can't marry, even with parents permission, before the age of 16....

if there were cases of girls being ''married off'' to the 50 year old guys before the age of 16, and raped by these men in the guise of consumating the marriage, do you think this should be ignored also? is this a;so covered under freedom of religion?

do you think a 16 year old makes the decision of her own free will to marry this 50 year old man, and agrees with full understanding to give up any babies she has with him to their church?

care

First off the children do not lose their mothers, If a MAN loses standing in the church he can lose his wifes and children. It does not say anywhere that the women lose their children.

And yes as a matter of fact girls at 16 sure can make up their minds. Unless of course you believe the State allows them to marry for some other reason at that age. Further some States allow 14 year olds and , at least until recently, 13 year olds to marry. In fact until 2005 Texas allowed 14 year olds to marry. They only changed it out of hatred of THIS religion.

 

[Gunny]

Here we go, just for you GunnyL, a "real" news source.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_colorado

By GEORGE MERRITT, Associated Press Writer
Wed Apr 23, 7:55 PM ET

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - A woman suspected of making false abuse claims in Colorado used a telephone number that was later used to report alleged abuse at a polygamist retreat in west Texas, according to an affidavit made public Wednesday.

It's not yet clear whether authorities suspect Rozita Swinton, 33, of Colorado Springs, made the calls that triggered an April 3 raid of the compound. The arrest warrant affidavit released Wednesday says that several calls alleging abuse there were made using several phone numbers, including the number linked to Swinton.

The more than 400 children found at the retreat in Eldorado are now in state custody. Texas officials and lawyers have said that even if the call that prompted the raid turned out to be a hoax it would not affect their custody case because the state acted in good faith.

Swinton's whereabouts were unknown and she did not immediately return a phone message. It wasn't known whether she had an attorney.

Swinton was arrested April 16 and later released on a misdemeanor charge of false reporting in a February case in Colorado Springs with no known ties to the raid in west Texas. She's accused of posing as a teenager named "Jennifer" and falsely claiming in a 911 call that her father had locked her in her basement for days, the arrest warrant affidavit released Wednesday said.

Swinton pleaded guilty to misdemeanor false reporting in a 2005 case out of Castle Rock, Colo.; a one-year sentence was deferred. She had claimed in phone calls to be a 16-year-old named Jessica who was suicidal after giving birth; there was no baby.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_colorado

Now, I want you to compare the title of this article and the information contained within, to the crap that originated this thread. Had this articles title or a close facsimilie thereof appeared as the thread title, I wouldn't have given it even a second look.

Note that Obama's name doesn't appear in the first 6 paragraphs, or header, or by-line.

Just like these people are free to live in communal fashion outside the conforms of society, members are free to post whatever they want as thread titles, within reason. When you do things outside the conforms of the accepted norm, expect authority to give you a second look. It is the consequence of YOUR choice.

Conservatives, neocons, rightwing fruitloops ... what have you, get on here and bitch their asses off about the liberal MSM. Then turn right around and do the EXACT SAME DAMNED THING themselves.

Please DO note however that your accusation that this has anything to do with my beliefs on freedom of religion was a false accusation based on an assumption on your part. Between the quoted article and this, I have expressed ONLY my disgust with yellow journalism and hypocrisy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now, I want you to compare the title of this article and the information contained within, to the crap that originated this thread. Had this articles title or a close facsimilie thereof appeared as the thread title, I wouldn't have given it even a second look.

Note that Obama's name doesn't appear in the first 6 paragraphs, or header, or by-line.

Just like these people are free to live in communal fashion outside the conforms of society, members are free to post whatever they want as thread titles, within reason. When you do things outside the conforms of the accepted norm, expect authority to give you a second look. It is the consequence of YOUR choice.

Conservatives, neocons, rightwing fruitloops ... what have you, get on here and bitch their asses off about the liberal MSM. Then turn right around and do the EXACT SAME DAMNED THING themselves.

