Polygamist Hearing Descends Into Chaos

Polygamist Hearing Descends Into Chaos

There are 91 comments on the WXIA Atlanta story from Apr 17, 2008, titled Polygamist Hearing Descends Into Chaos. In it, WXIA Atlanta reports that:

A court hearing to decide the fate of the 416 children swept up in a raid on a West Texas polygamist sect descended into farce Thursday, with hundreds of lawyers in two packed buildings shouting objections and ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WXIA Atlanta.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Nelson

Mcdonough, GA

#1 Apr 17, 2008
What can one expect when you have lawyers involved? Why can't lawyers represent multiple children at the same time? They're going to ask the same questions for each child.
Whatever

Memphis, TN

#2 Apr 17, 2008
The women remind me of the movie "Stepford Wives." They even see the same hairdresser
Ohh lala

Alpharetta, GA

#3 Apr 17, 2008
In all these interview that the mothers give where are the MEN? It takes two to tango especially if they live such "pure" lives, why cant the men be interviewed? The women have glazed loks on their faces as if they are in a trance.

Rebecca Goodwin

“He went belly up!”

Since: Apr 08

Dont credit yourself so highly

#4 Apr 18, 2008
This is a hard one for me.
I absolutely think its awful for a 50 year old man to have a 16 year old to bed. That's child abuse.
Then you have the religious side of it. And people have the right to enjoy their religion.
If folks are going to practice this religion they should at least have a brain about it. How frightening for the poor child. The adult women should step up to the plate and explain these actions to their own children and if the child disagrees maybe the old goat should look else where.
At least MY religion harms no one. What ever your religion is, you should still abide by the laws of this land. And these people should obey the laws or leave the country. Shame on the lawyers!
What do you have with 500 lawyers up to their necks in sand?
NOT ENOUGH SAND!
Bob McDonnell

Gainesville, GA

#5 Apr 18, 2008
Nelson wrote:
What can one expect when you have lawyers involved? Why can't lawyers represent multiple children at the same time? They're going to ask the same questions for each child.
I'm a lawyer and I hear stupid comments about lawyers like your comment above all the time. That is, until you get into some kind of trouble and need a lawyer. Who would you have represent people in court if not lawyers, people like you who are obviously ignorant of the law. As far as having one lawyer represent multiple children, that might be possible but there is a good likelihood that the interests of one child might not necessarily be the same as the interest of another. The possibilties of conflict of interest are probably too great for this to work. Besides, people have the right to choose their own lawyer and to have that lawyer focus on their case alone and not dilute their efforts by working on behalf of multiple people at the same time. If you had thought through the implications of what you wrote for just a few minutes before writing it, instead of just jumping on your stupid lawyer-bashing and "easy-solution-for-people -that-don't-use-their-brain-to o-much" approach, you might have realized the problems inherent in representing multiple problems.
Bob McDonnell

Gainesville, GA

#6 Apr 18, 2008
Rebecca Goodwin wrote:
This is a hard one for me.
I absolutely think its awful for a 50 year old man to have a 16 year old to bed. That's child abuse.
Then you have the religious side of it. And people have the right to enjoy their religion.
If folks are going to practice this religion they should at least have a brain about it. How frightening for the poor child. The adult women should step up to the plate and explain these actions to their own children and if the child disagrees maybe the old goat should look else where.
At least MY religion harms no one. What ever your religion is, you should still abide by the laws of this land. And these people should obey the laws or leave the country. Shame on the lawyers!
What do you have with 500 lawyers up to their necks in sand?
NOT ENOUGH SAND!
The right of anyone to practice their religion does not extend to the right to abuse children, whether the children are brain washed into accepting the abuse or not. P.S., you don't seem to understand that a lawyer has the sworn obligation to represent his client vigorously. We lawyers take an oath to do this. It's part and parcel of our legal system. It's not the lawyer's job to put his personal beliefs first and to handle the case in accordance with his beliefs. It's an attorney's obligation to put his or her own feelings aside and to represent the legal interests of the client. It amazes me that our system of government, a "government of laws and not men" is so little understood by so many people. People graduate from high school and have no idea of what our legal system, the most advanced in the world with all of its faults, is all about. Those same ignorant people sit on juries and are supposed to pass judgment on other people. The weakest part of our system is people like you, who have not clue.
Hello

Atlanta, GA

#7 Apr 18, 2008
Because EACH child must be represented by their OWN counsel. That's the law.
Nelson wrote:
What can one expect when you have lawyers involved? Why can't lawyers represent multiple children at the same time? They're going to ask the same questions for each child.
Ace

