tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post2135308377116348916..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Not to say I told you so, but ... FLDS search warrants now called "shaky"Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-37146522697145144322008-04-27T13:13:00.000-05:002008-04-27T13:13:00.000-05:00"Of course, this will wind thru the appellate syst..."Of course, this will wind thru the appellate system, so who knows what will happen.... :)"<BR/><BR/>God help us, then, considering how little most appellate judges (not to mention the Texas Supremes) know about Family Law.<BR/><BR/>"Another matter I question (never researched any) if how a minor gains rights others may not have when they marry (1.104. CAPACITY OF SPOUSE)?"<BR/><BR/>Once a minor gets married, their disabilities are removed and they are legally adults, at least as far as being able to enter into contracts. That notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure you still can't vote or serve on a jury until age 18. Seems to be a difference of opinion on whether or not you could drink champagne at your own wedding reception.The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68859572694689949072008-04-27T01:34:00.000-05:002008-04-27T01:34:00.000-05:00Uncertain why sign in did not work last post. Sor...Uncertain why sign in did not work last post. Sorrykbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22866377279662124082008-04-27T01:27:00.000-05:002008-04-27T01:27:00.000-05:00TBM,I stated "...if 'consenting adults' when they ...TBM,<BR/><BR/>I stated <I>"...if 'consenting adults' when they married"</I>, so the wording did not convey my message well. <BR/><BR/>The "married" I was ID'ing was that in which the state says a "spiritual..." is a public marriage. They could just as easily said that about the relationship lawrence was involved in.<BR/><BR/>Your 1 does not cover it.<BR/><BR/>2a is "incest".<BR/><BR/>2b is a public act of adoption.<BR/><BR/>You finish telling <I>"the act of marriage is a public act, not a private one"</I>, but I am uncertain that a "spiritual marriage" has to be anymore public than the gay relationship behind closed doors. Parties in both relationships leave during the day going into public view. The state is who makes a "spiritual..." marriage a public act, after the fact.<BR/><BR/>I like how Utah's Chief Justice Christine Durham pointed out "that the majority’s expansive definition of marriage includes even private relationships", in her dissent.<BR/><BR/>2c Cook v Swensen I'd need to read.<BR/><BR/>I do not see it as so cut & dried the either by the way you explain it or what I have read on it. <BR/><BR/>I'd also guess most Texans did not expect the Lawrence case to turn out as it did. <BR/><BR/>Another matter I question (never researched any) if how a minor gains rights others may not have when they marry (1.104. CAPACITY OF SPOUSE)?<BR/><BR/><BR/>kbp<BR/><BR/>Having trouble signing in for some reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-36205182284525125502008-04-26T22:03:00.000-05:002008-04-26T22:03:00.000-05:00Crank,You may be right on the annulment part, but ...Crank,<BR/><BR/>You may be right on the annulment part, but I am confident that the case I cited clearly showed that an underage girl entered into a common-law marriage.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this will wind thru the appellate system, so who knows what will happen.... :)TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-471178145334247222008-04-26T22:00:00.000-05:002008-04-26T22:00:00.000-05:00kbp,Such a case may the prime ticket to take the r...kbp,<BR/><BR/><I>Such a case may the prime ticket to take the religion question (and the Lawrence v. Texas question) all the way to SCOTUS.</I><BR/><BR/>I would tend to doubt it based on the following:<BR/><BR/>1. The <I>Lawrence</I> court stated "This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution."<BR/><BR/>2. Every court that has considered the question of bigamy or polygamy in connection with <I>Lawrence</I> has held that the <B>public institution</B> of marriage is not covered by the decision of <I>Lawrence</I>. See the following cases:<BR/><BR/>a. Muth v Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir 2005) - not applicable to adult brother and sister who married and committed incest.<BR/><BR/>b. Houghton v Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir 2004) - does not authorize a homosexual couple to adopt, which is a public act.<BR/><BR/>c. Cook v Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir 2007) - does not authorize the public act of polygamous marriages<BR/><BR/>That's just a sampling, but thus far the US Supreme Court has refused to hear any of these type cases, and their language in <I>Lawrence</I> does not indicate that this will change, Scalia's desent notwithstanding. Remember, the act of marriage is a public act, not a private one, and <I>Lawrence</I> specifically excluded public acts.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-42909174209665388252008-04-26T21:56:00.000-05:002008-04-26T21:56:00.000-05:00"the marriage was not completed, there would be no..."the marriage was not completed, there would be no need for an annulment"<BR/><BR/>I believe that is incorrect. An annulment in Texas can be granted to declare a marriage void, it does NOT mean the marriage was ever valid. To the contrary, the effect of the annulment is that the marriage never existed in the first place. Some of the specified grounds for annulment include age, consanguinity and (because this is Texas) being too drunk to know you were getting married; all of those would render a marriage void. The annulment, in those cases, is the mechanism by which the marriage is voided. If parties to such a marriage got a divorce, and no one raised the issue, then THAT would have the effect of "completing the marriage."The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53667267733856526892008-04-26T21:17:00.000-05:002008-04-26T21:17:00.000-05:00Crank said:"I still have a hard time understanding...