Please DO note however that your accusation that this has anything to do with my beliefs on freedom of religion was a false accusation based on an assumption on your part. Between the quoted article and this, I have expressed ONLY my disgust with yellow journalism and hypocrisy.

So what? Is it true that she is an Obama delegate? Yes or NO? Simple question.

And you were on about how you had no "reputable" source for the claim she made the calls, now that you lost that canard we go back to "damn Obama was mentioned".

So tell me GunnyL, what are the chances that this mythical 16 year old just happened to make the call IN Colorado from the same phone this other lady used? And why did the State, KNOWING the calls were from Colorado raid a Texas Compound claiming to look for a girl that couldn't possibly be there? Why did they continue to claim they had evidence she was there as a reason to continue a raid for 7 days? Only modifying the claim now to " gee we were hoodwinked, but hey it was all in good faith"

 

[Gunny]

So what? Is it true that she is an Obama delegate? Yes or NO? Simple question.

It is irrelevant.

And you were on about how you had no "reputable" source for the claim she made the calls, now that you lost that canard we go back to "damn Obama was mentioned".

We aren't going on about shit. You are flopping back and forth from one irrelevant accusation to another, but refuse to address the issue that I have questioned from the beginning.

So tell me GunnyL, what are the chances that this mythical 16 year old just happened to make the call IN Colorado from the same phone this other lady used? And why did the State, KNOWING the calls were from Colorado raid a Texas Compound claiming to look for a girl that couldn't possibly be there? Why did they continue to claim they had evidence she was there as a reason to continue a raid for 7 days? Only modifying the claim now to " gee we were hoodwinked, but hey it was all in good faith"

Gunnery Sergeant,

My opinion on this matter is clearly posted. My interest in this thread is CLEARLY posted. The ONLY reason this thread isn't sitting in another forum right now is because of the article you provided; which, unlike the article this thread is based on, is actually a responsible piece of journalism.

I STILL consider the original article garbage. You however could have avoided this entire, 2-page runaround if you had simply provided the yahoo article in your first response to me instead of trying to make two separate issues one and the same.

 

[BrianH]

I suggest you reread the stories posted the girls do IN FACT have choice. They have stated so, the church has stated so and have stated that if a girl does not chose to marry someone they lose NO standing in the church, pretty cut and dried. Further the lawyers for the children and parents have stated that the only "13" year old to have a child is now 23, it happened 10 YEARS ago. She was NOT in Texas and unless the State she got pregnant in has no statute of limitations it is long past done and over.

Oh I see, the CHURCH has stated so. LOL. Ok...well let's let all the rapists and murderers go because THEY say that they didn't do it. LOL. You're such a push-over. "Well the church says that the girls have a choice." You're head is so far up yor ass you can brush your teeth and and clean your crack at the same time with the same brush.

You can dodge the issue all that you want by claiming this cult has done nothing wrong...and when it is proven they have, you bring up BS about it being 118 frickin years ago or in this case 10 years ago.

 

[BrianH]

Ohh I see if we are going to judge an entire religion by ONE man, then why is it all Muslims are not Terrorists, are you going to demand we arrest all Muslims? After all we know of THOUSANDS of Muslims that are terrorists. We know part of the religion actively train their children to BE terrorists.

Once again if John is guilty cause Fred did something illegal and John is guilty just cause he belongs to the same church, we better get hoping and arrest a who;e SHIT load of catholics and protestants, Jews and Muslims, Even Hindus. You are gonna be busy with that process.

Once again, you mold fact into your desired belief. THERE ARE at least THREE MEMBERS OF THIS SECT THAT ARE CONVICTED SEX OFFNDERS. JESSOP, BARLOW, JEFFS. DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN??? HMMM....what about this cult draws these sex offenders. There seems to be an awfully high percentage of sex-offenders coming from these sects. Open your eyes RGS.

 

[Ravi]

First off the children do not lose their mothers, If a MAN loses standing in the church he can lose his wifes and children. It does not say anywhere that the women lose their children.

