~ by FLDS TEXAS on January 30, 2011.
Posted in The Evidence
How sleezy….don’t tell about marriage that took place at yfzippers…
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 10:08 AM
yup. His abandoned wives are behaving better and being obedient and he’s praying for them to be “worthy” while he lives in an apartment with a teenager. But it seems that middle aged women are seldom, by definition, worthy.
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 11:00 AM
OOPS…the first comment was made by me…didn’t know it was going to come up anonymous..???
Yep…furnished him with a teen-ager..guess that was his reward for leaving his family behind and heading to Texas.
I mean–why keep marriage a secret? Isn’t this what they do???
jobo said this on January 31, 2011 at 11:09 AM
I really think a lot of the people in Short Creek believe that the charges against those at YFZ are false. From some of the posts here, that seems to be the case. Apparently the word “sacred” means “probable cause for arrest warrant” in FLDS speak.
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Does it REALLY not BOTHER anyone that the administrators of this site broke the law when they posted this information? It reads right on it that Federal and State laws dictate the distribution of this material.
I guess anything goes as long as it’s popular with you all?
I, for one, am VERY, VERY CONCERNED!!
Me Again said this on January 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Me again, it was filed in a court case and is now public record.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Me Again, anytime something is filed in a court case it becomes public record and can be given out for the costs associated with copying it. This particular information was excerpted out of an affidavit that was filed in the Canadian Charter case (or whatever it’s called). The filings in that case are public record also.
You might not like that it’s out there because it shows what kind of scum the FLDS really are, but it isn’t against the law to download it, read it or put it on the web.
ProudTexan said this on January 31, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Legal or not, it is certainly unethical. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Flds are scum. Personal information should not be publically broadcast.
But what do you care? At least it isn’t yours or my information. WHEW!!
Me Again said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:38 PM
me again you’re a hoot. Keep the following in mind: you can legally believe anything you want to, but actions have consequences.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM
Why is it unethical?
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Me Again: Most states have open access laws that stipulate that public documents must be made available to the public upon request. More transparency in public affairs is good, not bad. If the flds do not want court documents about them made public, they simply need to obey the laws of the land.
chemist said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Guess we have a King hanging on my every word again.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Anon at 6:49…What on earth are you talking about?
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:55 PM
I’m talking about the ss#, birth date, etc. that shouldn’t have been made public. My point is that his age could have been made in another way.
It appears that most of you just want to FLDS-bash. Whatever gets the job done, huh?
I would be concerned if it was YOUR information was published in this way. I couldn’t care less the religion to which you or he subsrcibes.
Me Again said this on January 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM
You’re a hoot yourself, anon 6:45. If your saying that was intended to make me feel inferior, it was unsuccessful. You are intentionally being obtuse because you don’t want to awknowledge that I have a valid point and that, maybe, you wouldn’t appreciate them publishing your personal information. I wouldn’t wish the same thing to happen to you.
Me Again said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:02 PM
I think the birth date is pertinent to the charges because it establishes the differences in age. You may have a point with the social security number. But really, is someone going to do credit fraud on someone who is in jail for a very long time?
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:05 PM
Me Again said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:08 PM
You know, I really doubt that, Me Again. Inside an image on a special interest webpage is not where fraud crooks generally look for that sort of thing. And amateurs probably don’t know how to use it, so…I think that’s really, really far fetched. But I’m chatting with the admins about whether or not they can block that out.
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:25 PM
Me again, the information is already out there, it’s just being rebroadcast here.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:26 PM
Also, the document is not searchable for that information. I just tried “SSN” and got nothing.
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:30 PM
Me again has a valid point about the SS#, the court could have/should have blocked that. Otherwise though these crooks info can be public, they made the choices to break laws. M can take it up with the court.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:32 PM
Valid or otherwise, this document is exactly like it was attached to the affidavit in the Canadian case.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:51 PM
I would redact the social security number from the document before posting – consider also leaving the year of birth, but delete the month and day
Born in Brooklyn said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:53 PM
That seems reasonable. The court should be notified if they are disseminating private info.
That said, the best way to keep your private info private is to follow the law and keep your carcass out of court.
You start up a plygger church and imbibe in child molestation, who the heck knows what will happen, its all a gamble.
Stamp said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM
I would add to the comment above the following … if possible, redact the document.
Born in Brooklyn said this on January 31, 2011 at 7:54 PM
I would redact it if it was my document that I was posting, but since it isn’t, I think it should be posted as it appears in the affidavit it was taken from. If not, then there will be all sorts of “you’re changing documents to fit what you want them to fit” charges.
Me again is simply an FLDS apologist who doesn’t like the fact that so many of his fellow felons got caught with their zippers down.
ProudTexan said this on January 31, 2011 at 8:14 PM
By the way, Me Again, you might want to contact the government of British Columbia for making the affidavit public, including the social security numbers. Or maybe contact the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Assn for posting the unredacted affidavit online. The admins simply re-posted information readily available to the public by the government of British Columbia.
Nocturnal Anon said this on January 31, 2011 at 8:17 PM
You may not be able to convert the image to text anyway. It really depends upon how it was originally scanned and saved.
I agree, PT, on your assessment of the poster.
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 8:37 PM
Thanks for addressing that.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 9:37 PM
Here we go. Again.
