Continue your discussion here.
~ by FLDS TEXAS on October 3, 2010.
Posted in The Evidence
Anonymous said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM
I really liked this from the bottom of #38:
Just for clarification, if I understand Hugh’s latest rant:
1. Hugh is in Missoula Montana
2. Hugh has a new job as a truck driver
3. Hugh has been fired from more than one job because of his posts on the internet that link him with pedophilia and polygamy
4. Hugh has been threatened with stalking or harassment charges because in a maniacal frenzy to “out” TxBluesman, he called a number of university officials at their homes (repeatedly?)
5. After being threatened with criminal charges by a police lieutenant and a university attorney, Hugh dared them to arrest him and demanded that the subject of harassment be arrested
6. Hugh is still defending and rationalizing his consideration of a hypothetical 7 year old for a bride
7. Hugh considers himself the victim in all of this
Did I get that right?
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Anonymous said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Does anyone have Hugh McBryde’s divorce records from his divorce from Theresa Babcock?
On his blog he had a Come-to-Jesus post admitting that he beat up on his wife. I wonder if there is an order of protection that lays out the facts. I bet it differs from Hugh’s blog account. Normally, this kind of thing turns my stomach, but what Hugh has done to many people in his quest for who-knows-what, he needs to know what it feels like himself to have his dirty laundry exposed.
I wonder how Lieutenant Gilbreath and Attorney Ronaldo Stowers will appreciate having their pictures plastered on that loon’s website. If the university does not take action against Hugh, there’s a real problem. He won’t stop until someone stops him.
Anonymous said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:21 PM
You neglected to mention that Hugh accuses others of checking his driving licensure status without any evidence that anyone has done that, but he has posted the bar card numbers of a number of attorneys for questionable reasons.
Of course, he is the “victim” here again.
Anonymous said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM
You neglected to mention that he accused me of doing this – like I’d take the time to find out anything about him, I was merely pointing out that all you have to do is a simple google search and everyone and their dog will offer to help you for a price.
Anny Moose said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:23 PM
So who is that Sheik in the picture ?
Who is that woman with him in the photo?
A member of his harem ?
A concubine ?
Anonymous said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM
You don’t even have to do that. Hugh leaves clue-lets all over the internet. It doesn’t take a genius to narrow it down and make a guess.
He better be careful about who he accuses of improperly using state resources. That’s slander I’m pretty sure.
Anonagain said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Anonymous @ 10:27:
That is Hugh’s relative, Christy Martin and her boyfriend. She must be Monica’s daughter.
Checkuser said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I wonder if she is a polygamous wife or concubine – does anyone know ?
Anonymous said this on October 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM
He wouldn’t be with her unless she was.
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:00 AM
My heroes have always been cowboys
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:38 AM
I’m a little disturbed about people bringing up the full names and even pictures of people unrelated to this whole issue except for their connection to a nutcase. Let Hugh and Bill and the other slimeballs drag innocent bystanders into this if they must but shouldn’t we have a higher standard of ethics?
Or have these people done something to justify plastering them on the internet?
Rebeckah said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Wonder if hugh is also a deadbeat dad like merril?
ale wife said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:10 AM
A while ago I asked why such a focus on Hugh and his personal life… I think I get it now – a kind of got your back thing for those he is stalking…
I am like Rebeckah – I get it but I am also not convinced that those being stalked are finding this helpful….maybe they could or a proxy of theirs, comment?
and for those poor souls whose lives are unfortunately linked to Hugh’s???
hellohellogoodbye said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:34 AM
Hugh has no problem putting photos of innocent people on the internet, using their full names, publishing bar card numbers,
contacting people’s employers, and creating elaborate conspiracy theories on the internet about totally innocent people.
Maybe, just maybe, when someone does it right back to him, he might just decide that it doesn’t feel so good to be in that position. Maybe he’ll change his behavior. Who knows
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:38 AM
Although I have as much disdain for Hugh McBryde as anyone, I am not at all comfortable with posting pictures of this poor, misguided child who is related to him in some way. I have been coming here and contributing to the effort to build this blog since the beginning and I really don’t like seeing us in a “I can BOTTOM that behavior!” war with Mr paranoid and delusional. Can we take them down, now that we have made a point????? Please?
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:48 AM
I think it’s obvious that McBryde is not going to change his behavior to protect the innocent, so we should. Besides, he’s doing a very nice job of discrediting himself without our help.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:50 AM
I think that anything about Hugh is fair game except for info about family members and pictures of members of his family. Information about restraining orders, domestic violence, and Hugh’s positions on polygamy and underage marriage are matters of public record and are fair game in any discussion because this provides insight into his character.
Once Stalked said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:59 AM
As one who has been stalked by Hugh McBryde, I would like for him to feel the pain that he has caused me and others, but I’m not sure this is the way to do it. I wouldn’t ask the mods here to remove anything (and don’t know the particulars of the posts) but ……hmmm…..maybe take it somewhere else like on Hugh’s site or something if you need to fight fire with fire.
Either way, I’m not going to quit coming to this site or posting. I will post anonymously forever after though because of the nutters like Hugh who will track people down and try to ruin their lives just because they disagree with him on the internet. 😦
One being stalked said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:02 AM
and HHG – I am enjoying seeing Hugh getting a taste of his own medicine.
Once Stalked said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:02 AM
Once Stalked. I’m good with that. If this young lady has become a Muslim in order to marry, then she would be very upset that her face was being shared with the general public and it might even cause trouble for her at home. I don’t want that on my conscience.
But yes, proof of what Hugh himself is; I’m fine with that.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:03 AM
I will post anonymously forever after though because of the nutters like Hugh who will track people down and try to ruin their lives just because they disagree with him on the internet. 😦
and you can fully expect him to do it, Once Being Stalked.
Once Stalked said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:04 AM
And here I thought “40 and not amazing” was the Queen of Konspiracy.
Hugh has earned his Krown as the new Queen.
After posting he shoved his wife around for 5 years, we guessed – thats right! He is a wife abuser!
After being booted off numerous internet boards, leaving trails of abuse to innumerous victims, we guessed it – he took the wife abuse to the next level and he is now an internet cyber bully! (who takes it to yet another level – harassing people in real life! Over and over! Like the Energizer Bunny! He cant stop!)
After posting he went to a month of training, has a new job where he travels and is out of internet service, you guessed it! We guess that he is a truck driver! And he admits it, and proceeds to say where and when! So we guessed that too now! OW!
So he is gonna sue people who recognize him for what he is, huh?
Thats rich, hope he has a lot of money – But wait!
He keeps saying that he is broke. Yeah, on his websites, dangit!
But he did make 80 dollars on the internet over 4 years and he did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night!
Stamp said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:05 AM
First, as one of the admins here, I personally and speaking for myself am against outing pretty much across the board. However, this situation with Hugh has really gone way too far and it’s a fact that sometimes the only way to stop a bully is to hit back harder. I understand the rationale perfectly.
The admins will caucus about this and determine whether we will continue the “fighting fire with fire” as one poster put it.
Even if it stops here, however, I imagine it will take up elsewhere until Hugh stops his mission of seek and destroy. I think Hugh has gone too far and angered too many of the wrong people.
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:12 AM
P.S. We’re not taking anything down.
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:14 AM
I would think that he’s really shot his own foot off posting pictures of policemen in Texas just because he thinks they should listen to him and believe him and they aren’t.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:29 AM
He’s shot both feet off.
One of the kickers was posting metal detector Bluesman pic erroniously.
That one backfired pretty good, adios Vermont!
Stamp said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:35 AM
It’s also clear from Hugh’s writing how he perceives himself as having been a polygamist. See, his first wife dumped him and got a legal divorce. He says that the piece of paper does not matter because on a Scriptural basis, only HE can get rid of a woman “bound” to him (HIS WORDS) by divorce and then only if she cheats on him. I’m sure that during that process he was sending support money religiously, since he has a SCRIPTURAL responsibility to maintain her food and raiment. (That was sarcasm just in case you missed it.) So then, AFTER the legal divorce, he finds that his ex is dating, then living with a man and then has legally married him (“calling him husband” in his words). So he sends her a letter informing her of his divorce of her for adultery FIVE YEARS LATER. Oddly, she gets a TRO or attempts to get one, it’s not clear. (The “oddly” was also sarcasm.)
So, what appears to be by casual calculations some twenty years later, he is referring to this woman as an adulteress on the internet.
But wait, there’s more! During that five years, apparently he saw another woman, his current wife. That’s OK, though, he can do that, SCRIPTURALLY, because he was born with different (and obviously superior) plumbing. Thus, he was a polygamist in his own mind, even though one of the women had already legally divorced him! We can now see clearly why wife #2 was willing to live with the idea of polygamy; she knew that in the real world, Hugh was not a polygamist. Now why she did not take this as a clear sign that Hugh was crazy AND a dangerous control freak who thinks he owns women and thus RUN as fast as possible in the other direction, I don’t know. But then people have been known to do crazy things for love. Maybe she’s crazy, too, we don’t know. And really, I don’t want to know.
