Another question about the FLDS in AZ

[KlondikeGeoff]

This thread has some very interesting information about the cult, but my question is different, so won’t hijack that.

Warren Jeffs did not get convicted in the AZ trial, but in Texas he got his just deserts. There they raided the place where they lived and took away most of the underage “wives” as I recall, in addition to arresting Jeffs.

They have been living in Colorado City in AZ for a long time, practicing polygamy, which must violate the law against bigamy. Yet, AZ authorities have never done anything about this, despite some poor women who did manage to escape and come to Phoenix. They gave detailed accounts of what is going on up there.

So, why in the merry hell have not all of these bigamists been arrested? What is scaring off the authorities in AZ?

[IAmNotSpartacus]

What leads you to believe that AZ authorities never did anything about Jeffs and his cult? They tried for a long time and were relatively successful in many areas especially in removing FLDS influence from local government in Colorado City & Hilldale.

[KlondikeGeoff]

@IAmNotSpartacus

What leads you to believe that AZ authorities never did anything about Jeffs and his cult? They tried for a long time and were relatively successful in many areas especially in removing FLDS influence from local government in Colorado City & Hilldale.

I did not write that “authorities never did anything about Jeffs…”

I am just interested in why many men there, who are breaking the law practicing polygamy, have not been arrested and prosecuted…

[FatBaldGuy]

Knowing that someone is breaking the law is one thing. Being able to get enough evidence to prove it in a court of law when everyone in the community refuses to talk to investigators is something else altogether.

[Simplicio]

I don’t think people are prosecuted for polygamy unless they actually try and file for marriage licenses with multiple woman. I doubt Jeffs would seek legal marriages, if for no other reason then the town clerk probably won’t issue licenses for twelve year-olds, so I imagine thats why AZ didn’t go after him for polygamy.

[Dogzilla]

Because, technically and legally, they aren’t practicing polygamy. They’re practicing adultery, which is not illegal. Usually the man is legally married to just the first wife. All other “spiritual” wives after that are just roommates. They are legally considered single moms and are entitled to single-mom public welfare aid. They encourage each other to file for benefits and all the money goes into one household pot. They call this “bleeding the beast.” I call it welfare fraud.

It’s difficult to prove the underage marriage thing. The local law is the same FLDS guys who run the compounds. It’s very difficult to prove which laws are being broken unless you send the Texas Rangers in for a raid.

Also – and this part is strictly my opinion; I have no evidence to claim this as fact – The Utah legislature (moreso than AZ) is packed with LDS. The mainstream church wants to distance itself from the FLDS, mostly so faithful members don’t go digging through their own scriptures to discover that it’s actually the FLDS who live the doctrine more closely to how Joseph Smith envisioned it, not the mainstream mormons. What is now considered the mainstream church today is actually the splinter group that split off with Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death.

The mainstream church doesn’t really want to associate itself with polygamy. So I think, for political reasons, the legislature and law enforcement in UT and to some degree in AZ, tend to turn a blind eye toward what’s going on in the remote corners of the state. If they start prosecuting people for polygamy (which they can’t prove anyway), then they have to take a hard look at their own scriptures and the whole house of cards might come tumbling down.

[KlondikeGeoff]

Thanks Dogzilla and Simplicio for the information, which does help to clear up my wonderment about the subject. I understand now that they don’t legally marry more than one wife, thus are not breaking any law.

As I recall, the main reason for the Texas raids was the complaints about the children, and CPS took the kids. What has happened about that? Have the kids been returned, or all they all in the system now?

[Dogzilla]

Well, the birth and marriage records were a bit spotty on the YFZ compound. So it was a bit difficult to determine who had been “married” underage and which child belonged to which momma. It was also difficult to tell in which state the underage girls had been married – you have to place the crime in a given location so you know which state’s laws are being broken. There are different ages of consent for marriage in different states.