Atlanta, GA

#8 Apr 18, 2008
This article was obviously written by someone who has attended traffic court, or watched too much 'Law and Order' on TV. The proceedings proceeded as intended and the so-called 'chaos' was actually a well ordered court regimen, considering the number of individuals involved. It always intrigues me how often the our legal system is criticized. The advocacy system is by no means perfect and it does take longer than the summary execution that occurs in other less enlightened societies around the globe; but it's the best 'civilization' has to offer so far.
Quite honestly, other than the scandalous 'moral' issues at stake here; this is going to be a pretty boring proceeding, so it's no wonder the press is going to inject as much hyperbole and drama as possible. I can't wait for the next headline, probably something like: "Stray dog fight on courthouse lawn disrupts religious showdown!" Give me the boring, accurate, and non-biased reporting of Cronkite any day.

Rebecca Goodwin

“He went belly up!”

Since: Apr 08

Dont credit yourself so highly

#9 Apr 18, 2008
If you read the whole post you would see that I didn't agree with this type of religion. I believe I wrote about "obeying the laws of this land". The ultimate responsibility falls in the lap of the parents. Shame on them for allowing a 50 year old man at a 16 year old.
No, I personally don't like people who muddle up the system and charge outrageous fee's because most common people cannot understand the laws as they are written. I have had to deal with blood sucking lawyers before. Only because I had to.
You might be one of the honest ones, kudo's to you. My opinion is that, MINE. I did hear that some off the lawyers were waiving their fee's. Unfortunately, a lot of times they do that for publicity reasons only. Tell me I'm not right. I am bothered that this case will drag on forever. All I ask is make it quick and do the right thing. Everything takes miles of paper work and red tape and lawyers who bog up the whole process.
Not to insult you personally, it's just an opinion. Like it or leave it, no skin off my nose.
Sounds to me that these folks are hiding behind their religion. How many lawyers are going to drag that defence out?

Rebecca Goodwin

“He went belly up!”

Since: Apr 08

Dont credit yourself so highly

#10 Apr 18, 2008
Oh, by the way. Lawyers have a bad rep because of their own actions. Not because of the common man.

“Aurea mediocritas ”

Since: Feb 08

Plainwell, MI

#11 Apr 18, 2008
ah yes! if you can't blind them with brilliance, you baffle em with BS.
Hello World

Newnan, GA

#12 Apr 18, 2008
I have been keeping up with this case via the news and I have watched the interviews with some of the women from this compound.

One women was clearly asked if under age girls were being forced to have sex with older men.

The women never denies that this is happening, she only states that "Nothing is forced here, it is all consintual."

I spend my days reading people and I would call this a clue. I do not care what your religion is, brain washing kids to do things like this is wrong in so many ways. Anyone who fights to put them back into the situation that they were just taken out of, is just as wrong as the ones doing it.
America, AKA: USA, is about freedom and being able to make choices. These kids do not have that chance. Pardon the term used but they are scre*** from the word "Go".
Marie

Greenbrier, AR

#13 Apr 18, 2008
Hello World wrote:
"Nothing is forced here, it is all consintual."
Don't you mean consentual?
question

Warren, MI

#14 Apr 18, 2008
Bob McDonnell wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a lawyer and I hear stupid comments about lawyers like your comment above all the time. That is, until you get into some kind of trouble and need a lawyer. Who would you have represent people in court if not lawyers, people like you who are obviously ignorant of the law. As far as having one lawyer represent multiple children, that might be possible but there is a good likelihood that the interests of one child might not necessarily be the same as the interest of another. The possibilties of conflict of interest are probably too great for this to work. Besides, people have the right to choose their own lawyer and to have that lawyer focus on their case alone and not dilute their efforts by working on behalf of multiple people at the same time. If you had thought through the implications of what you wrote for just a few minutes before writing it, instead of just jumping on your stupid lawyer-bashing and "easy-solution-for-people -that-don't-use-their-brain-to o-much" approach, you might have realized the problems inherent in representing multiple problems.
I do think the way the trial is being handled isn't right. I think that they should break up the cases among multiple courts so that the cases can be handled individually, as they should be.

Yes this person you responded to jumped to judgment on all lawyers, but perhaps it is based on their personal experience. There are good and bad lawyers.

I can't believe you would take someone to task for making a blanket statement and then make a blanket statement about others. I'm disappointed in the way you lashed out.