And all of this is information that I got FROM HIM on his own blog.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:38 AM
Granny Toad said “He wouldn’t be with her unless she was.”
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Please excuse my absence, I have spent the entire weekend switching from my dying Dell Inspiron Computer to a MacBook Pro –
Since the topic under discussion apparently is Islamic polygyny, I thought this might interest the readership :
Egyptian Psychotherapist Dr. Radhwa Farghali: Women in Arab Society Are Treated as Minors –
From Memri Website
See the full interview here :
“Why should a man marry four wives? If a man is married to a good wife, who communicates with him psychologically, socially, and physically, and raises the children – why would he want to marry four wives? For the sake of variety?”
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Giving so much attention to a _____ (bully, idiot, interject your own term) leaves me stone cold – especially giving it to one who lusts for and thrives on it. I understand the angst, but it’s still rewarding bad behavior.
duh! said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM
See this about the Sister Wives Program – the commentary on body language is interesting :
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM
See this commentary on the sister wives program – the commentary on the body language is interesting.
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM
See this interesting commentary on the body language in the TLC program “Sister Wives”
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:05 AM
I came to this blog since it purports to discuss FLDS especially those in Texas.
Ought I still be looking for one?
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Administrators : Some of my posts with links are not going through.
Could you check for me ? Thanks much.
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:08 AM
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Does that guy in the picture even know which end of a horse eats?
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM
I have to agree with duh!
E.Texas said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:36 AM
E.Texas said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Are you home yet ?
and more importantly, how is that essay coming along ?
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:48 AM
S, yes, back home.
Uhhh… You’re not going to let me out of that essay, are you? 😛
E.Texas said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM
No, I am looking forward to it ! Won’t let you forget !
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 11:04 AM
I made it upstairs. It hurt. I think I did too much this weekend – I cleaned house and actually did 20 minutes on the exercise bike. It did not hurt yesterday, but this morning it’s being fussy. So much of what I need to accomplish involves being able to move about, so this is not good.
Yeah, I don’t think we need to join him on the Dark Side.
Betty said this on October 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Terrific to see you up and about !
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I think I may give up and make an appointment with the orthopedist. After a week of rest, I should be better than this. Drat. I hate cortisone shots.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:20 PM
“I’m not picturing people uninvolved, I’m picturing people involved.”
uh ummmm, like the Attorney Scott Reib picture, the Metal detector Bluesman, and others you have no proof of…
GEEZ Hugh – Do you ever listen to yourself? Try tape recording yourself and play it back 5 times.
BTW, good job slamming the ex wife again. So she kicked doors off their hinges when she was around you, huh?
For some reason I can – you guessed it!
I can guess why!
Stamp said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM
It’s worse than football when there’s nothing but the hugh and bill show on all channels. I guess I’ll go tend my FV farm.
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Granny, why don’t you think of a topic to talk about and keep at that. Sometimes the best way to elevate a group is to be a good example. S is trying to do that, did you notice?
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:39 PM
I made the appointment for Wednesday. Sigh.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:49 PM
I’m not awfully interested in Kody the manwhore and his stable either.
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM
So my question is:
What is the current legal state of the UEP – is there a hearing on the docket? Or did the teacher say be good and turn her back (as in legal system says UEP is under court control and we expect you to comply but we are not going to back it up with enforcement on site?
hellohellogoodbye said this on October 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM
The last action was the utah supremes saying that the FLDS cannot turn back the clock and reverse the court’s decision. I don’t know what that does to all the things that were in limbo waiting for that decision, but I would think that the other pending stuff would be acted upon.
There are also “investigations” into the civil rights violations by the FLDS, the corrupt Fire Department, the water department, etc. It seems to me that it’s taking an awfully long time to act on anything and I don’t have a lot of faith in Shirtless’ will to prosecute them despite flagrant legal violations of all sorts.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Brooke had a silly pictorial review of a prosecution of polygamy in the 40’s on her blog. Yawn.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM
I think the current state of the UEP is that Bruce is in charge and the Supreme Court of Utah slapped the FLDS down. I’ve heard rumors that the FLDS is going to file in Federal court, but haven’t seen it yet.
Also, Merril might have gotten a continuance, but Wendell is still on the docket for October 25. I think that will be a trial to watch as the bigamy laws don’t often see the inside of a courtroom.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Hugh did leave a pretty wide trail of bread crumbs, didn’t he Stamp.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Hey Hugh, you need to brush up son, posting a picture isn’t extortion, is jut a pic of what S talks about periodically, Islamic polygamy.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Here is a nice rebuttal of the concept that men and women are equal under Islam:
And I like the cartoon a lot.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM
using religion to convince women to accept polygamy even though it is not required in Islam:
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM
What gets me is a guy would admit to shoving his wife around, then say it was her that started it, and that she was kicking doors off their hinges.
That paints a real nasty picture of Hugh, and he is the artist.
But his goal is to be a polygamist someday! Lucky girls out there somewhere!
Stamp said this on October 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Loving your links on Islamic polygyny – Thanks !
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Here is an article on the effect of polygyny on first wives from the Middle Eastern literature.
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Polygyny is found to be highly correlated with mental illness in women in Turkey :
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 4:28 PM
I am curious about the state of the UEP. Didn’t a judge give them a month to reach an agreement about three months ago? What’s going on with that?
Rebeckah said this on October 4, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Did I hear correctly that they were thinking of dropping the charges against Wendell?
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:09 PM
I haven’t heard that. What’s up with that?
Anny Moose said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Finally Hugh gets a taste of his own medication. There is more where that came from. I wish I was a fly on the wall in his trailer when he saw the picture.
ImsoSerious said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:37 PM
siiiiiigh Never wrestle with a pig. The pig likes it, and you both get dirty.
GrannyToad said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Moose — I am not sure where I heard that or even if I heard that. I think it was during a conversation with someone, but I thought I should check and see if anyone else had heard anything like that.
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM
I wish I “WERE” a fly on the wall. It’s a separate verb case in English when you speculate on what is not actual.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Nice, Granny. I like that.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Hugh is so stupid!
He quotes Wikipedia which says extortion is:
when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person;
No riddle me this – did anyone make any demands of money, property or services from Hugh?
Seems to me that all anyone did is say that so long as you’re a jerk, people will return your jerkiness in spades.
I’m actually upset that folks don’t see clear attempts to silence those who speak out against the FLDS as worthy of coverage on this blog.
Shame on you. You could be next!
Funuts said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:24 PM
To anyone with really, really bad joints –
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had friends who went through years and years of shots and when they finally got joint replacement said how they wished they’d done it many years ago.
Obviously, it depends on your particular situation, but a lot of people resist this option when it is the one that will finally put an end to years of discomfort and pain.
Ron in Houston said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM
I think it is true that anyone who makes a coherent and brave voice against the FLDS on the internet will be a focus of attack. I do not think that replying in kind is the best solution. There’s a difference. The goal is to maintain a stream of real information about the evil that is going on; and of course we all have personal goals of having productive and happy lives, jobs, families, hobbies, etc. I’m totally with you on all of that. We are on the same side and have the same goals, I’m just concerned about technique.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Ron, yes, I think I’m headed that way. However, this is a three person dance; me, my doctor and the insurance company. For reasons I do not understand, the doctor can’t say “Here’s her XRay. Look at it. That’s screwed.” I can’t just say, “We all know where this is going, and January is a very slow time for my business, so why don’t we schedule a surgery now and get it over with?” Well, I can, but it would probably be a waste of air. The doctor has to build the case to the insurance company based on the fact that the shots don’t work anymore.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Also, the doctors are trying to make sure that you are old enough that you won’t outlive the device. If they can delay until I’m 65 or 70, then they won’t have to do it when I’m 80. I think that will change over the next 10 years as since we don’t really know how long the current models will last. They are lasting longer than the tests were designed for.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:43 PM
Joint replacements (called arthroplasties) of the hip and knee have patient satisfaction rates in excess of > 90%, however, as time goes on, the risk of aseptic (non infectious) loosening of the joint replacement prosthesis increases, particularly 10 – 12 yrs post arthroplasty. Often the joint replacement needs revision after 10 – 12 yrs. Patient satisfaction with the revision arthroplasty is lower than with the initial surgery, which is why arthroplasties are generally reserved for those > 50 yrs of age.
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Arthroplasty technology is advancing, as is the technology for the fixation (bone cement) for the prosthesis.
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Don’t get me started.
Dante created levels of hell for one reason. He wanted insurance companies to be in the bowels.
Ron in Houston said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:49 PM
I don’t think any of us like the insurance companies. Don’t get ME started.
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Yeah. What she said.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Which charges against Wendell were dropped ? All of them ?
Didn’t he either perform a ceremony for an underaged girl, or give an underage girl away in marriage ?
S. said this on October 4, 2010 at 6:58 PM
I’ve heard this rumor over and over. I steadfastly refuse to believe that someone who claims such Republican credentials as Greg Abbot would allow this to happen.