In Arizona, it’s 18, but 16 with parental consent.
In Utah, it’s 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 with court approval.
In Texas, it’s 18, 16 with parental consent, but 14 with judicial consent.

Now prove which girl was married at what age in which state in communities where women give birth at home and maybe or maybe not actually file truthful birth certificates in the county court. You’re really looking at anyone married under 16 because parental consent is implied (and possibly even recorded) in this case.

Because the state of Texas won’t allow kids to stay in the foster care system without any evidence, most of the kids were returned. Some begged to be returned; a few took the option of staying out and taking their chances with the wicked outside world, but not many. A lot of the “children” – young teenagers – were probably concerned about children of their own, who might have been stashed with older looking moms to keep 'em out of the foster system. Jeffs was notorious for taking wives and kids and giving them to other parents. For example, let’s say there’s a man in Arizona who questions a decision Jeffs made. Jeffs might send the wife off to Texas to be given to some other man and he might split the kids up among compounds in British Columbia, Mexico, Utah, Texas, and wherever else the plygs hide. So, just because Man A and Woman B are raising Child C, that doesn’t even mean any of 'em are related. There was no way for Texas authorities to be able to unravel that twisted mess of relations in time to preserve the court order to keep the kids in foster care.

So most went back. The Texas AG was interviewed after Jeffs’ conviction and he stated that additional charges are being brought against several other men in the compound, and he implied (to my ears) that even some of the women – if it can be proven they were in the room at the time of the rapes – may also be charged for their roles. Utah and Arizona are also building cases against other polygamy leaders in their states and, IIRC, Jeffs has several other charges to answer to. His day in court is not over by a long shot. He may never serve for crimes in Utah or Arizona, but he may still be prosecuted and convicted of additional crimes. I’m sure if that happens, and he ever gets parole from Texas, he’ll just have to go to prison in AZ or UT right after that. Anyway, I’m hoping that enough of the power base gets imprisoned so that any closet doubters start to break free of the brainwashing and what’s left of the the leaders in power will be rendered so powerless that people just start packing up their kids and leaving. There may be other factions that split off to start new communities, or who go to join the communities in other countries. Fighting polygamy in the desert Southwest seems a lot like playing whack-a-mole.

[outlierrn]

It’s worth noting that Jeffs is reputed to have 70 odd wives with about 24 under age 17, and they got him on 2 felonies

[Rhodes]

@Dogzilla

Because, technically and legally, they aren’t practicing polygamy. They’re practicing adultery, which is not illegal. Usually the man is legally married to just the first wife. All other “spiritual” wives after that are just roommates.

@Dogzilla

Well, the birth and marriage records were a bit spotty on the YFZ compound. So it was a bit difficult to determine who had been “married” underage and which child belonged to which momma. It was also difficult to tell in which state the underage girls had been married – you have to place the crime in a given location so you know which state’s laws are being broken. There are different ages of consent for marriage in different states.

In Arizona, it’s 18, but 16 with parental consent.
In Utah, it’s 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 with court approval.
In Texas, it’s 18, 16 with parental consent, but 14 with judicial consent.

Now prove which girl was married at what age in which state in communities where women give birth at home and maybe or maybe not actually file truthful birth certificates in the county court. You’re really looking at anyone married under 16 because parental consent is implied (and possibly even recorded) in this case.

But, as Dogzilla pointed out in her first post, age of consent for marriage is irrelevant in these cases, as only one wife is legally married. Is there an age of consent for sex and cohabitation outside of legal marriage? Do all of the girls just proclaim that they’re 18, even when they don’t look a day over 14?

[Dogzilla]

There is a separate age of consent and IIRC, Utah has a no cohabitation law. So yes, I saw a lot of FLDS women interviewed who claimed to be 18 and who also did not look a day over 14 or 15.

