Posted on 04/30/2008 1:36:45 PM PDT by Dr. Zzyzx
[Note: Prior to this make-up session, Shurtleff was shown on local TV as saying, "Harry Reid is full of crap."--Dr. Zzyzx]
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is ready to bury the hatchet with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
The Nevada senator called Shurtleff this morning, expressing his desire to work with Utah and Arizona authorities on investigations involving the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
"He said, 'I'm ready to kiss and make up,'" Shurtleff told the Deseret News today.
Shurtleff said Reid pledged to help get the U.S. Justice Department involved to arrange a meeting among Arizona, Utah and Nevada authorities, as well as federal authorities.
"I'll forgive him really quickly if we can get the feds involved," Shurtleff said. "I said, 'Thank you, let's hope this is the first step to cooperation.'"
The two politicians got into a war of words recently when Reid, D-Nev., accused Utah and Arizona of doing nothing about polygamy and said he was "embarrassed" for the two states. The comments infuriated Shurtleff, who demanded an apology.
"They wouldn't be in Texas if we didn't kick them out of Utah," Shurtleff said at the time.
He pointed out that both states have secured convictions involving abuses within polygamy, including FLDS leader Warren Jeffs, who was convicted of rape as an accomplice for performing a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin.
Story continues below Shurtleff said he and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard still plan to send a letter to Reid, explaining all that the two states have done to combat abuses within closed polygamous societies. The Utah Attorney General has said he tried to push the feds to get involved in a probe into crimes within polygamous groups but got nowhere because federal agencies had more interest in terrorism and homeland security. The Utah Attorney General's Office has been conducting an organized crime probe into Jeffs and the FLDS Church, but it has stalled.
Neither side apologized for their remarks, Shurtleff said, but called Reid's phone call "very positive and a step forward."
"We'll just see what happens next. We hope it happens," he said.
Jeffs was tried in a state court.
“This is the united states government, it has zillions of tax dollars, it can stomp out the cults and no one will notice the trivial expense.
They should have done it years ago.”
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Yeah, we really should just shitcan that little article right there so we can get down to business.
Living outside of the law and brain washing, is not a religion.
Re kidnapping: Many fathers have been ejected from the community on Warren Jeffs’ whims, and had their children and winves “reassigned” to other men. Many of these men have no idea where their children are, and it’s clear the cult leaders frequently transfer people across state lines. In addition, a number of children were sent to live at the YFZ ranch without either of their parents. Their mothers realistically didn’t have a choice of whether to allow it or not, as objecting would carry a risk of beating, having the child taken anyway. The FLDS leaders have been known to imprison women and girls who are uncooperative and have even had their own doctors sign orders for involuntary commitment to FLDS-controlled “psychiatric treatment facilities.”
Re the child labor, the cult runs construction and manufacturing businesses, and has long been employing underage boys along with older boys and men, in these businesses. They often don’t pay any of the younger men directly — just house and feed them. The deal is supposed to be that if you follow orders and slave away for little or no pay for many years, then the “prophet” will see fit to start assigning wives to you. But the majority of boys and men get kicked out beore that happens, and do not have their earnings to take with them. The money paid by outside clients goes into the cult’s coffers, to be doled out only per the orders of the “prophet” (who, by the way, is still giving orders from his prison cell).
I don't believe that Warren Jeffs was ever actually tried in federal court. I don't believe he was ever even charged with violating the Mann act.
He was arrested by state law enforcement officials in Nevada, waived extradition, and agreed to return to Utah.
He was tried in Utah state court for violating state laws, just like he should have been.
Arizona has the next crack at trying him under their state laws.
No intervention by the federal government was or is needed.
Please post the charges made against Jeffs in the Utah case applicable under the Mann act, since you state he was "tried in state court". He was "apprehended" for Mann act violations.Perhaps charges under the Mann Act are in the Fed's little box of surprises in store for him.
Or, better yet, please explain how untrained skeptic's post "There are very serious crimes that have been alleged, but they aren't under the authority of the federal government." is factual, since Jeffs was "apprehended for his brazen Mann Act violations."
In 1910, the federal government passed the Mann Act, expanding the jurisdiction of the investigation bureau by outlawing the transport of women over state lines for the purpose of prostitution. Granting federal agents the right to investigate, arrest, and prosecute persons in violation of the Mann Act solidified the interstate authority of federal investigative services.
I don't claim to be an attorney like you do, but this seems pretty clear.
Jeffs will be comforted by that defense of him.
I think this *is* a federal matter. Youngsters are being transported across state lines.
I suspect the serious crimes to which he was referring were accomplice to rape, and whatever other state law charges arose from his arranging the “marriage” of a 14 year old to a 19 year old.
Who has legal custody of the children? If the father had custody or at least joint custody, kidnapping might apply.
If the kids were at the ranch with the permission of a custodial parent, it's not kidnapping even if the parent isn't there. Otherwise your kids would be kidnapped if the went off to summer camp.
In addition, a number of children were sent to live at the YFZ ranch without either of their parents. Their mothers realistically didn’t have a choice of whether to allow it or not, as objecting would carry a risk of beating, having the child taken anyway.