Don’t believe it until you see it is what I’d say.
Ron in Houston said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Here’s why I say that this site should delete the pictures of Hugh’s relative.
1. First and foremost – two wrongs don’t make a right.
2. Hugh is a big fucking asshole narcissist. He gives not one shit about anyone other than himself. If you think you’re going to modify his behavior with this, your sorely mistaken.
3. Walk a mile in the shoes of Hugh McBryde’s step daughter. She didn’t choose Hugh. Her mother did. Don’t make her pay for the sins of her mother.
Ron in Houston said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:27 PM
Is Merrill still in the hospital? Or did he miraculously get better once they got a continuance???
mc1199 said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Given the frequency of his hospitalizations proximate to the times of scheduled hearings, an independent medical evaluation of the Bishop should take place, to rule out any possibility that his providers are bringing him in for non emergent testing or treatment to evade trial.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM
What Ron said.
Basically, it won’t work AND it might hurt someone innocent, including people that you care about.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:50 PM
“If you think you’re going to modify his behavior with this, your (sic) sorely mistaken -”
I don’t agree with family photos – but after recent revelations here regarding his history of spousal abuse and his past statements sanctioning “checking out” 7 yr olds, Hugh might think twice before he dishes out the dirt on someone else, because those individuals whom he chooses to attack might just defend themselves right here, on this blog. Hugh has too many skeletons in his closet, and when he attacks someone else, he better know that “closet” may open up at any minute.
As of now, Hugh has no credibility as a polygamy activist, due to his history of spousal abuse and advocacy for underage marriage of extremely young girls – and those revelations took place right here, on this blog. Take a look at his blog’s Alexa rating – no one is listening to anything he says since it was revealed that he is a wife abuser.
Once Stalked said this on October 4, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Ouch. That’s a low blow. Aimed right at the site ratings. That’s got to hurt.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Rationalization of abuse flows in a cycle which allows the abuser to never face consequences for their actions.
“A large part of the cycle of abuse is the rationalization of the abusive behavior. The abusers believe that their behaviors are acceptable or that their victims, often their partners, deserve the consequences. This type of behavior is seen in the guilt phase as well, in which the abuser’s “apology” does not take responsibility for the actions, but later places the blame on the victims. This causes the victims of domestic violence to feel responsible for what has happened to them.”
Read more at Suite101: How Abusers Justify Their Behaviors: The Way Abusers View Their Actions http://www.suite101.com/content/how-abusers-justify-their-behaviors-a217150#ixzz11RScAbFt
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:02 PM
His sole claim to fame – falling apart before his very eyes.
Once Stalked said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:03 PM
How does anyone know for sure that it actually is Hugh’s daughter? I mean, the man lies about so much, how do you know he isn’t lying about this? How do we know that “checkuser” who identified the girl isn’t Hugh himself posting, trying to make it look like something sinister when all it really is is a picture of a girl and guy and the guy happens to be dressed like a sheik. I mean we have been discussing Muslim polygamy off and on.
Anny Moose said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM
S, Ron and FLDS, from what I can tell, Wendell is scheduled to have a hearing on Wednesday afternoon. I guess we’ll find out then if the charges have been dropped.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:21 PM
what were the charges against Wendell again ?
S said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:26 PM
3 counts of bigamy.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:29 PM
he didn’t marry any underage girls or give away any of his underage daughters in marriage ?
what were the ages of his three wives ?
S said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM
Well, for what its worth, a lot of people have witnessed Hugh’s online fights with lots of people, and many suspected it was worse than just online.
Come to find out, he admits himself, he abused his wife with violence for many years, and even blamed her for causing it when he admitted it.
I would think that would put some dry ice on his plans for a polygamy church.
As far as the pic, there is no proof that Hugh is even married.
Someone mentioned he had private vows, which might just indicate a private ceremony in his backyard, not necessarily using any legal paperwork – since he has no respect for it anyway.
As many remember, he sent his wife a letter of divorce 5 years after the legal divorce. So there isnt any proof he is related to anybody – he even said his son belonged to his ex wive, so there isnt any proof he is related to him either.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 8:54 PM
that about sums it up.
Anon4now said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Someone mentioned insurance earlier. If they continue to go thru the steps of “decriminalizing” polygamy how in the heck could anyone afford insurance? One man 50 wives and 110 kids?
How could any of that work?
If the governement offices can’t keep up with collecting Child Support and all the other things how would “decriminalizing” polygamy help?
Would they put a cap on how many wives or would are they hoping that it’s a Wild Card and anything goes?
Walton said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM
And really. If one man chose to have 4 wives, 20 kids, 50 kids how much child support can they collect to make things right? What if he had a min. wage job?
It can’t work. First 50 kids eligible for assistance in one area could mean one household. 50 in a different area could mean 5-50 different families.
Walton said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:37 PM
S, he gave away his step-daughter to Leroy Jessop. It got Leroy 75 years in the pen.
His wives were all older, having been previously married to men who had been exed.
Anonymous said this on October 4, 2010 at 9:43 PM
If Wendell gave away an underage girl in marriage, I would not expect the charges to be dropped.
S said this on October 4, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Everyone quit asking that posts be removed. We understand your positions. They are not being removed unless a proper request is made by either Hugh or the persons depicted in the photographs.
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 4, 2010 at 11:49 PM
That is a good decision FLDS TEXAS, although I think Hugh baby is deranged and I don’t like reading about him on this blog. JMO.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:47 AM
“In coloradocity/hildale it is ilegal to drive an atv on public roads unless you have rearview mirrors and all the other stuff that makes it legul. If an officer sees you he will stop you.”
They will stop you if you “arent” FLDS, right? We’ve seen too many pictures to buy that story.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 5:22 AM
On July 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm Hugh McBryde Said:
So, um, (******). You get a green card or a full boat citizenship?
Bring that lady in from overseas or no?
Then when he continues to lose the argument:
“A mail order (********) bride ? What about the (*********) one ?
It seems Hugh opened up his own pandora’s box – this posted as a reply to his recent complaint of how unfairly he has been treated – oh and his bald faced lie, “I dont stalk people”.
Seems that not long after the above exchange, he had to “come clean” about his years of wife abuse.
Some turn the other cheek to wife abusers and bullies. Others dont. Thats just a fact of life.
The good thing that comes out of this? Its now public knowledge, what kind of person Hugh is.
If anyone still wondered what getting involved with a “Polygynyst” would be like… Its not all Kody and Concubines…
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:00 AM
Not like I haven’t been wrong before, but I really don’t see the charges being dropped.
Being “soft” on polygamy doesn’t sell well with the Republican base.
Ron in Houston said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:44 AM
Given that Wendell gave away an underage step daughter in marriage, I don’t think the charges will be dropped. As for marrying the three elderly ladies on the same day, the sentence might be a slap on the wrist compared to previous sentences handed out for marrying and impregnating teens.
S. said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:53 AM
From Hughs latest “Yes it is” post, in one of his comments he says
“Repeatedly it is stated that I “stalk” members of the opposition. I do not.”
Well, thats a big fat lie, huh, Hugh?
Ask Marty Braemer.
Another one of his stalking victims. Hugh stalked Marty, his wife and alleged mistress all over the place.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:15 AM
or ask Lt Maggie Santos.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:49 AM
In the above episode of Polygamy : What Love is This ?
Enoch and Jennie Dutson are interviewed regarding their departure from the FLDS.
The two of them fell in love as teenagers in Colorado City and conceived a child.
They requested permission to marry, and they were refused by “the Prophet” despite the fact that Jennie was pregnant with Enoch’s child.
Jennie was to be “assigned” in marriage to an older man whom she did not know – which caused her to exit the FLDS with Enoch.
We are told repeatedly by FLDS religious authorities that underage marriage of girls is necessary to prevent promiscuity.
I don’t think that is the reason why – I think that underage marriage is required by the leadership to prevent teenage girls from meeting someone their own age, falling in love, and making their own decisions regarding marriage.
This video makes it clear that marriage assignments in the FLDS are not about love, family unity, or happiness.
Marriage assignments are all about shunting young women to older men as a “prize” or “reward” for obedience to the Prophet.
S. said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Yes, perhaps someone should give Lt. Santos a call.
Stalked said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Interesting story. So, it’s not all about being “pure”, apparently.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:10 AM
FLDS underage marriage has NOTHING to do with purity.
It is about CONTROL of young women and rewarding older men with younger women.
Watch the video which is an hour long interview with the ex FLDS married couple if you get a chance.
We are always told that there is some conflict of interest in the apostate narratives – the apostates are writing a book, getting paid for tv appearances, making a movie, etc. – thus the apostates are not credible.
The married couple in this video have NO financial conflicts of interest – which is what makes it all the more interesting.
S. said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Call Maggie Santos, her partner, and her supervisors.
I am sure they have an interesting tale to tell.
Once Stalked said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:18 AM
Thats a perfect example of the way these “Plygger Patriarchs” work.
They think they own everybody. Well it looks like the infamous plyggers like Tony Alamo, Warren and gang owe “SOCIETY” a lot of years in prison.