Cites:

@Wikipedia

Arizona

The age of consent in Arizona is 18. However there exist in the legislation defenses to prosecution if the defendant is close in age to the “victim” or a spouse of the “victim”. Note: these are not close in age exceptions but defenses at court. Arizona Revised Statute 13-1405(A)

13-1407 (Defenses)

* B. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1404 and 13-1405 in which the victim's lack of consent is based on incapacity to consent because the victim was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age if at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct constituting the offence the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known the age of the victim.
* D. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1404 or 13-1405 that the person was the spouse (legally married AND cohabiting) of the other person at the time of commission of the act...
* F. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1405 if the victim is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age, the defendant is under nineteen years of age or attending high school and is no more than twenty-four months older than the victim and the conduct is consensual.

Texas

The age of consent in Texas is 17 (Texas Penal Code Section 21.11). However , “…It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor…was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex…(and) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offence” and is not a registered sex offender Section 21.11 (b).

Section 21.12 further prohibits all sexual contact between an employee of a school (including educators) and a student enrolled at the primary or secondary school where said employee works (unless the student is the employee’s spouse). No age is specified by the statute (thus, even if the student has reached consent age of 17, it is still a violation), and violations are a second degree felony.

Utah

The age of consent in Utah is 18. It is however legal for minors aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual activity with partners less than 10 years older.

76-5-401.2. Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old. (1) For purposes of this section “minor” means a person who is 16 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, at the time the sexual conduct described in this section occurred. (2) A person commits unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if, under circumstances not amounting to rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402, object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2, forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403, or aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405, the actor who is ten or more years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct: (a) has sexual intercourse with the minor; (b) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant…

76-5-401.Unlawful sexual activity with a minor—Elements—Penalties—Evidence of age raised by defendant. (1) For purposes of this section “minor” is a person who is 14 years of age or older, but younger than 16 years of age, at the time the sexual activity described in this section occurred. (2) A person commits unlawful sexual activity with a minor if, under circumstances not amounting to rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402, object rape, in violation of Section 76-5-402.2, forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 76-5-403, or aggravated sexual assault, in violation of Section 76-5-405, the actor: (a) has sexual intercourse with the minor; (b) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant; or © causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body, with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, regardless of the sex of any participant. (3) A violation of Subsection (2) is a third degree felony unless the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the mitigating factor that the defendant is less than four years older than the minor at the time the sexual activity occurred, in which case it is a class B misdemeanor.

[Dogzilla]

Note to Rhodes: As I was researching your question, I came across this site that says both Utah and Texas recognize common law marriage. So if all your wives live together under one roof, technically, I suppose you could be prosecuted for bigamy/polygamy. If, like in Big Love, you have each wife in her own house and you bounce from house to house, there’s still nothing to prosecute you for.

This site, however, says that “fornication” is illegal in Utah (see what I meant about those LDS legislators in Utah? Fucking is illegal there!). So if you can prove “unmarried” + “had sex” you might have a case.

Interesting, eh?

ETA: In my previous post, I said that I thought Utah has a no-cohabitation law. Can’t find any evidence of that, but I’m looking.

[Dogzilla]

Found it. Cohabitation apparently counts as common law/bigamy. In Utah.

Here’s the No-sex-please-we’re-mormon law. Not married? Had sex in Utah? You are guilty of a Class B Misdemeanor!

[chacoguy]

@Dogzilla

Here’s the No-sex-please-we’re-mormon law. Not married? Had sex in Utah? You are guilty of a Class B Misdemeanor!

I finally gots me some street cred.

[Rhodes]

Great info, Dogzilla. Thanks!

[Ca3799]

Flora Jessep (I think that’s her name) and other women who have left the group also talk about how hard is to physically get away because everyone, even the cops, are part of the group.

[Cheez_Whia]

I’ve been through Colorado City once, in the early 1990’s, and most people just don’t have any idea how remote that town is. The road to it is 2 lane blacktop that snakes through both Utah and Arizona in a mountainous region. A stranger in town would be known immediately, and any “evidence” would be hidden. An investigator would probably come up empty handed. Hard to prosecute with no evidence.