Warren Jeffs - What the f-?

[Guest]

This guy is FBI's most wanted polygamist?

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/warrenjeffs.jpg

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004688078

Leader Of Polygamist Sect Arrested

August 29, 2006 12:08 p.m. EST

Mary K. Brunskill - All Headline News Staff Writer

Las Vegas, Nevada (AHN) - Warren Steed Jeffs, the leader of polygamist sect wanted in two states on suspicion of sexual misconduct, has been arrested, the FBI said Tuesday.

Jeffs, 50, was arrested in southern Nevada after a highway patrol trooper pulled him over on Interstate 15 just north of Las Vegas late Monday. One of his wives, Naomi Jeffs, and a brother, Isaac Steve Jeffs, were also in the car. They were not arrested but are being interviewed by the FBI.

Jeffs is the leader the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He has been on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list since May for allegedly arranging marriages between underage girls and older men, with a $100,000 reward offered for information leading to his capture.

He is charged in Utah with two felony counts of rape as an accomplice for allegedly arranging the marriage of a teenage girl to an older man in Nevada. In June, he was indicted on a charge of arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a married man and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.

FBI spokesman David Staretz said Jeffs was in federal custody in Las Vegas pending a court hearing on a federal charge of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. It was not immediately clear if Jeffs would face extradition to Arizona or Utah.

Jeffs was indicted in June on an Arizona charge of arranging a marriage between a 16-year-old girl and a married man, and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution.



Perhaps he's more charismatic in person.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Perhaps he's more charismatic in person.

Perhaps that's the reason he evidently prefers that women be young and inexperienced.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps that's the reason he evidently prefers that women be young and inexperienced.

Ah, yes. How silly of me.

But wait - wouldn't their parents would have to approve these marriages? So the parents are still taken in by this yahoo? Or not?

Stupidity knows no limitations, apparently.

 

[Oblimo]

Ah, but what if we gave him the beard of..
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m34/oblimo/rasputin.jpg
...Rasputin, history's strangest sex symbol (next to Woody Allen):
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m34/oblimo/warrenjeffs.jpg
...He'd look like Abraham Lincoln. Never mind, I got nuffin'.

 

[Guest]

Ah, but what if we gave him the beard of..
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m34/oblimo/rasputin.jpg
...Rasputin, history's strangest sex symbol (next to Woody Allen):
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m34/oblimo/warrenjeffs.jpg
...He'd look like Abraham Lincoln. Never mind, I got nuffin'.

Bwah!!!

Just spit out my drink.

That's great!

 

[S-Des]

That whole situation is fucked up beyond repair. Most of the entire town they lived in (9000 inhabitants) was into that thing...just a big cult. Even the sheriff and judges were members. The guy took over for his father, who started the movement. When his dad died, Jeffs took his dad's widows as his wives. Reports vary, but I've heard between 40-80 wives and 100-250 children. Some of the women *cough* that were being married off to men were as young as 13.

Despite how easy it is to make fun of this whole stupid mess, it could turn out to be the biggest case of mass child-abuse in the US since people actually started worrying about women and their rights. This thing sucks in every aspect. I'm glad the FBI really went after him and I hope they put every cock-sucker who got a young bride in a Guantanamo-style jail and leave them there forever.

 

[Guest]

That whole situation is fucked up beyond repair. Most of the entire town they lived in (9000 inhabitants) was into that thing...just a big cult. Even the sheriff and judges were members. The guy took over for his father, who started the movement. When his dad died, Jeffs took his dad's widows as his wives. Reports vary, but I've heard between 40-80 wives and 100-250 children. Some of the women *cough* that were being married off to men were as young as 13.

Despite how easy it is to make fun of this whole stupid mess, it could turn out to be the biggest case of mass child-abuse in the US since people actually started worrying about women and their rights. This thing sucks in every aspect. I'm glad the FBI really went after him and I hope they put every cock-sucker who got a young bride in a Guantanamo-style jail and leave them there forever.

Jesus. I had no idea.

How horrible.

I hope they keep his ass in jail.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

While I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, I DO have a problem with pricks like this guy. It goes beyond "child brides". Teenage boys are kicked out of their homes as soon as they become any threat or competition to these older men, who want the girls all for themselves. I am all for personal and religious freedom, but I doubt that this would be protected any more than human sacrifice.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

In some parts of the world even today pologamy is the norm. But that system falls under economic restrictions - as many wives as you can afford. For instance, if a bride costs 2 cows and 6 goats in Nigeria you have to have a fair sized herd to afford giving away 2 cows and 6 goats for a wife.

This guy, on the other hand, has no restrictions, either of ages of the wives or any economic consideratons. That's where the difference really lies.

I have no problem with some guy having 3 wives in Utah. It's none of my business as long as that's the religious/social system he's living under. It's the ages of the child birdes and the shear number of wives that's outrageous.

 

[rgraham666]

Remembering a bit from The Hollywood Squares.