There may be some cases where the mothers are victims, but I haven't seen any of the mothers from the YFZ ranch break ranks.
I don't understand how any parent could just let someone reassign their children, and if not being shunned is more important to them than losing their children I can't consider them victims.
I have a hard time believing that the controlled not only the community, but the whole area well enough that they couldn't call some law enforcement official. Maybe it's true in some very limited cases, but that part sounds too much like the real of conspiracy theory.
Re the child labor, the cult runs construction and manufacturing businesses, and has long been employing underage boys along with older boys and men, in these businesses. They often don’t pay any of the younger men directly — just house and feed them. The deal is supposed to be that if you follow orders and slave away for little or no pay for many years, then the “prophet” will see fit to start assigning wives to you. But the majority of boys and men get kicked out beore that happens, and do not have their earnings to take with them. The money paid by outside clients goes into the cult’s coffers, to be doled out only per the orders of the “prophet” (who, by the way, is still giving orders from his prison cell).
I've heard this, and it sounds like they would be violating a plethora of state labor laws. That should be investigated and prosecuted, but I still don't see the need for federal involvement.
Interstate commerce actually means “Any trade, traffic, ***or transportation*** in the U.S. which is between a
place in a State and a place outside of such State, or is between two places in a State through another
State, or a place outside of the U.S.” (http://www.dot.state.wi.us/drivers/docs/bds218.pdf)
A non custodial parent would be involved with “interstate commerce” if they had contact with their child (even if just by the phone.. it is held that cell phone plans are ‘interstate commerce”, contact in person would mean traveling via ‘interstate commerce’ either by train, boat, airplane.. whatever! As long as a state line is crossed). Thus, using the ‘channels of commerce’ itself is an act involving ‘commerce’, thereby being governed by commerce law whether the commerce is intra-state, inter-state or international.
Additionally, one must also consider what the meaning of ‘commerce’ was to our founding fathers... Here are some examples of how the word ‘commerce’ was used way back when (before everyone immediately thought “trade/business”):
To hold intercourse; to commune. —Milton.
Commercing with himself. —Tennyson.
Musicians . . . taught the people in angelic harmonies to commerce with heaven. —Prof. Wilson.
With this in mind, it’s simple to see that ‘interstate commerce’ (from utah to tx) ‘intra state commerce’ (in the state) and international commerce (from Canada to the US) would apply in regards to any young children being brought to the ranch for the purpose of underage sexual unions.
US CODE COLLECTION TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 117
§ 2423. Transportation of minors
(a) Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity.— A person who knowingly transports an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.
(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct.— A person who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
(c) Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places.— Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
(d) Ancillary Offenses.— Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, arranges, induces, procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
(e) Attempt and Conspiracy.— Whoever attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of that subsection.
(f) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.
(g) Defense.— In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002423——000-.html
Here's the announcement of Jeff's addition to the FBI Most Wanted List.
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/may06/jeffs050606.htm
There's no mention of the Mann act.
Every other article I have read said that Jeffs got on the FBI's most wanted list because he fled prosecution in Utah across state lines. In such cases the FBI aids in notifying other states to look for such suspects.
I haven't been able to find any evidence that Jeffs was ever charged with violating the Mann Act, or that a warrent was issued for him for violating the Mann Act.
Please post the charges made against Jeffs in the Utah case applicable under the Mann act, since you state he was "tried in state court".
There doesn't appear to have been any. The article you linked to simply appears to be incorrect. He wasn't charged or tried in federal court, and the Mann Act wouldn't be applicable in state courts.
He was "apprehended" for Mann act violations.Perhaps charges under the Mann Act are in the Fed's little box of surprises in store for him.
I guess the Feds might choose to try and prosecute him for violating the Mann Act, however I don't see how he was apprehended for Mann Act violations like that article says when there doesn't appear to have ever been a federal warrant for him violating the Mann Act.
It seems pretty obvious that he was arrested for violating Utah law, and that article you linked to simply assumed that was why he was arrested.
However, even if the Mann Act did not exist, Jeffs still would have been wanted for the crimes he committed in Utah, and because our states cooperate with each other and the federal government helps facilitate that, he would have still been arrested and faced the exact same charges.
Hopefully he will continue to be prosecuted for his multitude of crimes and he will never be released from prison except maybe to be transferred to a prison in a different state.
Re the men who are kicked out and lose their families, they are already “shunned” from the minute the “prophet” gives the order. Some men have come home to find their families missing, and that’s when they find out they’ve been kicked out. They often don’t know where their families are at that point, and even if they do, they have good reason to fear that rocking the boat will cause their children to disappear. And often, at that initial point, the men are still hoping to be let back in, having been told they must “repent from afar”. It’s fake — I’ve never heard of anyone actually being let back in, but when they’ve just gotten tossed out of the only world they’ve known since they were born, most aren’t able to let go of the whole worldview immediately.
Absent prior court orders, the biological parents legally have joint custody, but until quite recently, the local courts for the Utah-Arizona community were under the control of FLDS judges, as were local police departments. These fathers were hard-pressed to get any help the normal way. There are postings on ex-FLDS message boards from people trying to find out if their kids might have been in the compound. The court-provided list won’t be much help, since most of the children aren’t named at all (because no consistent answer could be obtained as to what their names are) and any of the others who’d been reassigned wouldn’t have the same last name anymore, and a lot of the first names are shared by multiple children.
