On Jun 12, 11:41*am, DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:35*pm, RHF wrote:



On Jun 10, 4:15*pm, Mike wrote:

On Jun 10, 6:00*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Jun 10, 2:38*pm, Gregg wrote:

On Jun 10, 5:25*pm, bpnjensen wrote:

On Jun 10, 2:18*pm, Gregg wrote:

I can't say I am surprised. Both of the two girls decided not to
testify and the prosecution said "it just wouldn't be worth it" not
verbatim - but something like that. Pretty powerful guy IMO to duck
those charges.

What do you think BA? Do you think there was a chance a sweaty palm
full of money was exchanged?

???

Do you know what I'm talking about Bruce? The LDS leader, or one of
them like BA said.

Oh, THAT guy.

Another screwball IMHO. *Who is BA?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bruce,

BA is BrendaAnn, a long-time group member. She's a pretty straight
shooter and I believe she had some encounters with the LDS earlier in
her life.

Mark this day on your calendar. I think Gregg and I agree that AZ
dismissal of charges against Jeffs seems fishy. But he still has to
deal with charges of child sexual abuse in TX. The FLDS can be
incredibly intimidating against any young women choosing to testify
against Jeffs.

Time to get back to the beginning of my DX vacation!

Mike

- - MWB,
- - How can all those 'enlightened' Progressives who
- - are for Gay Marriage an the Rights of Individuals
- - be so opposed to Polygamy and the Rights of
- - Individuals to any and all forms of Marriage ?
- -
- - one wonders . . . ~ RHF

- Good question.
- Obviously, communis ... er, I mean "progressives",
- would be all for polygamy if the practitioners were gay.

:-)))) ~ RHF

Freedom for One Must Be Freedom for All
-otherwise- it is just 'Privilege' for the Select Few

-after-all- Perfect Liberty -is- Perfect Liberty

Real Individual Rights by their very nature
can have No Collective Limits {Restrictions}