Stamp said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Yeah, I bet the CSPD has a lot to say on the matter. They could share.
Stamp said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM
It’s never really been about “purity”, Anon4now. It’s always been about locking up the pretty girls to old men before they mature enough to ask the logical questions like “Why do I need to marry some guy with 3 other wives already?” or “Why would a loving God expect me and my children to share one man with lots of other wives and children?” things like that.
Rebeckah said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Thanks for the link S. It is very enlightening.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM
I think that romantic love is like KRYPTONITE to the concept of coercive religious polygyny.
It is a powerful bond which can make both men and women unafraid of even eternal damnation.
That is why the religious hierarchy of the certain fundamentalist polygynous groups fear LOVE.
S. said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:36 AM
S, Wendell married Veda Barlow and Margaret Lucille Jessop on 2/7/06 and then married Ilene Jeffs, sister to Warren, on 6/8/06. All were adults. I think the reason these marriages were chosen out of all of Wendell’s marriages was because these all took place in Schleicher County.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:39 AM
These women were all > 50 yrs of age and post menopausal, so it was unlikely that he had a sexual relationship with them – is that correct ?
S. said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Well said, S. I am thinking of advice given to a certain Italian prince.
“This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours. They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used. Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you. “
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:43 AM
What is the official Mormon fundamentalist position on sexuality after menopause ? Is it forbidden, discouraged, or permitted ?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:47 AM
I’m not sure what the Flds view on that is. Didn’t Allan Keate write a letter to Warren asking that very question.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:53 AM
I believe he did – what was the response ?
I believe that intercourse is not to take place during menses, lactation, and pregnancy – but what is the official position regarding menopause ?
Question 2 – would Wendell be considered to be legally married to these women if the marriages were never consummated because the women were menopausal ?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:13 AM
He’s not LEGALLY married to any of them. He’s “purporting” to be married to them.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM
Where are our resident ex FLDS oracles – do they know the answers to these questions?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM
I guess my question is if Wendell can truly be a bigamist if none of these three marriages was indeed consummated
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Since sex is (supposed to be) strictly for the purpose of procreation, post-menopausal coitus is greatly frowned upon if not downright wicked.
Older women who are displaced by widowhood – or Warren’s freaking family breakups – are sealed to other men so that they will be taken care of corporeally and spiritually.
On the other hand, they become extremely useful to their “new” families for childcare, cooking, cleaning, to continuing to contribute their usefulness and talents, etc.
Sexually, they are “supposed” to be off-limits – in the strictest adherence to the Law of Chastity.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Consummation would have no effect on whether the marriage would support a bigamy conviction. About the only time that consummation is an issue is whether two people must divorce or whether they can have a marriage annulled.
Ron in Houston said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Sex after menopause varies for women everywhere. Some women have very active sex lives after menopause, and some are relieved to be “done with it”. Since the very large number of wives is an anomoly even in the FLDS, I suspect that the law of chastity is observed more in the breach than in the observance, pun intended. Also, researchers have found a strong link between women who were happy with their sex lives before menopause and those who continue to have sex after wards. I’m just guessing that prescription and over the counter aids to help with lubrication and thinning vaginal walls and thus enhance the positive experience of sex after menopause are not high on the list of priorities in polygamist families. Without those, many women may not be interested since they would find it painful. Real info would be nice, especially for those who try to collect scientific data about family life in polygamy.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Anon 10:42 – Very interesting, I wonder if that command or law is actually obeyed (?)
Here is a discussion from a law journal of the Sister Wives Program and the potential issue of prosecution for bigamy –
S. said this on October 5, 2010 at 10:48 AM
“Anon 10:42 – Very interesting, I wonder if that command or law is actually obeyed (?)”
Good question – and one that would be very hard to assess given the secretiveness of FLDS. Even I cannot answer that question.
Talk of sexuality among family members is verboten; at least it was in my ex-family. I left pre-menopausal and have never had the experience of speaking with post-menopausal exes. I only know that if a woman says, “No,” he is supposed to respect it whether she’s fertile or not. If an older woman still wants to have sex, both are at risk for not obeying the Law. But who’s to know, eh? It’s just that god is watching….
exFLDS_Anon10:42 said this on October 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Oh, my, Mr Medvecky is mad.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Started out that way, nothings changed!
Stamp said this on October 5, 2010 at 11:52 AM
LOL. Right you are.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 11:53 AM
What did Bile do now ?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM
Easy enough to check for yourself, Anon. Apparently, someone reported him for posting child pornography.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:17 PM
So he went and – posted a bunch of pictures of naked children.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM
I just checked – so he is telling them to “bring it on …”
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Yeah. That would not have been my choice.
I’ve never thought it was ‘cute’ to photograph naked children, but then it’s not necessarily pornography, either. I can completely understand letting 3 year-olds play naked in a kiddie pool that is protected from view. I don’t understand the desire to pull out a camera and preserve that moment. Sharing them with your family is one thing, but posting them on the internet? Yes, your body is nothing to be ashamed of, but that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to share it’s awesomeness with everyone in all contexts. Several of his pictures are at least in very bad taste, IMHO, and no, they do not excite me. If I had an uncle who pulled out a camera every time my kids were in the tub, I would keep an eye on him and not invite him over at bath time, nor would I let him babysit. Many people I know won’t post their children’s photos on Facebook just for fear of predators and that’s WITH their clothes on.
I know it’s picky of me, but the part of female anatomy that you can see when she is standing up is NOT a vagina. If you are going to use an anatomical name, then use the correct one. You could just call it genitalia if you can’t be bothered to find out what the terms really mean.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Correct the term is vulva
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Just when you thought Bill had pegged the needle on the Whackymeter!
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Again, whatever your opinions of Bill – he has a very valid point.
This whole “child pornography” idea has gotten way out of hand. All it takes is one lame brained drug store clerk and some jerk DA and you could very well find yourself looking at a major felony.
There is definitely a “when good laws go bad” side to this.
Ron in Houston said this on October 5, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Well, I see children – being children. Its too bad their cute faces landed is such a nasty place though.
What would Warren Jeffs see? A wife in a few short years?
I guess its the latter folks who get people concerned. They’re out there too.
On a good note, the “Times Square attempted bomber” just got life.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM
Oh, please, Ron! He’s not seriously arguing what is or isn’t child pornography and you know it! He’s accused THIS site of posting child pornography for the picture of WSJ and his 12 year old bride kissing, which was entered as evidence in open court and which has been posted also on numerous news papers and news blogs all over the nation and the internet! He’s accusing this blog of HIPAA violations for posting WSJ dictations in which WSJ mentions that Granny Mary Sue No Last Name had a back ache and wanted to go to the doctor! And he didn’t just accuse this site on his blog, but a copy of a letter that he wrote is circulating the internet that went to the campus police at UNT and to the Texas AG! He’s claimed online that he made those reports as well.
Then when the tables are turned on him, he’s getting all philosophical about what is or is not child pornography and quoting the law! If he has a point, then that point applies to those who think the FLDS should be prosecuted for their crimes as well as to those who do not! IMHO, the “point” is on the top of his head!
Betty said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:01 PM
My point is not to defend Bill. It is that child pornography laws have gotten to the “insane” side of the equation.
Example – lets say a virus downloads a couple of child pornography pictures on your computer. Let’s say you take it down to the local computer shop to get the virus fixed and while they’re working on it, they see the pictures.
Boom, you could easily be arrested and charged with a serious felony. Oh you might win when you finally get to tell it to a judge but with 10 to 50 K of bond fees, lawyer fees, and other things, it won’t feel like much of a victory even if you do win.
While the example I give is hypothetical, there are real cases with very similar facts.
Ron in Houston said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM
Well, yes, I agree with you as far as that goes, it just doesn’t go very far for me.
Betty said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:16 PM
And I’m sure the context of the comment didn’t sit well with you either.
Ron in Houston said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:25 PM
The FOB – Friends of Bill – are going to prison for real crimes though.
Thats a good thing. To flaunt naked children in this context is pretty whacked.
He isnt defending a father who took pictures of his kids playing naked.
He’s defending convicted child molesters on that site.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Does anyone really believe Wild Bill’s claim that the Super Secret “KS” Society called CPS on him ?
Does anyone here really believe that a conspiratorial group called “KS” actually exists ?
The “KS” is a product of Bill’s imagination
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Bill found Crack in his Lucky Charms too!
Isnt life grand when you can blame your ills on something intangible?
Thats almost as fun as saying the Government has no right to force you to have a Drivers License!
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:32 PM
I especially liked the whacked out post about the government having no right to force you to have a driver’s license to legally drive. That one’s about as whacked out as they come.
As for ponoBill, he’s a whacked out whack job.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM
What I can’t figure out about is why Bill thinks someone on this site turned him in. Cupcake could have just as easily done it. I mean Cupcake’s a piece of work. Have you ever noticed that no matter what the topic something similar or worse has happened to her in some shape or fashion.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM
What exactly is “KS” supposed to mean?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Kansas?? I don’t know…
ellie said this on October 5, 2010 at 4:23 PM
None of us know what “KS” means or stands for either.