"Paul Lynde. The habit of having more than one wife is dying out in the world. Why?"

"Snark. Fatigue."

 

[Oblimo]

While I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, I DO have a problem with pricks like this guy. It goes beyond "child brides". Teenage boys are kicked out of their homes as soon as they become any threat or competition to these older men, who want the girls all for themselves. I am all for personal and religious freedom, but I doubt that this would be protected any more than human sacrifice.

And that's the trick: how can you legally distinguish between (psychologically) healthy polyamorous unions and those prone to abuse (like polygamist cultists or tax frauds) without violating Equal Protection or the First Amendment?

Legally recognized multipartner unions would also be nightmares of family law in terms of child custody and joint property. When A marries B and B marries C, what is the legal relationship between A & C? Can A prevent B from marrying C in the first place? Should A,B and C be married at the same time, or can the marital union be allowed to grow? What if A wants to separate from C but not from B, would the whole union need to be dissolved? Would biological parents have superior rights when child custody is disputed? Etc.

When I was a practicing lawyer (I am now a IT consultant for lawyers, much better), one of the things I did was help come up with marriage alternatives for (forgive the term) non-conventional unions. This was in Texas, mind you, where until very recently it was still illegal for consenting adults to sodomize one another in the privacy of their own homes, so we had to get pretty darn creative.

Never had the opportunity to devise a legal structure for a polyamorists, alas. I would probably use the template of a Family Limited Liability Partnership.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And that's the trick: how can you legally distinguish between (psychologically) healthy polyamorous unions and those prone to abuse (like polygamist cultists or tax frauds) without violating Equal Protection or the First Amendment?

Legally recognized multipartner unions would also be nightmares of family law in terms of child custody and joint property. When A marries B and B marries C, what is the legal relationship between A & C? Can A prevent B from marrying C in the first place? Should A,B and C be married at the same time, or can the marital union be allowed to grow? What if A wants to separate from C but not from B, would the whole union need to be dissolved? Would biological parents have superior rights when child custody is disputed? Etc.

When I was a practicing lawyer (I am now a IT consultant for lawyers, much better), one of the things I did was help come up with marriage alternatives for (forgive the term) non-conventional unions. This was in Texas, mind you, where until very recently it was still illegal for consenting adults to sodomize one another in the privacy of their own homes, so we had to get pretty darn creative.

Never had the opportunity to devise a legal structure for a polyamorists, alas. I would probably use the template of a Family Limited Liability Partnership.

Yes, there are potential problems, but they can be resolved. And it's not for everyone. But it would work for some. Remember that polygamy is nothing new. It has existed for millenia, in a variety of cultures. It's not an experiment. Legislation could clarify all of the issues. I am simply advocating the Libertarian position on this issue (well, as I would see it).

The distinction can be made on the basis of evidence, as in any case. Prosecution can be limited to those who do what Mr. Jeffs do- openly marry underage girls.

To paraphrase a saying from the gun-control issue, "When plural marriages are outlawed, only outlaws will have plural marriages." In other words, the ban encourages folks like Mr. Jeffs and discourages more reasonable, law-abiding folk.

 

[CharleyH]

Perhaps that's the reason he evidently prefers that women be young and inexperienced.

LOL Indeed.

 

[Oblimo]

Yes, there are potential problems, but they can be resolved. And it's not for everyone. But it would work for some. Remember that polygamy is nothing new. It has existed for millenia, in a variety of cultures. It's not an experiment.

But integrating polygamy (polygyny or polyandry) into modern concepts of property, equality, and custodial rights would be an experiment. Polygamy existed for millennia in a variety of cultures where the property rights of individuals were based on their gender. The US moved away from that model a few decades ago.

Legislation could clarify all of the issues.

I never thought I'd hear you say something so optimistic. The reason I'm pessimistic is the history of problems in the legislation and case law of multi-member partnerships in purely business relationships. I can't imagine how much worse it will be with familial ones.

I am simply advocating the Libertarian position on this issue (well, as I would see it).

The core of Libertarian (big-L) principle is: you own yourself and what you produce. Many different flavors of Libertarianism spring from there, all with different answers to the question: how much of self-ownership is alienable? I've met Libertarians who want to ban gay marriage and Libertarians who want to ban marriage.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

But integrating polygamy (polygyny or polyandry) into modern concepts of property, equality, and custodial rights would be an experiment. Polygamy existed for millennia in a variety of cultures where the property rights of individuals were based on their gender. The US moved away from that model a few decades ago.

I never thought I'd hear you say something so optimistic. The reason I'm pessimistic is the history of problems in the legislation and case law of multi-member partnerships in purely business relationships. I can't imagine how much worse it will be with familial ones.

The core of Libertarian (big-L) principle is: you own yourself and what you produce. Many different flavors of Libertarianism spring from there, all with different answers to the question: how much of self-ownership is alienable? I've met Libertarians who want to ban gay marriage and Libertarians who want to ban marriage.

