Kidnapping and organized crime?

[Jerry Pitts]

LDS, West Texas -- Kidnapping and organized crime?‏
From: Legal Reality (legal_reality@earthlink.net)
Sent: Sat 5/31/08 10:31 AM
To: Legal Reality (legal_reality@earthlink.net)
31 May A.D. 2008

Clarance Darrow didn't care about the politics. He cared about the rule of law. It mattered that it applied equally, no matter what the politics of the day were.

This note should not be misconstrued in any way to be some sort of promotion of polygamy. Maybe it's Scriptural; maybe it's nuts. That's not the point of focus here. That said, let's look at some law.


The Texas state appellate courts worked pretty swiftly on this one. Not only that, but also, to the surprise of many, they actually "corrected" the "officers" who stormed the polygamists' property and took all those people into custody.

Why the speed, and why that ruling?

Speed takes the matter out of the "press" that much more quickly, and that interest may correlate directly with the ruling, itself.

A question has come up for which I don't (yet) have any more information than the person asking the question. In the exact same way that the early question as to whether there's a connection with the TransTexas Corridor matters, this one also matters.

Here's the question: How many of those parents were married via a "license?"

Here's why it matters. Where those children are not a commercial product of a "licensed," commercial act, then it's entirely possible that STATE OF TEXAS never had the remotest of authority to touch those people. Should it turn out that there never existed any authority whatsoever to bother those people, we can but hope that they have the presence of mind to make a huge financial demand on and against those who kidnapped them. Kidnapping is one of the criminal acts that triggers application of the "organized crime" punishment enhancement provisions. See Tex. Penal Code § 71.02(a)(1). If the kidnapping was committed with a firearm, then we may also be talking about "aggravated kidnapping."


The rest of this, which is pretty short, focuses on the "license" concept.

Why do "licenses" exist? They exist to regulate commerce. Period. Plumbers are "licensed," because they are engaging in commercial activity where the "choice of law" is that of the "place" called "this state." Electricians are "licensed," because they are engaging in commercial activity where the "choice of law" is that of the "place" called "this state." Dentists, doctors, attorneys, accountants, hair stylists, "drivers," etc., are "licensed," because they are engaging in commercial activity where the "choice of law" is that of the "place" called "this state."

What, then, is the commercial activity that is "licensed" via a "marriage license?" In the beginning, it may very well have had to do with the fact that the churches would not permit interracial marriage. So, the "state" stepped in and allowed it, via the mechanism of the "marriage license." But, there was likely more to it than that, even from the beginning.

The concern is that there may be, in the "state's" point of view, a commercial activity of the specially manufactured goods variety that is uniquely related to marriage, namely, "making babies." Thus, one angle on the "marriage license" is that the commercial activity of "making babies" may very well be the mechanism by which "this state" obtains the "authority" to tell "parents" where and when and how to raise and educate and medicate "their" children. If the children born to "licensed parents" are really "property of this state," then there are a lot of things that make very self-consistent sense, from the legal perspective.

Applying that premise, STATE OF TEXAS runs into a problem "bigger 'an Houston" where the polygamists had sense enough NOT to volunteer into the commercial activity of "making babies."

And, this would give the jurists who are thinking along this line a high degree of motivation to end the matter before it becomes any bigger of a media circus.


Commercial activity is ALWAYS voluntary. Always, always, always. Commercial activity is ALWAYS voluntary. Signing up to engage in commercial activity is ALWAYS voluntary. "Choice of law" is ALWAYS voluntary. Always, always, always.

So, if the polygamists happen to assert a different "choice of law" than that of "this state" as the law by which the marriage agreements are to be evaluated, cf. Ogden v. Saunders (the law governing the agreement is necessarily incorporated into the agreement), and where they have NOT volunteered to "make babies" for "this state," then it's entirely possible that they've been kidnapped (via the use or display of a firearm?) in violation not only of Texas Penal Code § 20.03 (kidnapping) and § 20.04 (aggravated kidnapping) but also of Chapter 71 of the Texas Penal Code, which is the "organized crime" punishment enhancement provision.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

P.S. Regarding "making babies," as a direct result of Roe v. Wade, which is a "right to life" case, not an "abortion" case, the "right to life" attaches to a "quickened" fetus. The reason for mentioning this is the irony. It's a good question whether that "right to life" attaches outside of "this state."

H.

Subscribe/unsubscribe: legal_reality@earthlink.net

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
The psychological operations they have been waging against polygyny are long-running and go back thousands of years. While I neither support nor condone any abuse of children or women the attack onf polygyny is an attack on family structure. Consider that the cruelty being inflicted upon young mothers who have their babies taken from them by STATE OF TEXAS is perhaps more cruel than anything done to the majority of them.