Re the mothers from YFZ “not breaking ranks”, 1) Those aren’t the legal/biological mothers of the children who were sent there without their real mothers, and 2) Keep in mind that the population of YFZ was hand-selected by Warren Jeffs to represent the most obedient and loyal members of the other communities — the adult women who are there were chosen because they have a solid history of doing whatever they’re told without question.
Re the child labor and un/underpaid adult labor, they are routinely transporting workers across state lines for construction contracts, and transferring proceeds back one of the states (or Canada) where the cult has communities. Definitely federal, as all sorts of federal laws are being broken. It’s doubtful that any state court would assume jurisdiction, when you’ve got a single worksite in the state, where workers who are legal residents of one or more other states have been brought to work, at ages and payscales (and often lack of proper tax/SS/Medicare withholding) that are in violation of federal law. There’s also plenty of material here for RICO charges.
Jeffs will be comforted by that defense of him.
So I disagree that the federal government needs to interfere, and point out that the states not only have the authority to go after Jeffs, but have done so and are continuing to do so, and YOU seem to think that is defending him?
Please explain how I have defended him. Please feel free to show how I have defended him on any thread, not just this one.
You apparently think like a liberal that the federal government needs to handle everything regardless of it's constitutional limitations, and you attack those that disagree with you like a liberal by saying I'm defending his criminal acts.
I'm not defending his criminal acts in the least, I'm saying that they aren't federal violations, and the federal government doesn't need to get involved. The most the federal government did to get involved in the Jeffs case was to post him on their most wanted list for his violations of the laws of the states of Utah and Arizona.
We should also be thankful of the state trooper in Nevada that pulled him over because his temp tags weren't visible and then arrested him so he could be sent to Utah for trial.
Why is it that you think the states can't handle cases in which part of the crime may have occurred in another state. They do so all the time.
By what constitutional authority do you suggest the federal government get involved?
I believe my post #46 disputes that.
Federal grand jury indicts polygamous sect leader for allegedly fleeing prosecution
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A federal grand jury indicted the leader of a polygamous sect Wednesday, accusing him of fleeing to avoid prosecution on Utah sex charges.
The one-count indictment covers a five-month period in 2006, although Warren Jeffs was believed to be on the run for a longer stretch before his arrest in August during a traffic stop near Las Vegas.
Jeffs also faces trial in southern Utah in April on charges of rape as an accomplice for his alleged role in the ceremonial marriage of a teenage girl to an older cousin. In Arizona, he faces felony sex charges in Mohave County, Ariz. for his alleged role in arranging underage marriages for some of his followers.
-SNIP-
To help in the search for Jeffs, federal prosecutors filed an arrest warrant against him in April 2006.
Federal charges tied to such warrants typically are dropped once a suspect is caught and transferred to state authorities. But with Jeffs, "we felt like if there were ever a time to pursue a defendant ... this was it," said Melodie Rydalch, spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman.
The federal charge carries a maximum punishment of five years in federal prison.
Dated today.
Are you suggesting that it's illegal for a non custodial parent to call their child in another state and that its a federal issue?
I would agree that cross state phone calls are elements of interstate commerce and can be regulated by the federal government. If the phone call in your example were somehow in violation of federal laws regarding commerce, then the federal government would have authority, though that authority should be limited to acts relating to commerce.
If prosecutors can show that the children were transported across state line in exchange for something, let's say salvation, I agree commerce is involved. However you're going to have to prove that they were sent there with the purpose of them being forced into underage sex.
If they were sent there for other purposes, and then their abuse is incidental to them being there rather than the purpose, the federal government's authority disappears.
You can argue that they have the authority to investigate, but actual prosecution is quite a stretch in most cases.
This kind of child abuse is something the state governments can address. The cooperation of the federal government in informing other states that they are looking for people involved in the crime can be helpful, but more so because the FBI has injected themselves into everything rather than there being a real need that the states couldn't handle on their own.
If the parents arranged underage marriages across state lines, they can still be prosecuted under the state laws in those states, and the state governments are likely more than happy to extradite such people.
There isn't a need for the federal government to get involved because the states can address these issues without the federal government getting involved.
I'm not saying that the crimes shouldn't be investigated and prosecuted, I'm saying that it should be done by the states.
The usual excuse for getting the federal government involved is because they have more resources. Well the state government could have more resources if the federal government was sucking up all of our money in federal taxes and would stay out of things on which they lack authority.
US CODE COLLECTION TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 117
This lists a number of examples where we have allowed our federal government to overstep its authority because of how horrible the crime is. Liberalism has become so common that we think that every time there is an important issue the federal government must get involved.
These are very serious crimes. However, they fall squarely under the authority of the states in the Constitution, and when such horrible crimes are committed, it is to the state governments we should turn.
From my read the poster was giving examples of things that are considered interstate commerce, not implying that engaging in acts of interstate commerce is a crime.
You are welcome to your opinions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.