Yes, I'm a little optimistic, in that I think that it can be worked out. Happened recently in Holland, by the way. A 3 way marriage with a man and two bi women. Will there be messes? Certainly. But time and precedents will resolve them, as with any other changes in our society.

And, yes, I'm familiar with the whole core of Libertarianism. One might call me moderately radical in my Libertarianism. Especially radical in civil liberties.

The question I always ask myself on any issue is this: is this worth using the coercive power of the State to restrict or forbid it? The answer is seldom yes, especially with the greater mess and expense of enforcing such laws.

 

[R. Richard]

While I have no problem with legalizing polygamy, I DO have a problem with pricks like this guy. It goes beyond "child brides". Teenage boys are kicked out of their homes as soon as they become any threat or competition to these older men, who want the girls all for themselves. I am all for personal and religious freedom, but I doubt that this would be protected any more than human sacrifice.

It is not just a matter of teenage boys being kicked out of their homes, they are kicked out of their communities. The teen aged boys are taken to other, far away comunities and dumped.

The problem is one of simple arithmatic. There are approximately equal numbers of boys and girls born [slightly more boys, since more boys die at early ages.] Thus, when a man has, say, four wives, there are three excess boys. The excess boys have to be gotten rid of, or they will spend their time seducing the wives of the old farts. [It might be a useful exercise as to how much education and/or training you would give a boy you are going to get rid of.] The system is not just slavery for the girls, it is also slavery for the boys.

Another item that is rarely mentioned. Most of the husbands can't support several wives. Thus, the wives live on welfare and you and I pay the bills.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It is not just a matter of teenage boys being kicked out of their homes, they are kicked out of their communities. The teen aged boys are taken to other, far away comunities and dumped.

The problem is one of simple arithmatic. There are approximately equal numbers of boys and girls born [slightly more boys, since more boys die at early ages.] Thus, when a man has, say, four wives, there are three excess boys. The excess boys have to be gotten rid of, or they will spend their time seducing the wives of the old farts. [It might be a useful exercise as to how much education and/or training you would give a boy you are going to get rid of.] The system is not just slavery for the girls, it is also slavery for the boys.

Another item that is rarely mentioned. Most of the husbands can't support several wives. Thus, the wives live on welfare and you and I pay the bills.

That's certainly true. Again, this is different from what that guy is doing in Holland. Nor is it really a religious freedom issue. It was back when the Feds were first harassing the Utah Mormons back in the 19th Century. However, at the moment, despite my Libertarian views, I have no objections to cracking down on the Colorado City group (that's Colorado City, Arizona, for those of you who don't know, not Colorado Springs in Colorado). They are doing far more than taking plural wives. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had many wives, but they took care of them. The Munster group of Anabaptists practiced polygamy, but they were taking in widows and providing care for them and their children.

I have no objection to what that man in Holland is doing. I have no objection to a devout, but friendly (as in not pro-terrorist) Muslim man having 4 wives, as permitted by the Koran and practiced by Mohammed himself. I have no objection to what the Munster group did (although one of them, John of Leyden went a bit far with SEVENTEEN wives).

I have plenty of objections to child abuse, chattel slavery, forced marriages, illiteracy, and a mafia-like cult that dominates two towns in Utah and Arizona (with much of the private business and most, if not all of the public officials in their pocket). I certainly object to deadbeat dads and welfare fraud. There, at least, you and I are in complete agreement.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Something that no one seems to be bringing up here, and that is my personal hope for this man, is that IF he's convicted and has to go to anything resembling a real prison, he'll fall immediately to the lowest end of the pecking order in terms of criminals because of what he's done with so many children. The criminals who run the pecking order will hopefully make him their bitch despite his being anything resembling a Holy Man on the outside.

From everything I've read and watched on this guy, that would be an incredibly fitting end for him.

 

[S-Des]

Something that no one seems to be bringing up here, and that is my personal hope for this man, is that IF he's convicted and has to go to anything resembling a real prison, he'll fall immediately to the lowest end of the pecking order in terms of criminals because of what he's done with so many children. The criminals who run the pecking order will hopefully make him their bitch despite his being anything resembling a Holy Man on the outside.

From everything I've read and watched on this guy, that would be an incredibly fitting end for him.

He'll be in protective custody because the government doesn't like high profile murders in prison like what happened to Dahmer. However, how sweet would the irony be to have him wind up one of several "wives" to a 6'6, 250lb guy with a 10" cock? I might have to write that story, just to make myself feel better.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

He'll be in protective custody because the government doesn't like high profile murders in prison like what happened to Dahmer. However, how sweet would the irony be to have him wind up one of several "wives" to a 6'6, 250lb guy with a 10" cock? I might have to write that story, just to make myself feel better.

I'll give you a five rating just for writing it. Then I'll create some alts and give you some more fives. Just make sure there's no mistake about whom the story is really about.