PC Silliness from San Angelo Standard Times: One World War II Dictator

Overall, Anthony has been closer to reporting in a balanced manner than many others in the media.

There are a few investigative reporters in this nation I admire, whether I agree with them or not. The problem is that the media has found itself to be a tough market to serve and fewer investigative reports are produced today.

It’s a bit ironic that any reporter writes of blogs, as that seems to be one of the many factors that have decreased the hold the big media players had on the market.

Anything like what Anthony wrote keeps the topic in the media AND directs readers to the blogs. Personally, I see it as a win-win here.

On his “unproven rumors that have floated out of Eldorado over the past four years”, I’m not sure WHAT he is referring to, except facts Sheriff (violate your rights” Doran has told ALL of.

Help on any topics I may be overlooking that fit in that group would be appreciated.

KBP the unproven rumors are those that have spread by Flora Jessop and company. these are the rumors that led to the raid.

There is only one direct assumption one must make of the criticisms of Mr. Anthony in this article is that any one that defends the FLDS are blinded and uneducated. Again, the lies are propped up and supported by the claims of those that see the FLDS as a culture not worthy of defense or rights to freedom. An erring press can do more damage to the innocence and freedoms of any citizen. I Perceive has only countered the main stream press and given food for thought that provokes the inward thoughts to a love of freedom and the love to allow all the freedoms they should enjoy. Wrong can never be condoned, but hold the tongue to condemn lest we call wrong right and right wrong and find ourselves the same as wicked Judge Walthers in our judgement. The sad perception that many prophets and apostles of ancient scriptures would have met their doom in nowaday America. America would have sent many of them to the grave and to the prisons with the present judical system that is rife with injustice. Stay it I Percieve, the truth is a fresh drink of water.

TBM

It is no cheap shot that brings fredom from oppression! I faced more hell than most of you imagine through cheap shots from New Phoenix Times supposed investigative reporter, with out-right lies,saying privately that no one listens when you only tell the truth; and news conferences by the AZ AG, to abuse the public mind to give them more lattitude for “Public Opinion” justification for their tricks. Utah’s AG not doing any better than that. Calling the FLDS “Organized Crime” and imposing a chane in the definitions of common words through this abuse, such as “insolvancy”, “Pedophile” “Forced Marraige” “Sex Offender” when the reality is not even close.

Then to have the legislatures change the laws to create new ways to make offenders of them!

I see the cheap shots! Do you???

jj/Xorphshire ,

I would imagine that Anthony (although I can’t speak for his reasoning) is speaking more of the bigot/fascist labels that some tend to label anyone that states the FLDS emperor has no clothes. For the most part, Kurt tries to limit this to civil discussion, which is what Anthony noted.

In any event, Kurt and his co-writers/bloggers have a good blog here, although I believe that he is on the wrong side of the issue. Regardless, the open discussion of the issues that he has here provides a way to get all of the positions out in the public view, and that in and of itself should be commended.

A problem with any worrying about what the emperor is wearing is that we know what the emperor was wearing April 3rd - an outfit assigned him by a prison in another state.

Addressing what part he plays, while discussing how rights may have been violated in the raid, is only of benefit to those that condemn beliefs or assign guilt through association.

Anthony tells us he is addressing FOUR blogs that write on issues “in a case with such wide-ranging ramifications for individual rights and child safety”.

It is obvious which of those he identified as holding discussion on “rights”. On the TWO added for balance, evidently, Anthony ignores what is posted there.

Ron tells us of a higher teen pregnancy ratio that justifies ignoring it as evidence of crimes any where but within the ranch residents, shows his readers how marriage age within the FLDS is barrier for the young to reach goals established by those outside of the religion, various posts to condemn the FLDS through association with the actions of ONE not living with them… and much more that clearly indicates an objective of “bringing down the ultimate leadership of the organization”.

As for the “cheap shots”, Anthony needs to pay better attention to a few posts by Ron and about half of them lately on your blog.

It has clearly transformed from one discussing the case and how the facts of it relate to the laws that may be involved, into a private board to concentrate on targeting individuals not at all a part of the case. Your own little private efforts to humiliate people for giving their opinions.

A few cheap shots here & there in comments is expected, sometimes laughed at by all reading them, especially if posted in a somewhat joking manner. I do not even mind being the target of a civil joke, but…

…posts on a blog pointed ONLY at individuals whose involvement in the case is merely commenting and/or blogging themselves shows any that read them where you’re heading TBM.

jj would you write a history about that school fiasco so I can put it up on my blog? Or write up your own blog?

There needs to be a place we can point people to it.

(and cheap shots? I am neither innocent, nor the least shot at)
I apologize for responding in kind Jimmy.

Pixel 105 this documantary is the king of all cheap shots. I dont know why you have chosen to believe liars. Some of us require more than unstantiated lies. That film was made in 2006 and none of its predictions have come true. Its hard to believe that people are still the target of irrational hatred by people like pixel 105

Thomas,

I am only responding to one of your points, because the points are subjective opinion.

