headermask image

header image

BARBIE TELLS THE LAWYERS THAT JANET COULDN’T BE MARRIED TO RAYMOND BECAUSE SHE WAS ALREADY MARRIED.

I guess she intends to prosecute Janet for Bigamy? Is Bigamy a crime in Texas, or one of those “Laws” like Adultery and Voter Fraud that Texas rarely prosecutes (Unless you’re from the wrong party).

It is good to see that barbie recognizes the legal marriage of Janet to Raymond’s brother, but curious to note that she doesn’t recognize that same religions Divorce decree’s.

It’s also going to be interesting for barbie to explain why she considers Janet as a “Child” when she marries Raymond, but as a legal bride when she marries Raymond’s brother a year earlier.

In the meantime, the State is now scurrying to look over those aerial stalking shots that Mankin overwrote to figure out what building did, and did not exist in 2004 where they claimed “The child” was raped.

So far, their first two choices were laughed out of Court, the berthing center did not exist, nor did the building in which the prosecutor keeps drooling over that shows Janet with children.

They have pictures of Janet and Raymond before and after her marriage, but not during the time period they claim they were at the Ranch and she was “Raped”. Gee, I wonder why that would be!

Today, Nichols will try to bring in dictations by a third party into the matter. In Legal terms, we call this “Hearsay Evidence”. Unless it’s a deathbed Statement, Hearsay Evidence is in-admissible. Let me give you an example:

Natalie is getting divorced and I am her neighbor. I’m a real good friend of her husband and he tells me all about the dog shit, the guns, the drugs and the booze. I think it makes for a good story, so I write it in my daily Journal.

Now John wants to bring my Journal into Court as proof positive that Jack and Charlie slept in dog shit. Nope! Natalie will jump up and say, “That’s Hearsay your Honor!”

Now if Texas wants to bring the author to Texas and say under Oath that this is what he witnessed, that’s a different story. But since the Defendant can’t cross examine a piece of paper, it’s Hearsay.

That’s NOT the way barbie will rule because she already knows that the marriage and rape of Janet by Raymond was illegal because she was already a married woman, but that’s the way the Appeals Court will see it because that’s what it says in West’s Law Dictionary.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Money Making Options

Post meta

This entry was written by Bill and posted on November 4, 2009 at 11:40 am and filed under Abuses of the State, CPS, CPS Abuse, Children, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, FLDS, Police State, Texas. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

Post BARBIE TELLS THE LAWYERS THAT JANET COULDN’T BE MARRIED TO RAYMOND BECAUSE SHE WAS ALREADY MARRIED. to digg. Post BARBIE TELLS THE LAWYERS THAT JANET COULDN’T BE MARRIED TO RAYMOND BECAUSE SHE WAS ALREADY MARRIED. to Reddit add to stumbleupon Google Bookmark myweb bookmark on del.cio.us newsvine Tailrank magnolia Furl co.mments shadows simpy blinklist

67 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

  1. Pins:

    Sorry about the mix-up. As the KS like to point out, I can’t spell well.

    1. Cupcake on November 5th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  2. The “doubleex” post is a bit dated. We should watch to see if anything newer comes out from her.

    I’ve read about every article I can find to follow this trial, and all leave me wondering HOW they qualified Musser as an expert to tell the jury what the dictations of the “FLDS Prophet” were taken for. It’s not like she was the secretary for all priesthood meetings, so what makes her the “expert”?

    Another thought on those dictations; I’m not reading of any that go into such detail on the daily or weekly activities of all ranch residents where it would show something like Warren telling so many men to work the next month on a project away from the ranch and assigning some to stay home and make babies.

    Musser told the court;

    “He is to teach and govern the people and record it all, because in their culture, he has to answer to God,” she said. “Every area of our life was governed by the dictates of the prophet.”

    If this alleged “accomplice to rape” keeps such meticulous records of all activities of those following him, where is the evidence that Raymond created the baby in Texas?