That’s what’s so funny about it.
Whatever happens to the PPSG that they don’t like – the “KS” is responsible for it.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 4:25 PM
Well, when you start mixing up little bits of facts with large bits of paranoia, throw in a little whimsy and conjecture….you end up with fruit salad conspiracy theories.
Betty said this on October 5, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Yeah. Not particularly meaningful at this time.
Betty said this on October 5, 2010 at 5:07 PM
It is one thing to say “KS” refers to people of a certain political or philosophical bent who post on blogs … but it is definitely PARANOID to say that there is a conspiratorial group of people who are actively plotting against those who support FLDS or other polygamous groups by calling government agencies, etc.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 5:27 PM
This is so sad. It reminds me of a story I heard about how Darby loves Mary, but Mary hates Darby. And then Malcolm ends up in the middle.
However, I’m not paranoid. I know they’re watching me.
Paranoid said this on October 5, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Well put, Anon at 5:27 PM.
Paranoid, you are well named.
Betty said this on October 5, 2010 at 5:46 PM
I’m NOT Sparticus….
Sparticus said this on October 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Paranoid would be applicable to you, Anon 5:43 pm
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:01 PM
… there is a conspiratorial group of people who are actively plotting against those who support FLDS or other polygamous groups by calling government agencies, etc.
I’m not sure. I do remember someone or the other wanting to call CPS over some lady speaking out at Warren’s extradition hearing. It didn’t make sense to me at the time cause that had nothing to do with child abuse or neglect.
Alinusara10 said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:06 PM
This is all too too childishly funny, delusional.
GrannyToad said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:11 PM
The woman in question from the Kingston group had allowed her daughter to be beaten by her husband when the daughter refused to marry her uncle.
The woman in question was instructed by a judge that she was not to have contact with any polygamy group as part of her release agreement. So why is she in a tape recorded interview advocating for Warren Jeffs in violation of said agreement ?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:25 PM
You are much too funny – you expect us to believe you are a Southern Baptist from Tennessee – come clean, you’re FLDS repenting from afar.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Don’t you know better than to challenge the delusions of a paranoid ?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Alin wrote “I do remember someone or the other wanting to call CPS over some lady speaking out at Warren’s extradition hearing.”
True. The paranoid conspiracy part is that you are assuming that the person who called was connected to the FLDS topic, among other things. Then you assume that there is a conspiracy, which would mean that a group of people planned it, consented to it and then assigned someone the task of making that complaint. And there is absolutely no information to back all that up. Certainly, if there were such a conspiracy I was not involved and no one I know has confessed to it, either.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:37 PM
ONE person stated that he/she/it would make the call to CPS.
That is NOT a group of people, nor is it a GROUP conspiracy.
This INDIVIDUAL only made that decision after it was demonstrated that the woman in question from the Kingston group was in violation of a court order.
No one has the right to violate a court order – and it is the duty of law abiding citizens to report a violation of the law when they see a violation taking place.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM
Actually one should challenge delusions. One ought not argue with a drunk or psychotic person for sure.
GrannyToad said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Regarding karma ….
Since Medvecky’s and Hugh’s scorched earth campaign to out TxBluesman, Hugh has been threatened with charges for stalking or harassing UNT employees and Bill has been visited by law enforcement and CPS because of inappropriate pictures of children he is hosting. They and MrScottyL have now been sued by a police officer in Texas.
Wonder if they think it’s worth it now? Wonder what might happen next 🙂
Anonagain said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous at 6:53 has spoken the truth. There is too much assuming going on from all points of the compass.
Anon4now said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Who could have made the report about Bill to CPS?
Well, since he has put himself front and center by filing a complaint against the police officer he thinks is TBM, that police department would have to conduct some kind of investigation — in the process, certainly they would look closely at the complainant as well. In so doing, if they came across photos on his website that inappropriately or illegally depict children, the law enforcement officers have a duty under the law to make a report to CPS.
I do not think it’s unreasonable at all to think that is how Bill ended up being reported to CPS.
The irony ….
Anonagain said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:14 PM
I don’t think that the pictures Bill posted are pornographic, but I don’t think the photos are appropriate for an open website to be viewed by all. It invites trouble.
But he has a habit of doing that.
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM
I don’t usually feel the need to discuss Bill and Hugh…however, I foun interesting new gibberish from the Bill blah— [OK, I admit to peeking at the insanity]….
This computer wont let me send a link, so here is a teaser from Hugh’s insane blah–where I found it sev hrs ago.
And I quote…. “The prick has lost his job, now blames us for his crime” It continues…”Texas blues man has been told to hang his gun by the UNT, and went judge shopping to find a judge willing to exonerate his crimes and stalking of those he does not agree with on the internet and those people whose religion he is not approving of….” It goes on and ends with …”I intend on taking it to Federal Court”.
Some interesting comments added by some familiar ‘faces’ are at the bottom.
mc1199 said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:50 PM
mc ..what are the comments? I don’t want to wade through the muck over there.
Anonagain said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:54 PM
So anonagain, You are saying that either bill reported himself to cps or hugh reported bill, by their actions re: trying to out TBM. All I can say is that cps investigating bill is well desrved and over due. It is also wonderful and rich irony. ROFL!!
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:57 PM
I’ll try and send them from home– work computer wont allow me to do certain stuff–but, suffice to say…duane and alin added their nickels worth of ‘wisdom’. I’ll try and link the whole thing from home, in about 30-45min..unless someone else beats me to it.. Going home now.
mc1199 said this on October 5, 2010 at 7:59 PM
In the preceding post, Ms Foster was ordered by a court to cut all ties with the Kingston group in order to maintain custody of her children.
So what did Ms Foster do at Warren Jeffs’ trial ?
She identified herself as a member of the Kingston group, a violation of her court ordered custody agreement, with videotape rolling.
See the link above.
She (Ms. Foster) is the same woman who allowed her husband to beat her daughter into unconsciousness because the underage girl refused to marry her uncle.
This is a responsible parent in your eyes, Alinusara ?
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM
If the CPS is investigating Bile as a result of the outing of TBM, all I can say is Karma has come full circle.
Loving this !
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:13 PM
OMG – this is un-frigging believable. Actually this could be a major lawsuit since it deals with the rights and responsibilities of bloggers.
Oh, and need I say – karma is a bitch.
Ron in Houston said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:27 PM
ehhh… Bill, you have some ‘spaining to do… I’m just sayin’
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:34 PM
Sorry Bill, that’s you got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do….
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM
OMG – I knew Mad Bill was Mad, hence the title, but never knew the extent until now.
Anny Moose said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM
K, I’ll try and find the link I quoted earlier. My laptop [which , in dogs years, is OLD] HATES Hugh’s site, it slows to a deadly crawl. Back in a bit….I hope.
mc1199 said this on October 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM
Ok, I hope this works….. and, I guess from reading this…that the thought is, he outted someone NOT TBM???
mc1199 said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:01 PM
We don’t know. Probably an innocent bystander was outted – again
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:05 PM
The peeps at FLDS Texas have nothing to do with your FBI/CPS visit.
The woman in this link reported you to the FBI about 5 months ago when you used a photo of one of her children taken from Facebook
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:08 PM
So much for the wild conspiracy theories about a mythical group called “KS” looks like Bill shot himself in the foot this time
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Just the time and effort spent on an OBCESSSION [of outting TBM ad/or others]is overwhelming! His life must be awfully empty..and fueled by..hatred?
mc1199 said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Score So Far : Credibility of Pro – Polygamy Support Group Bloggers : NONE !
Anonymous said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM
and Alin has been patiently explaining the law to TBM. HOWLING with laughter!
Betty said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Yes, I found that extremely amusing. Even if he meant he was tryng to explain the law to Bill..it’ still funny…since it seems to me he usually got things wrong, most times, anyway. Then again, I could be wrong.
mc1199 said this on October 5, 2010 at 9:28 PM
Yeah, alin of “we was discussing” fame trying to act like a legal scholar. OMG.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 12:38 AM
Alinusara10, are you from the Centennial Park Mormon polygamous group that is cut from the same cloth as the FLDS?
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:15 AM
“The woman in question was instructed by a judge that she was not to have contact with any polygamy group as part of her release agreement. So why is she in a tape recorded interview advocating for Warren Jeffs in violation of said agreement ?”
No my friend apparently someone was incensed about her exercising her 1st amendment rights because here is the real agreement.
“In October 2004, a 3rd District court judge in Salt Lake City ordered Heidi Mattingly Foster to cut all ties with the Kingston Clan.”
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:28 AM
and in the video, she identifies herself as a member of the Kingston polygamy group.
That is what the source of her problem is
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:32 AM
There is no First Amendment right to be a member of the Kingston group, my friend.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:34 AM
There is no First Amendment right to be a member of the Kingston group, my friend.