Rebecca Goodwin

“He went belly up!”

Since: Apr 08

Dont credit yourself so highly

#15 Apr 18, 2008
Hello wrote:
Because EACH child must be represented by their OWN counsel. That's the law.
<quoted text>
Can they not have a class action suit? Asking because I DON'T know.
Having more then 1 wife is illegal, right. So why should there be a case involving all the children?
I don't know if I'm getting my question across properly. Cannot the state take the kids, charge the adults and it not be the 3 ring circus that it's bound to turn into.
Believe me, my heart goes out to the kids, but they are being taken from the only life they know. I'm trying to say, are the women guilty of anything other than being brainwashed all their lives? Can the courts actually step in and help these mothers and kids get back into a normal life?

Since: Aug 07

West Palm Beach

#16 Apr 18, 2008
question wrote:
<quoted text>
I do think the way the trial is being handled isn't right. I think that they should break up the cases among multiple courts so that the cases can be handled individually, as they should be.
Yes this person you responded to jumped to judgment on all lawyers, but perhaps it is based on their personal experience. There are good and bad lawyers.
I can't believe you would take someone to task for making a blanket statement and then make a blanket statement about others. I'm disappointed in the way you lashed out.
This is well said. I would go one step further and state that even if one wants a lawyer if they can not afford one they do not nesserily ( yeah I know don't have time for the dictionary right now ) get one appointed to them. If you have a job and happen to be basicaly a good law abiding citzen then you do not get a lawyer. If you happen to have a job and live paycheck to paycheck your still screwed.
Sorry off topic.
There is no doubt in my mind that unlawful things were going on in that place.

Rebecca Goodwin

“He went belly up!”

Since: Apr 08

Dont credit yourself so highly

#17 Apr 18, 2008
question wrote:
<quoted text>
I do think the way the trial is being handled isn't right. I think that they should break up the cases among multiple courts so that the cases can be handled individually, as they should be.
Yes this person you responded to jumped to judgment on all lawyers, but perhaps it is based on their personal experience. There are good and bad lawyers.
I can't believe you would take someone to task for making a blanket statement and then make a blanket statement about others. I'm disappointed in the way you lashed out.
You are right of course, I made a bad joke. Shame on me.
Personal experience does play a part in my opinion and I am a law abiding citizen. That is beside the point though. I am agreeing with you on splitting this up, no judge should have to deal with so many lawyers. There has got to be a better way.
I still wonder about the mom's in this, can they be put back into society with their kids and start anew?
Put a Sock in It

San Jose, CA

#18 Apr 18, 2008
It's a sad day in America when a man can't imprison a bunch of 13 year old girls in an armed compound and rape as many as he wants.

Tsk tsk tsk. Is America really free, or just a Christian-hating nation of hating haters?

Rebecca Goodwin

“He went belly up!”

Since: Apr 08

Dont credit yourself so highly

#19 Apr 18, 2008
Put a Sock in It wrote:
It's a sad day in America when a man can't imprison a bunch of 13 year old girls in an armed compound and rape as many as he wants.
Tsk tsk tsk. Is America really free, or just a Christian-hating nation of hating haters?
Oooo, that was tough. Sad that children suffer so at the hands of men.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#20 Apr 18, 2008
Rebecca Goodwin wrote:
<quoted text>
Can they not have a class action suit? Asking because I DON'T know.
Having more then 1 wife is illegal, right. So why should there be a case involving all the children?
I don't know if I'm getting my question across properly. Cannot the state take the kids, charge the adults and it not be the 3 ring circus that it's bound to turn into.
Believe me, my heart goes out to the kids, but they are being taken from the only life they know. I'm trying to say, are the women guilty of anything other than being brainwashed all their lives? Can the courts actually step in and help these mothers and kids get back into a normal life?
It will take therapy (years of it) to disconnect from the brainwashing and adjustment disorders.

I agree about splitting up the cases.

Class Action~ Not unless each claimant can prove direct damages.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chaos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Realistic solution on immigration (Nov '10) Dec '10 1oldwac 9
News Realistic solution on immigration (Nov '10) Dec '10 California Son 77
News Tonight and Tomorrow's Show Suggestions (Feb '09) Feb '09 Sam Long 1
News Review: The LK: The LK vs. the Snow (Mar '08) Mar '08 Chris Faulkner 1
News Chaos after border closure (Sep '07) Sep '07 Airyanian 1
More from around the web