The officers did not exceed the scope of the warrant, and I believe that you could ask both Kurt and Doran that question and they would confirm that.

They may argue that that warrant was overbroad, or lacked probable cause (both points that I would debate with them), but there is no way to look at the warrant and what the officers searched and seized and claim that they exceeded the scope.

Can we see the original warrent?

Marttie - it’s available on the web somewhere…

Thomas - what’s your point? Of course they searched everything - they had a warrant to search the entire 1,691.11 acre ranch property that was owned by the FLDS, including “all buildings, medical facilities, structures, places and vehicles…”

If the warrant tells them to search everything, and they do in fact search everything, how, pray tell, did they exceed the scope of the warrant?

Txbluesman, It have read the affdavits and i doubt the search warrant was to search everything. The point, hard head, is that if the constitution forbids anything it is an indiscriminate search. A warrant must list those things that are to be searched and anything that goes beyond that and searches anything and everything is forbidden. A horrible act of injustice has been perpetrated against these people and I lose patience with people like you who escuse it.

LOOK HARD HEAD! This is not a court of law. This an opinion and it is not an indictment. My opinion reflects the terror experienced by a peaceful population invaded by heavily armed police units.
I have been fairer than any kangaroo court conducted by your Judge. Does this reflect a gulty conscience? They searched EVERYTHING. while i dont have a list of everything they searched, it did not include EVERYTHING. Commonsense says that you could not be authorized to search everything out there. They ransacked the place. Dont accuse me of unsubtantiated charges. The storm troopers who invaded the XYZ ranch didnt bother to substantiate the charges leveled by Rozita Swinton and Flora Jessop.

One thing that occured to me was family photos. While the police were justified in taking photos that appear to depict underage relationships. The police appear to have gone too far in seizing every photo they possibly could.They could have shown more disgression. When the mothers returned from captivity, many of them were stunned to discover that their family photographs had disappeared. How would you like to have someone take away your family photographs? While some of this material may be returned, some precious are lost forever.

Thomas,

I quoted the scope of the search as to the premises or place to be searched from the first warrant already. The second warrant was even more specific, including: “all buildings, temples, temple annexes, places of worship, vaults, lockboxes, locked drawers, medical facilities, structures, places and vehicle on said premises,” premises having previously been described as the 1691.11 acre ranch. As for the seizure of the family portrait you mention, photographs were listed as items to be seized under the warrant, and specifically included family photographs.

You state that you do not want to be accused of making unsubstantiated charges.

There is simple solution to that - don’t make them. Your charge, opinion, or whatever you wish to call it, of the authorities exceeding the scope of the warrant is just that, an unsubstantiated charge, and is a misstatement of facts.

You are correct - they searched everything. Of course, everything that they searched was listed on the warrant. That means that they were within its scope as to the premises. They seized a whole lot of documents, photos, etc, all of which were listed on the warrant.

To support a charge of exceeding the scope, one needs facts that show that either something was searched that was not listed as part of the premises, or that something was seized that was not listed. You can’t show either, which is what unsubstantiated means.

The Rangers and other law enforcement officers did not exceed the scope of the warrant.

I will give you a hint - try arguing that the warrant was overbroad. You’ll be able to at least make a coherent argument for that charge. If you ask nice, maybe Kurt or Doran will help you.

P.S. - try spell checking your posts, it doesn’t help your case when you misspell words, as Doran kindly pointed out to me…

Txbluesman. The real point is that neither the search warrant not the arrest warrant was rightfully granted. A small amount of investigation would have uncovered the fact that Sara Barlow was in fact a nut case named Rozita Swinton. Also, they would have discovered the fact that Dale Barlow had never left the state of Arizona. These people have been and continue to be the victims of some horrible acts of injustice. If you dont like I have to say about it, that’s too bad. Did I misppel anything?

Lack of probable cause is what I’m getting at. Swinton is a nut case and that she is why she made her phony calls. If the police had discovered a nut case was making the calls, they would have discovered that they didnt have probable cause. They would have known the alleged victim and her abuse didnt exist. I realize that horrible acts of injustice doesnt interest our highly conservative judicial system. But it is what grabs my attention and why I keep right on blogging. Saying that the police searched anything and everything reflects the outrage felt by the victims of this raid.

You should not argue one or the other (lack of probable cause/overbroad), but argue in the alternative.

In addition, it might be wise to at least raise issues of abuse of process and malicious prosecution as well as a constitutional issue or two. Cite newspaper statements by the local sheriff.

May not work in the lower court, but the record will reflect that you did raise these issues. This should strengthen your hand on appeal, where the matter will become less a matter of black letter law and more an issue of public policy.

It will be relevant on appeal that the warrants were served not on, say, Joe’s Hamburger Stand, but on a minority religious institution.

Texasbluesman I dont understand what you are talking about. It seems to be that lack of probable cause is the opposite of overlybroad and vice versa. What I undestand is justice and the lack of it.