Yes and no my friend. You and I may not necessarily be a member of the Kingston group but we can identify ourselves as such to our hearts content.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:44 AM
I think you just insulted the CP people anon@1:15am. Considering the fact that they run a fairly profitable business and have figured out how to make money from all the publicity that the FLDS group brings, I’d say they were pretty smart cookies.
Alin10 on the other hand, not so much.
Anny Moose said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM
Earth to Scott – Earth to Scott – you’re being sued. Next time you talk to Hugh, make sure you thank him.
Stalked said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM
Yeah, you can. And if there is a court case saying that you are not to associate with a particular group and keep custody of your children and your heart’s content has led you to say that you are, then you might just have some explaining to do to the court about whether or not you are a danger to your children. You can use your first amendment rights to tell a friend about how you killed someone, too. And it’s not a violation of your first amendment rights for your friend to inform the cops of your little confession or for the cops to investigate based on that confession!
Really, are you stupid or stubborn or both?
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:55 AM
but the fact is Alin that if a member of the Kingston group breaks the law they need to be reported. That is exactly what that Foster woman did, she violated a court order and that is breaking the law.
Anny Moose said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:55 AM
Yeah Scott, when Mama finds out, be sure you blame your good friends Bill and Hugh.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:56 AM
good point 4now.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:57 AM
“Yes and no my friend. You and I may not necessarily be a member of the Kingston group but we can identify ourselves as such to our hearts content.”
If you are under a court order to leave an abusive group to retain custody of your children – but you dont leave – dont be surprised if the court removes your children.
You one of those who think parents can beat them kids to within an inch of their life if they disobey?
Stamp said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:57 AM
The webpage posted on this topic can stay there for all eternity, if you like. It made my day. I have long suspected that Bill chopped his photos from where ever he could find them and I’m glad to see I was right. Although the idea of him sitting around surfing the internet for cute kid pictures is more than a little disturbing.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:00 AM
The woman has a court order to cut all ties with the Kingston group.
She identifies herself in the video as a member of the Kingston group.
She is therefore in violation of a court order.
That’s all there is to it, my friend.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:02 AM
The woman has a court order to cut all ties with the Kingston group.
She identifies herself in the video as a member of the Kingston group.
She is therefore in violation of a court order.
Not really. First of all she may have a court order stating no contact with the Kingston group that the media may have interpret as cutting all ties. She may have identified herself as being a former member of the Kingston group which the media identified as current member. She may be in violation of a court order and busy bodies ran and tattled for all I know. All I know is merely speaking out at court is not child abuse and neglect. Which is fine if someone wants to be a little tattletale but don’t try to convince me that your motives are pure and benovelent.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:29 AM
Ah, well, stubborn seems to be the answer.
Alin, if you were driving down a country road and you saw on the side of the road a gun battle going on around someone’s home, would you call the cops? Or would you just say that was a group of people exercising their right to bear arms and if you reported it you’d be a “busy body”?
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:36 AM
Alin, if you were driving down a country road and you saw on the side of the road a gun battle going on around someone’s home, would you call the cops?
I would call the cops in that situation because one of those bullets may hit me. If I was driving down a country road and saw someone sitting in a hammock smoking a joint then probably not for two reasons. First of all it may be tobacco. Secondly, it may very well be marijuana but since the guy isn’t driving it doesn’t hurt me.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:41 AM
So, it’s all about you. I see. No need to protect innocents from losing their lives by calling for help. If the house was on fire would you call the fire department or would you figure it wasn’t going to harm you so why get involved?
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:48 AM
Al, you must be a pretty good contortionist to be able to find a benign answer to every thing polygamist
hellohellogoodbye said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:57 AM
Alin you hypocrite, Ms. Foster allowed her teenage daughter to be beaten unconscious for the “crime” of non marrying her own uncle.
Her husband was incarcerated, and she was ordered to cut all ties to the Kingston group.
If she is still a member or if she has returned, she is in violation of that order and her other children are in jeopardy.
We have every reason to believe that she is in violation of this order, due to the fact that she self – identifies with the Kingston group with the camera running, producing evidence.
Why is it that you view women and children as disposable, abusable objects who just don’t matter ?
So someone who reports a concern to a government agency is not “pure or benevolent” ?
You are simply a coward Alinusara, without compassion, ethics, or morals.
What’s wrong with you, guy ?
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:00 AM
Alin is not a Centennial Parker, he has stated on another blog that he has been praying for Warren Jeffs’ release.
Someone from Centennial Park wouldn’t do that, they view Warren Jeffs as an embarrassment.
Alin is just an ex-ed FLDS member repenting from afar… see no evil, hear no evil…
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:03 AM
If the house was on fire would you call the fire department or would you figure it wasn’t going to harm you so why get involved?
I would call 911
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:05 AM
So you admit that you would make a call if you were concerned about someone’s safety.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:17 AM
“Foster is no longer under the scrutiny of DCFS, and has become an activist with the pro-polygamy group Principle Voices. She spoke out at a polygamy summit held last month in St. George.”
I was sort of curious so I looked her up.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:18 AM
So you admit that you would make a call if you were concerned about someone’s safety.
Sure why not? You’d rather I didn’t?
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:19 AM
and she self identifies as a member of the Kingston group on a video – as well as being a member of the “Principle Voices”
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:20 AM
No Alinusara, I would prefer it if you did – and Ms Foster needs to be checked into again too.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:21 AM
If Ms. Foster is no longer associated with the Kingston Group, she has nothing to fear.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:23 AM
Alin, child abuse threatens the safety of children. A mother who allows her husband/church group to harm her children is also threatening their safety. It’s EXACTLY the same thing. Innocent lives are at risk. So, if it’s a fire, you call 911, but if someone wants to beat their teen age daughter unconscious, that’s a constitutional right and none of your business. Why?
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:25 AM
Forget it Betty, he sees women and children as expendable.
If they are injured and abused, it really doesn’t matter.
It has to do with his upbringing.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:29 AM
It’s not that they are expendable. It’s that they are property. So if a man wants to dispose of his property, it’s none of Alin’s business and should not be a crime. And any one who interferes is a “busybody” on par with those who would gossip about how often he cuts the grass.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:32 AM
Very good point Betty.
If Ms. Foster is not affiliated with the Kingston group, she has nothing to fear either.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:36 AM
So, if it’s a fire, you call 911, but if someone wants to beat their teen age daughter unconscious, that’s a constitutional right and none of your business. Why?
When exactly did you quit beating your wife? Speaking out in court is neither child abuse nor neglect.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:59 AM
If you say in court that you regularly beat your wife, then it is a confession of abuse and should be investigated. If you confess in court that you are violating an order from a different court that is in place to protect your children from abuse, don’t blame someone else if you get in trouble over it.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:02 AM
So what Alinusara ? if she is non – affiliated with the group, she has nothing to worry about.
I question the parenting skills of anyone who would consent to their daughter being beaten or forced to marry a close relative.
The Kingston group is not a wholesome place to raise a child.
They specialize in incest.
Maybe Alin likes that.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM
She should be all right from what I gather. The temporary restraining order expires after a year. If I want to call another person a little tattletail over a nonissue. such as exercising freedom of speech, don’t blame anyone else.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:10 AM
Sorry I am late to arrive at this dust – up, but I thought someone might be interested in this online video statement of a former member of the Kingston group. I am sure Alinusara – 10 will be interested, because he is a Southern Baptist.
S. said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:19 AM
“When exactly did you quit beating your wife? Speaking out in court is neither child abuse nor neglect.”
Violation of a court order would be violation of a court order. Since said court order was clearly intended to protect children then if the woman violated it (and I don’t claim to know that one either way) then she was endangering her children in addition to violating her sworn word. I would consider that to be something definitely worth mentioning to the authorities. Heck, the other day I passed an altercation between two families where one man was claiming that he told the cops he’d “take care of you myself”. I called 911 because I was worried it would escalate. Am I a tattle tale? Perhaps, but I thought the police should know about a situation that had the potential to turn into something really nasty. I don’t know what they did with the information because all I cared about was notifying the proper people to assess and handle the incident — beyond that it was of no interest to me.
Rebeckah said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:36 AM
It’s always good to get the insights of trained professionals in difficult situations, Rebeckah.
You did the right thing.
S. said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:40 AM
A court order from domestic court relative to child custody is not a TRO. I agree with S that it’s up to trained professionals to decide whether or not it’s a nonissue, and it’s perfectly reasonable to notify them that maybe they should evaluate that. If there’s a problem, then they will deal with it. If not, no harm no foul.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Who is feeling dumb today?
Dimwits said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Betty said : A court order from domestic court relative to child custody is not a TRO.
Excellent point, Betty. I wonder if Ron could expound further on this.
S. said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Looks like Hugh McDimwit alrighty!
Stamp said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:12 AM
I’ll use biology terms
You have the order of “Court orders”
You could then have the families of “Injunctive orders” and “General Orders.”
Things like TRO’s, temporary injunctions, and permanent injunctions would all be in the family of injunctive orders.
Just about anything else would be in the family “General Orders.” Those would include orders on motions that people file, temporary orders, final orders, discovery orders, etc.