And yes as a matter of fact girls at 16 sure can make up their minds. Unless of course you believe the State allows them to marry for some other reason at that age. Further some States allow 14 year olds and , at least until recently, 13 year olds to marry. In fact until 2005 Texas allowed 14 year olds to marry. They only changed it out of hatred of THIS religion.

If they can make up their minds at sixteen, why do they need their parent's permission?

I'm also curious, you seem so convinced this is based on hatred of the FLDS...how many other 14 year olds not connected to the church were getting married before 2005?

 

[BrianH]

If they can make up their minds at sixteen, why do they need their parent's permission?

I'm also curious, you seem so convinced this is based on hatred of the FLDS...how many other 14 year olds not connected to the church were getting married before 2005?

exactly, and even in regular society, older men who marry 14 -16 year-olds get busted. RGS is mad that they're treating these sect members just like they would anyone else who is in question of abusing their children.

Fact:

The leader of the church beats the shit out of the infants until they can't cry anymore.

Girls are forced to marry older men not of their choosing, and then made to have sex with them. (BED IN THE TEMPLE????)

The women of these sects are brainwashed into doing whatever they're told. (obvious)

Many members of this sect are registered sex-offneders, including the leaders.

They hide it under a cloak of righteousness.(no link or "proof" for you RGS)

 

[Ravi]

I imagine he's really just uncomfortable with the fact that the state can take children away and hold them while they put their case together to press charges. I can understand that point of view...but at the same time the state is claiming it has evidence and it certainly seems likely they do with what we already know about the leaders of this group.

 

[Care4all]

First off the children do not lose their mothers, If a MAN loses standing in the church he can lose his wifes and children. It does not say anywhere that the women lose their children.

And yes as a matter of fact girls at 16 sure can make up their minds. Unless of course you believe the State allows them to marry for some other reason at that age. Further some States allow 14 year olds and , at least until recently, 13 year olds to marry. In fact until 2005 Texas allowed 14 year olds to marry. They only changed it out of hatred of THIS religion.

At the age of adulthood, 18, I was in no way capable of choosing the man I wanted to spend my life with....IMPOSSIBLE at the age of 16.

This IS ABUSE ret sgt, this isn't some religious issue....

if this polygamist sect just married from within, with 18 year old, or older women it would be ONE THING.....but this is not the case with these people and it is very, very, very disturbing as a female to see what these young teen girls have to go through....

I don't think it was a bad thing to not allow 13 or 14 year olds get married in this day and age....we already have determined that juveniles do not have the same thinking and rational as an adults....they have not mentally developed yet.

If you have a daughter, would you hand them over to an elder in your church at 14 years old to be RAPED by a 50 year old, in the guise of consumating an underage marriage?

As far as your point of the false and fake report that they went in to the compound with....I DO UNDERSTAND where you are coming from....

But the way you defend this has a false premise to a degree....because any of us that witnesses a crime and does not report it, can be in alot of trouble too...so if this woman had witnessed a crime or had been given first hand information about it, I believe we all would be obligated to report such....

Where I agree with you is that a FALSE report was given and this could have been easily figured out before they raided the compound....or at least it seems like it could have been.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh I see, the CHURCH has stated so. LOL. Ok...well let's let all the rapists and murderers go because THEY say that they didn't do it. LOL. You're such a push-over. "Well the church says that the girls have a choice." You're head is so far up yor ass you can brush your teeth and and clean your crack at the same time with the same brush.

You can dodge the issue all that you want by claiming this cult has done nothing wrong...and when it is proven they have, you bring up BS about it being 118 frickin years ago or in this case 10 years ago.

You realy are a moron, the WOMEN have said so. But do carry on retard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again, you mold fact into your desired belief. THERE ARE at least THREE MEMBERS OF THIS SECT THAT ARE CONVICTED SEX OFFNDERS. JESSOP, BARLOW, JEFFS. DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN??? HMMM....what about this cult draws these sex offenders. There seems to be an awfully high percentage of sex-offenders coming from these sects. Open your eyes RGS.

3 men out of 10000 thousand, yup that sure is a trend.