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 9:39 PM
Betty said this on January 31, 2011 at 9:56 PM
Heh. None, not at all. Yourself, Betty?
Anonymous said this on January 31, 2011 at 11:22 PM
There is a level of amusement that Canadian courts are breaking US laws with impunity.
Uncle Thread said this on February 1, 2011 at 3:39 AM
Since Canada is a sovereign state they probably do not worry much about breaking US laws. Likewise, US courts do not worry about doing things that might be illegal in Pakistan.
chemist said this on February 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM
From the Warren Jeffs dictations in the file above:
“I was meeting
with Merril Jessop, his daughter RuIeen and her
mother, his wife Lydia. She entered mto the
covenants to help in the establishment of Zion and
to live the fulness of the United Order. Then I
informed her that the Lord wanted
married to Mike Emack.”
So much for the fairy tale affy davit that the flds gave that the women tell der profit when they are ready to marry.
Stamp said this on February 1, 2011 at 7:33 AM
And, no pressure, Stamp. She just had her mother, stepfather, and the Prophet staring at her waiting for her reply with no time to think about it. And the order went out immediately to get her an apartment.
Betty said this on February 1, 2011 at 7:41 AM
“So at 9:00 a ‘clock p.m. there was
present Merril Jessop, Allen Steed, Ernest Jessop
as witnesses with my scribe and Lydia the mother,
and there RuIeen Jessop was sealed to Michael
(Page 68 Record of President Warren Jeffs)
George Emack for time and all eternity, in my
office, the Lord doing it through Priesthood and·
the Spirit of God, and Mike Emack was just happy
and chipper and bubbly, very encouraged. I told
him he could no! tell his family in Short Creek
because what takes place on the lands of refuge is
sacred and secret, and he understood, and I ·had
Ernest Jessop find an apartment for them.”
Aint that just sweet and heart warming? Emack was all bubbly and chipper, he got himeself assigned a tweenie bopper wife!
Bet that made him feel young again?
Funny how Warren doesnt say how excited Ruleen was about it. I mean, this guy was 54 when they got married.
Stamp said this on February 1, 2011 at 7:55 AM
It is sort of like when we are told that Altman and Ginat’s book “Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society” is an “empirical study” of North American polygamy, and how satisfied women are living in polygamy. The women were interviewed by the authors in the presence of their husbands for the most part. What did you expect these women to tell the authors, other than something consistent with the command to “keep sweet”?
Born in Brooklyn said this on February 1, 2011 at 7:59 AM
And then there is the creepy part where he couldnt tell his other family about his new family, cuz its all sacred secret stuff, and we dont want to give them a new reason to pull their hair out, do we?
I think that “Keep Sweet” mantra only goes so far. Everybody has a line.
Stamp said this on February 1, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Yes…I think that is horrible that he was told not to tell his “other” family about his “new” family….just down right evil…
and we hear so much about how they are so family structured…yea right????!!!!
jobo said this on February 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM
This reminds me of when they moved to Texas – Warren forced the “chosen few” to tell no one, even their own friends and extended family, that they were “called” to R17 – under threat of being left back in Shortcreek.
Anyway, we watched the FLDS movie, came to the same conclusion:
No redeeming qualities.
Stamp said this on February 1, 2011 at 10:05 AM
Tell me again, who is that other, older, couple who each left behind families including children, they both lied and said they hadn’t any others?
Uncle Thread said this on February 1, 2011 at 10:18 AM
Zavanda Steed and Edson Porter Jessop, Jr.
Interestingly enough, Edson was supposed to get a child bride and at the last minute her father balked on it. Of course the father was immediately exed, but Edson needs to be thanking his lucky stars.
Edited by FLDS Moderator:
It should be Zavanda Johnson and Edson Porter Jessop, Jr.
Zavanda Steed is Allen Steed’s daughter. She was passed around like a piece of property. She was first married as a 19-year-old girl to your father. After he died she was given to Ron Rohbock with whom she had a son. When Ron was exed, she was given to your brother Leroy. She had a son with Leroy too. After Leroy was exed, she was given to your brother Isaac. Her and Ron’s son, Allen Rulon was killed when he was in a vehicle driven by another of Isaac’s wives, Barbara Joy (Merril’s daughter). Ron and his family weren’t allowed to attend the funeral. A grandson of Ron’s was also hurt in the accident. He was airlifted to Cook Hospital. They Rohbock’s weren’t allowed any information on that child either.
Zavanda Johnson is the mother who was married to Carl Young. She and Carl had 14 children (she was pregnant when Carl died). He died and she was remarried to Edson. She and Edson subsequently had 4 children. When they came to Texas, they left Zavanda’s older children in the Crick with other of Edson’s wives and only came with the 4 children they had together.
Anonymous said this on February 1, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Yep…I have often wondered about those kids that were left behind by Zavanda and Edson…how sad…
yep…Edson better kiss the Texas ground he stands on he did not get a child bride..tee-hee…
Strange for me to be on here at this time of day…usually at work…no work…icy roads…staying inside…
jobo said this on February 1, 2011 at 10:39 AM
If mike plead no contest, how is this public information?
cement said this on February 1, 2011 at 4:13 PM
They did a prove up of evidence at the hearing where he plead no contest.
Anonymous said this on February 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.