    Another note on that specific quote of Musser; It looks like she is telling the court that ALL Warren recorded in his dictations are absolutely church records. All was an “…answer to God”, not some record kept just for the sake of future reference here on Earth.

    2. kent on November 5th, 2009 at 10:32 am

  3. Whoops my mistake, it was Raymond not Janet. Delete if you wish. Not enough coffee yet to wake up.

    3. Alinusara10 on November 5th, 2009 at 9:26 am

  4. John “Jack” Samson, a University of Texas law professor who specializes in family law, testified Wednesday that because Jessop was legally married to another woman in Utah in 1994, the alleged victim could not have been his spouse in 2004.
    ===================================
    This is significant up to the level of Lawrence vs. Texas. Can a person be guilty of sexual assault if they have consensual sex with a married man or woman?

    4. Alinusara10 on November 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am

  5. Cupcake misspelled it. The correct link:

    http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/polygamists-trial

    Hanna Rosin: The prosecution was using these photos to build their case but the impression they leave is exactly the opposite: Here was a woman, beaming and carefree, until a man from the state showed up at her front door, with a medical instrument. Visually, they confirm what Willie Jessop, the spokesman for the sect, keeps repeating. “There is no victim here. The state is trying to create one.”

    5. Julie on November 5th, 2009 at 9:24 am

  6. Cupcake, link didn’t work!

    6. pins on November 5th, 2009 at 2:04 am

  7. Here is an interesting article written by a person who is actually attending the trial. Enjoy!

    http://www.doubleex.com/blog/xxfactor/polygamists-trial

    7. Cupcake on November 5th, 2009 at 1:06 am

  8. Thanks Ron!

    Rule 803, (11) Records of Religious Organizations. Statements of births, marriages, divorces, deaths, legitimacy, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization. and any dictations of a Mormon leader IF walther shows any interest in them.

    That should cover it!

    8. kent on November 4th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

  9. That’s a huge problem with the law and penal codes- they apply to everyone. Mozart wrote a concert at age 8, people used to ruteinly marry at 14 and stay married for decades-obviously some people aren’t children till they’re 17-yet the law dictates they are, which is a load of garbage. Same problem when Hilderbran tried to blanket the state with his homeschooling laws, but that didn’t fly cause it stepped on too many Baptist’s toes.

    9. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

  10. Well,

    Lets keep an eye on his blog and see what good old
    Two Dogs Screwing does.

    10. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

  11. Cupcake: I thought you should print copies of TBM’s posts and report him to the police. He’s threatening you. He’s also trying to blackmail you.

    —-
    I agree. Except that, unless firewater or identity theft is involved, I can’t imagine anyone with an ounce of intelligence saying such things. Okay, that doesn’t count out Blues, I realize.

    11. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

  12. Ron,

    Can you do us a favor? Look up and cite Texas’ laws re emancipated minors. In Texas, are minors automatically emancipated once they get married? What benefits or privileges does emancipation offer?

    Thanks,
    Cupcake

    12. Cupcake on November 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

  13. The question about whether Janet is an emancipated adult because she was legally married to Raymond’s brother will make an interesting appeal.

    13. Cupcake on November 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

  14. Bill,

    I thought you should print copies of TBM’s posts and report him to the police. He’s threatening you. He’s also trying to blackmail you.
    What a jerk!

    14. Cupcake on November 4th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  15. Ron: Texas Penal Code 22.011 (1999)

    which states:

    Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT.
    (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
    (2) intentionally or knowingly:
    (A) causes the penetration of . . . female sexual organ of a child by any means;
    (c) In this section:
    (1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor.
    (2) “Spouse” means a person who is legally married to another.

    So looks like Ron’s right–it’s a good ole sexual assault anyway you cut it, even if the wife was married before, so long as the present marriage wasn’t legal by the laws of Texas. Got to hand it to Ron: he’ll admit that the laws aren’t logical even as he cites them. Unlike that bizarre Blues character.