<B>Crank said:</B><BR/><BR/><I>"I still have a hard time understanding how a minor, who by definition, is incompetent to enter into any binding legal agreement, can nevertheless "agree to be married" when the common law marriage statute specifically states that minors CANNOT be common law married."</I><BR/><BR/>That's understandable. Although the state does not allow minors to marry without parental consent, it provides for the annulment of such a marriage in Family Code Sec 6.102. If the marriage was not completed, there would be no need for an annulment.<BR/><BR/>In addition, in Husband v Pierce, 800 S.W.2d 661 (Tex App 1990), which stated: <BR/><BR/>"the common-law or informal marriage of Relator and Rana was established as a matter of law, and that marriage is, under the law valid unless it is annulled by judicial decree. Rana's age does not constitute any impediment to her common-law union"<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>"the informal common-law marriage of Relator and Rana are voidable only. The public policy expressed in § 2.01 is that "every marriage entered into in this state is considered valid . . . unless it is expressly made voidable by this chapter [chapter 2] and is annulled as provided by this chapter.""<BR/><BR/>This is basically a case where an underage girl entered into a marriage, the parents later attempted to force the girl to return home, and the court held that the underaged girl had entered into a common-law marriage, based on a reading of the entire statute, saying:<BR/><BR/>"because of her age, no marriage license authorizing her marriage could have been issued without the Holts' consent; and that no clerk in this state was authorized, for the same reasons, to record a declaration of her informal or common-law marriage to Relator... Those arguments do not take into account the public policy established by the legislature that a marriage entered into by an underage (14 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age) party is voidable, not void."<BR/><BR/>Basically, once a common-law marriage is established, whether within the statute or not, it still is a marriage.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-75213717488485473222008-04-26T20:44:00.000-05:002008-04-26T20:44:00.000-05:00headmistress said:"I'm sorry if I seem dense, but ...<B>headmistress said:</B><BR/><BR/><I>"I'm sorry if I seem dense, but I am confused because every answer to my question begins by talking about how it doesn't matter if the second or later marriages are valid or not even though my question has nothing to do with the second or any subsequent marriages. My question is about the FIRST marriage- or more accurately, the lack of one. What I am trying to understand (just to satisfy my own curiosity) is what if there never was a first marriage- what if, in fact, there are no 'marriages,' just a group of people cohabiting and sharing more than the rent and utility bills."</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't trying to be rude - I just didn't know where the quoted definition of bigamy came from - and I missed the earlier post to that effect in this thread.<BR/><BR/>If, arguendo (for the sake of argument), there was no 'first' marriage, then there can be no bigamy. I don't think that that will be the case in the YFZ case. Too many of the FLDS speak of 'first wifes' and second 'spiritual' marriages.<BR/><BR/>By calling is a 'spiritual' marriage, whether the first or the second, by living together, by having children, etc, it becomes a common-law marriage and the subsequent spiritual/common-law marriages become prosecutable.<BR/><BR/>I hope this helps clear it up - basically their own words and documents will convict them.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26057784346996457052008-04-26T20:33:00.000-05:002008-04-26T20:33:00.000-05:00Crank,I Shepherdized Stevens and it appears to be ...Crank,<BR/><BR/>I Shepherdized <I>Stevens</I> and it appears to be the most recent case law on common-law marriage being a applicable to a bigamy charge.<BR/><BR/>That particular case did not involve an underage wife and I can't find a case on point. Having said that, the Legislature clearly intended for Bigamy to be applicable in those cases, as a charge of Bigamy where the the second spouse is underage is enhanced from a 3rd Degree Felony (2-10 years) to a 1st Degree Felony (5-99 years or life).<BR/><BR/>As for prosecuting Bigamy, it is not as rare as you might think. Darrell Yates was charged with Bigamy in 2005 and got 15 years. Last year a Guadalupe County man was convicted of Bigamy. Two Hardin County men were indicted on April 17th of this year for Bigamy. This is just what I can remember off the top of my head.<BR/><BR/>The last Bigamy case I could find for the Court of Criminal Appeals in Lexis was Casanos v State, 364 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 1963) on a different point of the law. There could be later ones, I didn't spend much time looking.<BR/><BR/>The last case in the Court of Appeals was an unpublished decision, Charles v State, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1294 (Tex. App. Houston, 2007), again, not on point for this situation.<BR/><BR/>Remember, in the Bigamy statute, one only has to hold out the appearance of being married, which means that none of the requirements for marriage in the Family Code would necessarily need to be met.