Custody orders are general orders of the court. They can be divided down into temporary and permanent orders. As part of a custody order, you can have an injunctive order included in the custody order.
In the end, they are all ORDERS. They command, they restrict people’s behaviors. Violation of those orders can subject the person to various punishments up to and including jail for contempt of court.
Ron in Houston said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Thanks Ron –
Isn’t today the day for Wendell’s hearing ?
Is there any news yet ?
S. said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM
“If there’s a problem, then they will deal with it. If not, no harm no foul.”
Having twice spoken to CPS representatives over non-issues with my children I will wholeheartedly agree. Once it was simple ignorance on the part of the person calling and the other was a sincere (if thankfully mistaken) concern about sexual abuse. I was grateful that some stranger (I never knew who called in either instance) was looking out for my children.
Rebeckah said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:29 AM
The Kingston group may be the wealthiest polygamist group in Utah. Despite this, the plural wives apparently live in squalor.
Doesn’t sound like a sound environment for a child.
S. said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Wendell’s hearing got continued at the request of his counsel.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Is there a way to tell WHO writes those wikipedia entries?
AnonPlussed said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:45 AM
They are written collaboratively. On any Wikipedia page go to history and you can see who has been writing on the page.
Ron in Houston said this on October 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM
I see. Wow, lots of ISPs!
Thanks much, Ron.
AnonPlussed said this on October 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Ummmm… not ISPs: I meant IP addresses.
AnonPlussed said this on October 6, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Alin’s viewpoint is that ANYTHING that goes on behind closed doors or in a walled compound is not the government’s business.
As for women and children who are being physically, sexually, and mentally abused behind closed doors – they are just “the price of freedom.”
Anon E Mouse said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Yeah, just a few days ago I choked on the comment that the price of handguns (as freedom) are the collateral deaths of many children, but it is a price we pay for freedom….
hellohellogoodbye said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM
As for women and children who are being physically, sexually, and mentally abused behind closed doors – they are just “the price of freedom.”
If you want the state to come into your house once a week to do a welfare check on you and your family go for it. After all, your family could be undergoing abuse that we are unaware of.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Any governmental agency is welcome in my home and my office at any time.
I have done nothing wrong, and I have nothing to hide.
S. said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Al doesn’t know anything about normal people like us. Thieves think everyone steals, liars think everyone lies.
GrannyToad said this on October 6, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Prosecutors and police always tell the truth. Oops! Mike Nifong.
Alinusara10 said this on October 6, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Trying to reason and discourse with alin is like trying to discuss things with a fence post. Just not worth the bother. Ignore the troll.
Anon De Luna said this on October 6, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Yes, I got another cortisone shot. I probably will not be posting for a day or so, cause percosets and the internet do not mix.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 2:41 PM
OMG, just read Medvecky’s most recent. The retaliation from the Sargeant in Texas is part of…..a CONSPIRACY to silence those who oppose the treatment of the FLDS! What a surprise! It couldn’t possibly be because actions have consequences, nor could it be the action of one person who has been harmed by irresponsible behavior. NOPE. It’s a conspiracy to silence the righteous defenders of the constitution.
This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. OK. No. It’s funny AND sad. And, no, I have not had any pain killers. Yet.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Nice quote from Mike Nifong, however, as a Southern Baptist, you should know that you are commanded by Scripture to be obedient to governmental authorities at all times – See Romans 13 : 1 – 5. So if you are truly a Christian, you should welcome any governmental agency into your home whenever they request to visit.
It’s that simple if you are really an Evangelical as you claim.
I’m surprised that a Baptist such as yourself views the Kingston group as an appropriate place for children to be raised, given their long history of arranged coercive marriage and the practice of incest. You are truly unique among Baptists.
S said this on October 6, 2010 at 3:00 PM
As for women and children who are being physically, sexually, and mentally abused behind closed doors – they are just “the price of freedom.”
If you want the state to come into your house once a week to do a welfare check on you and your family go for it. After all, your family could be undergoing abuse that we are unaware of.
My children don’t live at home any more, but if one of them were being victimized I would hope that someone, anyone, would step up and do the right thing and call for help.
Obviously you and other FLDS supporters have great difficulty accepting that the government considers wives and children to have rights as individuals above and beyond those assigned to them by a religious cult.
I would hope that anybody who had a legitimate suspicion that a child or adult needed protection would step up and do the right thing and make the call to make sure they are safe.
Anon E Mouse said this on October 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Liars lie. Thieves steal.
GrannyToad said this on October 6, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Anon E Mouse, I had a state psychologist show up at my door. One of my neighbors (don’t ask me who ’cause I never knew) called CPS and was VERY concerned that my 3 1/2 year old son was being sexually abused. The psychologist was there to conduct an interview with my son.
It turned out that my son, who wasn’t speaking terribly clearly yet, had told my neighbor “This is my penis — can’t play with it.” (we were teaching him about not playing with his privates in public, lol) but the neighbor hears “This is my penis — Keith play with it.” I was pretty grateful that my neighbor cared enough to call CPS on behalf of my son because if anyone named “Keith” had touched him inappropriately I’d sure want to see the guy locked away.
Al may think it’s “tattling” but I was certainly glad of my neighbor’s concern. I think an insistence on total freedom and/or privacy is something of a red flag. Honest people don’t generally worry about hiding their lives because they have nothing to hide.
Rebeckah said this on October 6, 2010 at 3:29 PM
With all due respect, I don’t consider Alin to be a “troll,” which is someone who disrupts forums simply to cause trouble.
He supports the FLDS and gives his reasons why. Of course it is ironic that he likes to wave the American flag over a religious cult that hopes and prays for the destruction of our democracy so it can be replaced with a dictatorial theocracy similar to the Taliban.
Anon E Mouse said this on October 6, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Raymond Jessop’s attorneys have filed yet another Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in his appeals case.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Looky there, Allen Keate’s attorneys have also filed a Motion for Extension of Time.
That’s because he is FLDS repenting from afar in Jackson, Tennessee.
He’s no Baptist.
S said this on October 6, 2010 at 4:36 PM
More attorneys billing to file for extensions – Ca Ching !
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 4:37 PM
I’ve heard that those “repenting from afar” don’t get asked back. Guess that could get kind of messy, what with their wives and children being given to other men.
So sad to see so many families torn apart just so Warren could solidify his power base.
Anon E Mouse said this on October 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM
I dont think any have gotten back before Warren got locked up.
I think pliggy H. got let back in tho, but that was after SkyWalker was behind bars and they needed more tithing chachingaling.
Anon a longo said this on October 6, 2010 at 5:18 PM
I think someone “repenting from afar” might get asked back if they suddenly came into a lot of money. Maybe Warren Jeffs should make it more clear that he really means “generating revenue from afar”.
ellie said this on October 6, 2010 at 5:18 PM
It’s easy to talk about the price of freedom when you aren’t the one paying it.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 5:24 PM
I wonder if they are trying to stall until after WSJ goes to court.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 5:51 PM
I love this site, but I’m with Alin on this one. I remember the “tattle tale” incident. Whatever poster it was was so exited about calling CPS over it. It just seemed like something Rosita Swinton would do. When she snitched on the YFZ, she wasn’t necessarily wrong, she may have even prevented abuse, but what she did was clearly unethical and that is why she is facing charges. If you are so concerned about preventing crime, put your money where your mouth is and drive to the nearest ghetto and make sure to call the cops every time you see a crime committed.
Sock Puppet said this on October 6, 2010 at 6:24 PM
If you are so concerned about preventing crime, put your money where your mouth is and drive to the nearest ghetto and make sure to call the cops every time you see a crime committed.
Oh goody. The old “leave the criminal polygamists alone because crimes are being committed by other people too” argument.
Anon E Mouse said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:02 PM
From the TMZ site: Brown and wives have a powerful new legal force behind them — TMZ has learned … constitutional law guru Jonathan Turley [a professor at The George Washington University Law School] is now representing the “Sister Wives” family in the polygamy investigation, and he’s willing to fight it all the way.
Turley would not say outright that he’ll make this a test case and push it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,
mc1199 said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Ever work or live in a ghetto, Sock Puppet?
and yeah, I called the police and CPS on more than one person.
and it helped.
pity you don’t have the courage to do it.
life in suburbia must be so tough.
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:24 PM
constitutional law guru Jonathan Turley [a professor at The George Washington University Law School] is now representing the “Sister Wives”
I bet Marci Hamilton could kick his a$$ in court.
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:34 PM
The tattletale scene y’all relate sounds very much like cupcake
GrannyToad said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:00 PM
h mmmmm m m m m
Y’know, isnt it sad that Utah cant get a grip on all the child abuse in that state?
I dont remember seeing that post, but it was made by a single person and not some group.
I guess if I knew my neighbor was on a court order not to behave a certain way, yet they continued to endanger their children, I would make the call too and let it be sorted out.
There are waves of crimes against children, and I wont let it happen in front of me and hopefully others wouldnt either.