    15. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 8:11 pm

  16. Was Janet’s first marriage a legal marriage?

    In my home state, if a minor legally marries, she is automatically emanicipated. If Janet is an emanicipated minor, that should make the case against Raymond Merrill moot.

    16. Cupcake on November 4th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

  17. Apparently, the3 Family Code in Texass also trumps the Constitution, Due Process and Civil Rights, so I don’t see why it don’t trump parking tickets.

    17. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 8:05 pm

  18. Well, if the Family Code provision applies across the other codes (Property Code, Probate Code, etc), I don’t see how you can say that it doesn’t apply to the Penal Code as well.

    18. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

  19. OK, so the good old boys knocked up 10,000 hispanic children

    19. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

  20. Bill: So are probably 10,000 11th graders a year in Texas with fat bellies.

    —
    The good ole boys claim they’re Hispanic.

    20. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  21. So are probably 10,000 11th graders a year in Texas with fat bellies.

    21. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

  22. Well, Ron, I think there’s room to argue that point.

    Well, there’s always an argument; however, it doesn’t change the fundamental reality which is if she was under 17 and not legally married to Raymond then she’s a child under Penal Code 22.011.

    22. Ron in Houston on November 4th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

  23. Jeez,

    Every time Mandy gets a furlough, she comes out of the woodwork.

    23. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

  24. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6A5W37BVeI

    24. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

  25. I hear Barry Manilow music again…..anyway Mandy, if the judge & state insist that Janet was “married,” they can’t have it both ways & say she wasn’t emancipated.

    25. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

  26. So Ron, I guess we now know who outed Regina.

    Texas Bluesman
    http://txbluesman.wordpress.com | txbluesman@live.com | 68.25.154.54

    Nice editing of my comment Bill.

    Maybe I should post it, along with Yvonne’s pic, phone number, and employer on my blog…

    You know already how young I like my Squaws, and I can get my friends on the blog to call her and get her into some real trouble. Maybe even get you or her a stroke like we did to Regina.

    For $10,000.00 I won’t do it, but you better not play anymore games with me.

    From BARBIE TELLS THE LAWYERS THAT JANET COULDN’T BE MARRIED TO RAYMOND BECAUSE SHE WAS ALREADY MARRIED., 2009/11/04 at 6:35 PM

    26. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  27. Is stuff like that legal in Texass TBM? I know it ain’t in the rest of the Country, but we’ll just have to find out if Texass thinks it’s funny.

    27. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

  28. Nice editing of my comment Bill.

    Maybe I should post it, along with Yvonne’s pic, phone number, and employer on my blog…

    You know already how young I like my Squaws, and I can get my friends on the blog to call her and get her into some real trouble. Maybe even get you or her a stroke like we did to Regina.

    For $10,000.00 I won’t do it, but you better not play anymore games with me.

    28. Texas Bluesman on November 4th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

  29. That’s why I like Ron; I just don’t have the time for BS.

    Ron is a lawyer. Lawyers can turn a point on a dime, depending on who’s paying.

    I use to get upset with my attorney because he would go and have lunch with the DA who was trying to put me away for 25 to life.

    I also sat there in Court with Roy Cohn calling the opposing Attorney every name possible short of receiving Contempt of Court Citations, and then ask the guy to join us at “21″ for drinks on the way down the steps of the Courthouse.

    “It’s just a job” they both told me.

    Lawyers don’t turn bad until they become Judges. My job with Roy was to find out who the Judge was in a particular case. If he couldn’t bribe or pressure him, the Judge was changed. We RARELY changed Judges.

    29. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

  30. Well, Ron, I think there’s room to argue that point.

    30. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm

  31. I’d like to watch the defense crossexamine Rebecca?

    Personally, I’m delighted she’s on the witness stand. All this “expert” testimony on open court record! Lovely!

    I believe she and Dan Fischer are the primary instigators of the raid. Doran took special pains to try and cover for her by going to the media and saying “Becky was NOT my inside informat. But his affidavit for a search warrant listed her as telling him all about the terrible things that go on inside the temple (even tho she’s never set foot in one!)