The pleasure-seeking, self-centered and selfish hedonistic onlookers were probably thinking how terrible it might be to have to have babies at 15 and be married rather than be whoring around and having babies at 15 by chance over drunken sex at a party with a stranger. Hypocrisy?

Its interesting, somehow the same society that condones overt and extreme sexual promiscuity without much of a concern for family somehow could be a hero and can expected to provide "better". A society where boys are encouraged to be irresponsible--where girls are encouraged to be the same with respect to their sexuality or familial concerns can somehow be a hero and offer those girls something 'better"?

So STATE OF TEXAS gives them a box of pepsi, some red bull, an XBox and some condoms and in that 3 years the 15 y/o girls can be free to have the privilege of being strippers--that is somehow heroic of the STATE OF TEXAS?

***

It could be said that those families that had birth certificates set themselves up for problems. However, it is very likely that STATE OF TEXAS never had the right to touch many of those folks.

Consider the ironies of the same STATE OF TEXAS wanting to decry the notion of girls getting married and having children at 15, is the same STATE OF TEXAS that wishes for those 15 y/os to JOIN/MARRY the STATE OF TEXAS so that that same STATE OF TEXAS can make claims over their bodies. Doesnt sound like heroism, sounds like that STATE suffered envy and sought to fill it coffers by capturing and enumerating young flesh. Perspectives.

In Texas the land, it is very likely that the age where a girl can marry is 12 or 13. Someone maybe forgot to tell the Sheriff.

***

The truth about polygyny [even though polygamy is widely practiced in the United States in a mutant perverse form] is hardly told because the truth would be so shocking to many. Economics are far in favor a nuclear and/or polygynous family. Men who are family oriented and sexual responsible arent easy to send off to fight wars--they tend to be outright disinterested. Men and women taught to be other than sexual promiscuos dont tend to fill the coffers of doctors or pharmacists in seeking STD related medication or treatments. You get the picture.

Where husband is the head of the wife and where the Christ is the head of the husband, where was any such as the State of Texas or any earthly king or earthly potentate interjected? Ah now you know why they want birth certificates--to gain consent or power they do not have.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
What they can get the COPS on:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Note: Disguise could potentially include a police uniform while acting outside the power of the office.

1) unlawful interference with ministerial powers--responsibility to look after one's family could be seen to be a ministerial power,
2) kidnapping,
3) intimidation {see above USC }
4) IN TORT damages for mental anguish or suffering caused by separating children from mother,
5) IN TORT damages wilful neglect --they cops should have known better because they were expected to know the law so their negligence, wilful neglect or deliberate indifference
6) IN TORT usurpation,
7) encouraging civil unrest --the cops in this case causing the disorderly conduct, disruption,
8) conspiracy to reduce men to chattel by using force of arms or or similar intimidation or by using larceny by trick to get birth certificates or the like out of those young girls--exploitaton,
9) child trafficking--the children who didnt have birth certificate were effectively being attemped to be forced into interstate commerce--sounds like child trafficking to me.

Those folks could have a lot of cops, reporters, attorneys out of jobs and out of money for doing what they did.

Consider that rights per the Magna Charta or per English Law could be rights or privileges secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. [Even a 13 or 14 y/o has been held to have right to marry. Imagine a 14 y/o girl suing the STATE OF TEXAS for interfereing.]

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

[Even a 13 or 14 y/o has been held to have right to marry. Imagine a 14 y/o girl suing the STATE OF TEXAS for interfereing.]

Another example of the above; In Florida, just a few years ago, a 12 year old girl sued to 'divorce her parents'. Meaning gaining her right (?) of 'Independent living'. In this case, the subject girl simply did not like the rules of the household. No unlawful activities were taking place.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Another example of the above; In Florida, just a few years ago, a 12 year old girl sued to 'divorce her parents'. Meaning gaining her right (?) of 'Independent living'. In this case, the subject girl simply did not like the rules of the household. No unlawful activities were taking place.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Without Prejudice.
Differnet issue but that'd probably be termed "suing for emancipation". Which I dunno if she'd get far with that. There have been cases--many off the radar where say a 14 y/o got married and the parents sued or tried to interfere but the STATE ruled in favor of the right of the 14 y/o to marry and ordered the parents to not interfere. Look at it from the perspectives that young girls do not all want to live a life of tramping around and neither the media nor the State can force them to do so even though the media might entice. At the same time, all men are not into lose women and cannot be forced to marry women who have been with 100 sexual partners around and have therefore the State cannot close out options or remedies by interefering with the exercise of rights outside the State.