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-56259640976291487642008-04-26T19:43:00.000-05:002008-04-26T19:43:00.000-05:00In case any missed it;Lawyers: 2 sect kids missing...In case any missed it;<BR/><A HREF="http://gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/26/lawyers-2-sect-kids-missing/" REL="nofollow">Lawyers: 2 sect kids missing</A> <BR/><I>"...State child welfare authorities responded that no children have been lost, but family relationships are muddled, hence the <B>need for genetic testing to determine them.</B>"</I><BR/><BR/>Now you have to just keep crying, maybe with a bit of laughter, after reading that response.<BR/><BR/>The story is they are <I>"boys, ages 16 months and 11 years,"</I>, so the reports are they should be going to seperate locations IIRC. <BR/><BR/>So I am guessing we're to understand that once they have genetic testing completed - maybe even wait to determine who the parents are - they'll be able to do a better job of counting heads, tracking numbered bracelets and sorting the ID's onto a list of location records. <BR/><BR/>I can hear the crew thinking of a media response; "Yeah that's right, the testing is the answer, we need DNA test results to find those kids!"kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66635585623874244732008-04-26T17:52:00.000-05:002008-04-26T17:52:00.000-05:00crank, that brings up other interesting questions....crank, that brings up other interesting questions. Statutes of limitations cannot be ex post facto. See Stroger v. California, 539 U.S. 607. Also, Jessop was convicted of rape because of the complaint of being forced into the marriage. Is there the same allegation here? If not, and if any illegal impregnation, is the issue statutory rape and its statute of limitations at the time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45525896221530388452008-04-26T15:19:00.000-05:002008-04-26T15:19:00.000-05:00"And if cohabiting doesn't have to be part of a Co..."And if cohabiting doesn't have to be part of a Common Law marriage, than are all adulterers in Texas committing bigamy?"<BR/><BR/>No. In order to prove common law marriage in Texas, you have to show that "the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married". Tex. Fam. Code Sec.2.401, et. seq. Notice there is no time limit on the cohabitation. You could live together for 50 years and not be common law married. Note also the cohabitation has to occur in Texas AND they have to represent to others WHILE IN TEXAS that they are married. Both of those might be relevant in the YFZ Ranch cases. I still have a hard time understanding how a minor, who by definition, is incompetent to enter into any binding legal agreement, can nevertheless "agree to be married" when the common law marriage statute specifically states that minors CANNOT be common law married. Frankly, the State would be MUCH better off prosecuting for sexual assault of a child (there is no statutory rape statute in Texas anymore), assuming they can prove it, then trying to prove common law marriages so they can prosecute for bigamy.The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-32298507735006343402008-04-26T12:55:00.000-05:002008-04-26T12:55:00.000-05:00Holm v. Utah From my limited knowledge on law, it ...<B>Holm v. Utah </B><BR/>From my limited knowledge on law, it looks like the problem in the Holm v. Utah case was not strongly centered on whether there is a problem with it being a right to practice religion, but that particular case lacked two consenting adults. <BR/><BR/>Similar to what may arise as a problem in the YFZ case[s] that could come about, I guess.<BR/><BR/>That does weaken the idea that the other wives, if 'consenting adults' when they married, will be forced to testify because they fear being charged with bigamy. Such a case may the prime ticket to take the religion question (and the Lawrence v. Texas question) all the way to SCOTUS.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74996450553275588362008-04-26T11:21:00.000-05:002008-04-26T11:21:00.000-05:00Sorry for the confusion."[a] person is guilty of b...Sorry for the confusion.<BR/><BR/>"[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."<BR/><BR/>Is from the Utah Supreme Court opinion and applies to Utah. There is a link in that post to the blog post and from it to the opinion itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-59416713330751796372008-04-26T09:21:00.000-05:002008-04-26T09:21:00.000-05:00From what I get in the posts on Stevens v State, t...From what I get in the posts on Stevens v State, the most recent changes describing the 2nd+ marriage in the Bigamy code were not needed, or from the opposite view, the Stevens case is no longer needed. One might be safe to presume the state used the Stevens case to determine the wording of the revisions in the latest code.<BR/><BR/>I saw nothing in the posts that helped me to realize there could be a marriage classified as bigamy absent a "prior legal marriage".<BR/><BR/>I see Cranks comment telling of the difficulties proving a common-law marriage IF needed to establish a "prior legal marriage", and TBM's telling us how easy it is to establish such. The quotes from the Stevens case do not appear to weigh in any on how a "prior legal marriage" is established.<BR/><BR/>Maybe there is more in the Stevens case, but it is not available on any free sites I could find.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63489442529384241282008-04-26T01:34:00.000-05:002008-04-26T01:34:00.000-05:00"To 10:17, you seem to have a problem with disasso..."To 10:17, you seem to have a problem with disassortative sexual selection. It's not the same as involuntary eugenics."