    . When are they getting Dan up there?

    31. Christmas Jacobs on November 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

  32. Riki and Bill

    Who ever said the law makes sense?

    I’m just telling you the way it is.

    32. Ron in Houston on November 4th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

  33. Ron likes to try and separate Family Code from Penal Code.

    Since the evidence was stolen as “Family Code”, and the children, including women as old as 37 taken as children were taken as “Family Code”, that’s the Statute were operating under.

    Under the law, CPS could not do what it did under the Penal Code.

    Under the law, the goons and FBI could not do what the did under the Family Code.

    Their not interchangeable, at least not in any law book I’ve ever studied.

    33. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  34. Sorry, Ron, but it makes no sense to say that a married minor is legally an adult who can consent to signing leases, opening bank accounts, using a credit card, & owning property, but can’t consent to sex.

    34. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  35. Don’t worry about it, you still get the steak. :))

    35. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  36. In Law, semantics is a game constantly being played by the lawyers.

    For example: The Founding Fathers declared that “ALL People” will be counted in each state regarding the census.

    The Republican’s only want “Legal” people counted.

    Since the Founding Fathers knew nothing about Guatemala and Honduras at the time, they WILL be counted in the census, and if you happen to live in a State with no visitors, you lose a number of your Representatives and your Federal dollars.

    Now lets read the Statute again:

    Texas Family Code, Chapter 5, Sec. 101.003 defines a child:

    CHILD OR MINOR; ADULT. (a) “Child” or “minor” means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.

    Well, we can scratch Janet, according to barbie, she was married and she was under 18. Not only that, but as the Prosecutor claims, she entered the State as a married woman.

    The FACT that WSJ had the Legal ability to marry her originally was established by the Utah Court’s when they charged him with “Rape as an accomplice” by virtue of him MARRYING Elissa before she decided to play patty cake with Lamont out in the desert.

    Now what I don’t read in that Statute are the words;

    CHILD OR MINOR; ADULT. (a) “Child” or “minor” means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married UNLESS HE OR SHE HAS BEEN MARRIED BY WARREN STEED JEFF’S…

    Barbie probably see’s these words, but we’ll see if the Appeals Court’s do.

    36. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  37. It’s kinda funny- till I realize I’m paying for this crap.

    37. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

  38. barbie’s only got 11 more of these to go. At two weeks each, that’s 6 months listening to people like Musser complain her husband made her wash dishes and she didn’t like it.

    38. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

  39. Okay, if Janet was legally married to another man, then she was an adult under Texas law. Oops.

    100% wrong. That’s not how it works. The definition of child in the particular penal code section is age only.

    Oops.

    39. Ron in Houston on November 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  40. My favorite part of testimony is rebuttal.

    If I were on the Defence team, I would let her spew her “Facts”, and then ask her about both those statements and other statements she made in her “Book”.

    Barbie is now screwed. She CANNOT rule that such questioning is “Irrelevant” since she is sitting there as an “Expert” on the FLDS culture.

    First, I’d get her to answer the questions under Oath, and then hand her a Subpoena as she leaves the Courthouse to answer a lawsuit for libel and slander as well as a Torts complaint for interfering in the Contract between parents and their children.

    40. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  41. Someone needs to tell Musser and the prosecution that getting your feelings hurt or being told you need to listen to your husband doesn’t mean a crime was commited- at least not yet.

    41. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  42. WC, it isn’t. She’s just there to spin her scary stories.

    42. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

  43. “Okay, if Janet was legally married to another man, then she was an adult under Texas law. Oops”
    ……………………………………………..

    Yeah, as sitting bullpatty would say- “that’s gonna leave a mark”

    43. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  44. Hit post too soon…anyway, if she was legally married to someone else, but hadn’t gotten a legal divorce (as opposed to what we jokingly refer to as “common law” divorce where the parties just go their separate ways), then she was an adult under Texas law & could do everything but vote.