Going on the news and blatantly telling a reporter the fact you are violating a court order protecting your kids is extra stupid.
She deserves to get turned in. She actually did it herself. Put the blame where it lies.
Its not like someone was snooping on her.
Stamp said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Sock Puppet is a sniveling coward – I’d like to see Sock Puppet actually spend a day or two in the ghetto, and see what is left of he/she/it after the day is through. I worked in a ghetto for 8 years. Get over yourself, coward.
When a court order demands that someone cut ties with a incestuous cult, that someone better do it. You don’t appear on TV announcing that you are a member of the cult, which is in essence telling the public and the government to “BRING IT ON”
If Ms. Foster wants to “BRING IT ON,” I’m sure there are folks unlike you, Sock Puppet, who actually have moral courage to pick up a phone and call. Now go crawl back under that nice, comfortable, suburban sofa you’ve been hiding under, sniveling creep.
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Bearcat said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Right now I live in the ghetto, actually. Any how, I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying so forget it. The childish name calling is a little over the top as well. This isn’t Junior High. I agree she is asking for it by going on T.V. It was just kinda disturbing to me to read those posts. That’s all.
Sock Puppet said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:36 PM
If anyone who knows and likes me wants to contact me, just say something here and I will give you my email address. After all, Hugh already has it, so no risk there.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:37 PM
This ain’t elementary school, Sock Puppet, honey.
Don’t throw around juvenile, insulting elementary school terms like “Tattle Tail” when you refer to concerned individuals who believe in taking action rather than hiding like you – and then you won’t get an earful about what we think of you.
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:46 PM
The “Tattle Tale” was in quotes, obviously referring to the earlier posts. Just because I am not a vigilante does not mean I am hiding. You have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think you’ve ever left pleasant-ville yourself.
‘Nuff said, not “Nuff said.
Sock Puppet said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:56 PM
“It was just kinda disturbing to me to read those posts”
Well no link is provided so its hard to see how outrageous it was – that said, I’ll repeat, the crimes against children in UTAH are OVER THE TOP
And I think you know that. Why would we want that as a society?
Stamp said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Sock Puppet, if you can’t take the heat, get out of my kitchen.
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:59 PM
And talk about “Tattle tales”
I remember, I think it was this year, two brothers are trying to get cops interested in arresting their father – for incest with a couple of their sisters – and having children with them in his perverted “pure seed” doctrine.
Downtown Cedar City. All day long, that bastard is still running free doing his things to his daughters and his children -slash-grandchildren.
Stamp said this on October 6, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Those two brothers are “tattle tails” and “vigilantes” Stamp.
Anon A Rama said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Tattle tale on your evil father – this guy is doing a good thing by turning his dad in and making this video. Cops wont do much though.
Stamp said this on October 6, 2010 at 9:03 PM
The tattle tales have first amendment rights as well. And that’s part of the balance of rights that eventually, we hope, end up with justice being served.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Whistleblowers have rights too. Violate their rights, and you will soon find yourself answering to the Office of the Special Counsel.
Anonymous said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Evil flourishes because good people are silent.
Anon4now said this on October 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Fathers impregnating their daughters is beyond evil.
Anon E Mouse said this on October 7, 2010 at 2:57 AM
And uncles impregnating their nieces is right up there too.
Not to mention half brothers and half sisters getting married –
the specialty of the Kingston clan.
But of course Alinusara thinks this is all ok, and anyone who goes whistleblower on these people is a “tattle tale”
Anonymous said this on October 7, 2010 at 6:00 AM
Interesting story on CNN:
Apparently polygamy is acknowledged as a way of the past, even in third world countries.
SwissieMom said this on October 7, 2010 at 7:22 AM
Good article, SwissieMom. I like the fact that the woman links polygamy with a lack of rights and other options for women.
Anon4now said this on October 7, 2010 at 8:10 AM
Wendell married 2 of his daughters, granddaughters of Rulon, off to their 1/2 uncles.
Anonymous said this on October 7, 2010 at 8:37 AM
Note that Swissie Mom’s article deals with so called Christian polygyny. The man had a built a church for his family.
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Betty said this on October 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM
BTW, I got a cortisone shot yesterday, the first one in this knee. It was much easier on me than previous experiences because he did not have to drain fluid off first. Oddly, about two hours after the shot I crashed and slept for three hours. Pain relievers in the shot??? Anyway, today I have red cheeks and red all on my neck and upper chest. Obvious allergic reaction.
Betty said this on October 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Betty, try taking 50mg of Benadryl and see if the rash goes away.
Anonymous said this on October 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Duh. Thanks. Sometimes I go right past the simple solution.
Betty said this on October 7, 2010 at 10:41 AM
which steroid was used ? methylprednisolone or triamcinolone ?
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Flushing may be seen after intraarticular injection of steroids as a side effect
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM
S. I have no idea. If this gets worse, or I start having asthma, etc., I’ll call his office and follow up. I have had reactions like this to prednisone before. Looks somewhat like a lupus mask. Thanks.
Sorry for the off topic posts, folks!
Betty said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Anon @10:35 am made a good suggestion. I concur.
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Polygamy was a norm in the East African nation during Akuku’s time.
While the practice was popular among his generation, it has slowly died out over the years.
Women have acquired more equality in the country, and most vow they would never marry a polygamist.
“I don’t care whether he is a king or a president,” said Janet Otieno, 25, who lives in Nairobi. “Those days are gone with our grandfathers, women are no longer as powerless as they were back then.”
This is good news. I wonder how many wives this guy acquired by bartering and swapping sisters, daughters and nieces with other men – which is what the FLDS do.
Anon E Mouse said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM
I think that once someone starts violating societal taboos regarding sexuality, they often don’t stop with just violating one taboo. Polygamy is often seen in tandem with incest, in fact the medical journals describe polygamy as a risk factor for incest. It is now politically incorrect to quote these journals, however.
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Consider this if the steroids don’t give you lasting relief –
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM
mc1199 said this on October 6, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Ok how many wives are enough for the “religion”. 3, 5, 7 or 80? If polygamy is ever legalized or decriminalized the law should be written to make it illegal for a religious leader to “dictate” who and how many wives the man can have.
Where is the FREEDOM IN THAT?
Mr. Brown is a salesman alright. He should of stayed underground.
Anonymous said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:36 AM
freedom to be a slave. I guess the next step is freedom to indulge in genital mutilation and foot wrapping.
Anon4now said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Brown’s first wife, Meri, has stated to the Huffington Post that the only reason she stays in the marriage is for the sake of her daughter, because she is heartbroken. Wife Number 3 doesn’t get along with Number 4.
Despite this, TLC continues to spin that they are just one big happy family.
They aren’t. What a sales job.
S. said this on October 7, 2010 at 11:59 AM
S. I think that once someone starts violating societal taboos regarding sexuality, they often don’t stop with just violating one taboo. Polygamy is often seen in tandem with incest, in fact the medical journals describe polygamy as a risk factor for incest. It is now politically incorrect to quote these journals, however.
I see it as a numbers game that leads inevitably to corruption. What if every male on earth believed he had a right to multiple wives? For every male with four wives, three would be deprived, and deprivation brings instability.
The only way it works is for more females to be available for fewer males. The FLDS solves this problem by getting rid of as many younger males as possible, and increasing the pool of available females by marrying their own nieces, siblings, and stepdaughters.
Joseph Smith didn’t think this through very well, but IMO his polygamous teachings were a result of his personal sexual desires, not any kind of “religious” enlightenment.
I mean come on, did God intend for humans to live like herd animals – with one alpha male guarding his harem against all other males, breeding with his own daughters and driving out his own sons?
Anon E Mouse said this on October 7, 2010 at 12:24 PM
The SL Trib sez that FLDS is trying again to get its hands on UEP Trust resouces, via get this!!! the US Supreme Court??
GrannyToad said this on October 7, 2010 at 12:31 PM
I saw that this morning GT. I think it should be illegal for Parker to collect money from the FLDS on anything having to do with getting the trust back since he’s the who convinced the State to take it over before it was lost.
Anonymous said this on October 7, 2010 at 12:43 PM
I hope that it’s speedy and gets it over with so that Wisan can move on and this lengthy freeze of inaction will be done with. My guess is that the Supreme Court will not hear it.
Anon4now said this on October 7, 2010 at 12:45 PM
I can’t think why it would, since a trust isn’t a religion. Not even in Utah it ain’t.
GrannyToad said this on October 7, 2010 at 1:10 PM
thanks for the great find Grannytoad! Thats freaking hilarious.
FLDS at the SCOTUS, round two. BZZZZZZZZZT
Stamp said this on October 7, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Even if they apply to be heard before SCOTUS, wont it still take years to be heard? The court just started it’s new session and announced it’s cases for the term [if I heard correctly on the news]. it’s not likely this will come before them for at least a year…or 2???
mc1199 said this on October 7, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Please continue on new thread Open Discussion #40
The Management 🙂
FLDS TEXAS said this on October 7, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Comments are closed.
Blog at WordPress.com.