    44. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

  45. Speaking of hearsay,

    “Rebecca Musser is testifying today before the jury about her experiences in the FLDS church”

    How is this relevant to Raymond Jessop?

    45. WC on November 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  46. Okay, if Janet was legally married to another man, then she was an adult under Texas law. Oops.

    46. Riki on November 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  47. Wonderful. A married woman or possibly divorced woman sleeps with a man and has a child.

    Sounds like the rest of America now doesn’t it?

    47. zxcvbnm on November 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  48. How about our wonderful Saudi friends who have no Laws against marrying 8 to 12 year olds?

    When they come to America, does george have them arrested or walk hand in hand with them around the Ranch?

    48. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  49. Bill: “The problem with prosecuting the thousands of men for rape is that they would all be good old boys.”

    —
    Not just good ole boys. How about a couple legally married in Mexico, but where the wife has not reached the age of consent in Texas. LE could sweep them up, charging the husband with rape. A nasty little weapon to use against Hispanics.

    49. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  50. In Texas, anything is possible, even making Laws retro-active.

    The problem with prosecuting the thousands of men for rape is that they would all be good old boys. Only FLDS men need apply for prosecution of Hilderbrands Law since those are the very people he crafted it against.

    You don’t seriously think that barbie wants to know who knocked up all those 11 to 15 year olds in San Angelo last year do you?

    50. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  51. Bill: “and married her second husband at age 15, when the Law in Texas at the time said she could have been married a year earlier if she wanted to.”

    —
    I guess what I’m asking is, can the age of consent be increased for someone already married, making sex between a wife and her husband (or anyone else) illegal? If so, Texas created thousands of rapists when they changed the age of consent. And all they’d need to do is compare marriage licenses with birth certificates, take a little DNA, and they could fill up a few more prisons.

    51. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  52. Umm Christmas

    You’d be wrong. Try looking up the rule here:

    “Church & state” is a constitutional provision and has nothing to do with evidence in courts of law.

    52. Ron in Houston on November 4th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  53. Umm Ron - I’m not a lawyer but even I can tell u that just because its a “religious record” it does not exclude it. In most cases religious records should never show their face in a courtrooom (church n state ya know).

    53. Christmas Jacobs on November 4th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  54. According to Texas, she was married before she got there.

    She then moved to Texas as a married women (Barbie).

    She was then divorced from her first husband,

    and married her second husband at age 15, when the Law in Texas at the time said she could have been married a year earlier if she wanted to.

    The baby was born a month before the 16 year old Law was put into place against the FLDS by Hilderbrand.

    54. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  55. Let me get this straight. Her first marriage was at the age of 14, which was okay in Texas at the time. She automatically became emancipated at that point, and since the age of consent was 14, she could commit adultery with an older man and that wouldn’t be statutory rape. Then Hilderbran had the age of consent raised, and at that point, since she hadn’t yet reached the new age of consent, sex with her first husband (or anyone sufficiently older) would be statutory rape. Is that right?

    55. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  56. Catch 22:

    If the State invokes 803(11), they are admitting the FLDS is a recognized religious organization. (You know, like Baptist’s and Methodist’s).

    As such, it’s Official Records (Like the Bishops Records found in every Diocese in the Country that contained solid proof of child molestations), were protected from search and seizure.

    Barbie has recognized Janet’s first “Marriage” (A Legal term),

    So by Statute, when Janet became a bride, she left her childhood behind.

    When she arrived in Texas, she was no longer a “Child” by Legal definition.

    The amusing thing is that every time the prosecutor says the word “Child”, the jurors conjure up a little girl sitting there with a lollipop in her mouth.

    I’ve suggested the juror get a peek at the “Child”, but if they do, try to keep the good old boys from trying to jump her. She’s a 20 year old women, and has been a women now for the past 7 years by Texas Law.

    56. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  57. Once they pull out that supposely *evidence* it will be interesting how fast TEXAS and the BIG BOYS decide, how the heck they’re going to cram all the worms back into can they pulled out!
    ……by then it will be to late, worms will be crawling the country, and TEXAS loses out.

    57. pins on November 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  58. Julie,

    Keep your tongue in your cheek.

    58. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

  59. You’re right about it being hearsay, but you’re wrong about it’s admissibility.

    Rule 803(11) makes records of religious organizations exceptions to the hearsay rule.

    59. Ron in Houston on November 4th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  60. The state said it plans to introduce some “personal records” related to the alleged victim, including the fact she was married in November 2003 to Jessop’s brother. She apparently came with him to Texas, but he later was asked to leave the ranch and his wives were placed with Raymond.
    ==================================
    Another significant development. This shows that Raymond didn’t violate the Mann act.

    60. Alinusara10 on November 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  61. I can’t believe those KS bigots are still posting here, making statements without anything to back them up.

    61. Julie on November 4th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  62. “Anybody seen my squaw?” TBM: I’m sorry, I thought you knew. She’s been reassigned.

    62. Judith on November 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

  63. The Penal Code is specific. There is no defense to prosecution for the child being previously married. It is still an offense unless she was married before, divorced, and then re married.
    =================================
    Heh! So you are trying to tell us that some guy could be prosecuted for rape if some wife slept around on her husband. Puhleese!

    63. Alinusara10 on November 4th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  64. NOW you know why the FLDS wanted barbie to run this case.

    64. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  65. All well and good except for one thing.

    The Penal Code is specific. There is no defense to prosecution for the child being previously married. It is still an offense unless she was married before, divorced, and then re married.

    Now, let me go back to the bar and finish my drink. Anybody seen my squaw?

    65. Texas Bluesman on November 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  66. Raymond is sitting there because Texass claims Janet is a “Child”.

    As the Law will tell you, you can call an Elephant a Giraffe, but it is still an Elephant.

    Calling Janet a child might be sexually titillating to the good old boys and barbie, but in legal terms, she is NOT a child.

    Lets see what “Toes” has researched on the topic:

    Wednesday, November 4, 2009
    A Curious Statement by the Judge
    From Brooke Adam’s Blog today: RMJ Trial: Day 7

    I found this statement to be very curious.

    “Judge Barbara Walther observed that that would also show that the alleged victim could not legally have married Raymond Jessop since she was married to someone else — a comment that seemed to make defense attorney Mark Stevens freeze up.”

    Apparently, Judge Walther is willing to recognize the previous marital status of the “child” “victim”.

    According to DFPS legal definitions the “victim” would then be an Emancipated Minor, according the DFPS definitions :

    Emancipated Minor - A person under age 18 who has the power and capacity of an adult. This includes . . . a minor who, with or without parental consent, has been married.

    Texas Family Code, Chapter 5, Sec. 101.003 defines a child:

    CHILD OR MINOR; ADULT. (a) “Child” or “minor” means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.

    If the Judge (State) recognizes the previous marriage performed under the auspices of the FLDS church in a religious ceremony, the Judge (State) must also recognize the termination of that marriage under the auspices of the FLDS church and the subsequent remarriage under the auspices of the FLDS church to the Defendant.

    The law regarding sexual assault of a child: Texas Statutes, Penal Code 22.011,

    (c)(1) “Child” means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor[perpetrator].
    (2) “Spouse” means a person who is legally married to another.

    This throws the whole case out the window, as 1) the “victim” was not a child by legal definition; and 2) the “victim” was a spouse of the accused.

    66. Bill on November 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

  67. I really hope you research this because if Janet was already legally married then the worse that happened between Janet and Raymond is she slept around on her husband. I’m not saying the right or wrong of it just it’s status legally.

    Even so, if she was spiritually married before the jury may be more sympathetic to Raymond because it may appear in their minds that she is not some poor unfortunate victim; just a young lady who found someone more compatible.

    67. Alinusara10 on November 4th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*