<BR/><BR/>When somebody uses birth defects common to a given population to bolster his assertion that the entire population deserved to lose their kids to CPS, I don't think so.<BR/><BR/>Txblues man:<BR/><I>"[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."<BR/><BR/>I don't know where you found that, but it is not the definition of Bigamy in Texas. I invite your attention to the Penal Code, Sec 25.01, which states:"</I><BR/><BR/>I invite your attention to this thread- I was replying to a previous comment just two posts above the one of mine you're taking issue with, and the section that you refer to when you say you 'don't know where [I] found that?' I'm quoting from that earlier post, a 09:25:00 AM anonymous. So I 'found' it right here.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't posting something new to the thread to prove anything- I was quoting something somebody else had posted as a reference point for the questions I had about it. <BR/><BR/>You say, "The second 'marriage' can occur when there is a 'spiritual' marriage, they live together, they hold themselves out as being married, and have children together.<BR/><BR/>Note that the second and any subsequent marriages are not legal marriages."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if I seem dense, but I am confused because every answer to my question begins by talking about how it doesn't matter if the second or later marriages are valid or not even though my question has nothing to do with the second or any subsequent marriages. My question is about the FIRST marriage- or more accurately, the lack of one. What I am trying to understand (just to satisfy my own curiosity) is what if there never was a first marriage- what if, in fact, there are no 'marriages,' just a group of people cohabiting and sharing more than the rent and utility bills.<BR/><BR/>If I am understanding your claims correctly, then it seems to me that cohabiting with more than one person is bigamy in Texas, even if none of the parties have ever married anybody. I have a friend whose husband left her to move in with his girlfriend- it was almost a year before their divorce was final. If he'd been living in Texas, would he be guilty of bigamy?<BR/>And if cohabiting doesn't have to be part of a Common Law marriage, than are all adulterers in Texas committing bigamy?<BR/><BR/>I want to stress again that this is purely curiosity on my part- I am not making any claims for FLDS in this matter as I have no idea what their marriage arrangements are.<BR/><BR/>So if you're just kinky and you just want to live with two people without any form of a marriage with either one- is that bigamy?Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68963750350089404452008-04-26T00:39:00.000-05:002008-04-26T00:39:00.000-05:00"Crank, I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the ..."Crank, I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the law on Bigamy is incorrect, as I had posted above, and will repost here"<BR/><BR/>You're right, I totally missed your citation. That is extremely interesting. Assuming it's still good law (and I can't imagine there are just a huge number of bigamy cases prosecuted in Texas, much less appealed), you are clearly correct that informal marriages CAN be used to prove bigamy. What were the facts of that case? Did it involve an underage person? I really have a hard time seeing how the State could "prove" an informal marriage that couldn't exist by its own terms due to age restrictions. I mean, by that reasoning, the State could "prove" a defendant was common law married for purposes of bigamy even if the purported marriage met NONE of the requirements of the Family Code. Thanks for, unlike many commenters, actually citing the law. You're going to force me to go research this now.The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1312452604379673242008-04-25T23:52:00.000-05:002008-04-25T23:52:00.000-05:00Crank, I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the l...Crank, I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the law on Bigamy is incorrect, as I had posted above, and will repost here:<BR/><BR/>See again, Stevens v State, 243 S.W.2d 162 (Tex Crim App, 1951), which stated:<BR/><BR/>"In two cases this court has announced the rule that the crime of bigamy may be founded upon a common-law marriage. [internal citations omitted] Neither of these cases, however, entered into a discussion of the question, especially in the light of the contention now made, which is that the parties to a common-law marriage cannot agree or enter into a contract to do that which is absolutely void."<BR/><BR/>The court answered the question as follows:<BR/><BR/>"The word 'marry' used in the statute, as applied to the second marriage, does not mean a valid one. All bigamous marriages are void."<BR/><BR/>"While it has been held that the subsequent marriage must be of such a character that but for the existence of a prior legal marriage it would be valid, the weight of authority is that, where the form of ceremony of marriage with another person is gone through, there is a sufficient marriage on which to predicate a charge of bigamy, the view being taken that the word 'marries,' when applied to a subsequent marriage, means going through a form of marriage, and does not mean a valid marriage; added formalities are not necessary where mutual consent of the parties alone is sufficient to constitute matrimony, and a common-law marriage is sufficient."<BR/><BR/>Believe me, the fact that the bigamous marriage cannot be legally entered into does not prevent the person from being prosecuted for Bigamy.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>Common law can be hard or easy to prove, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.<BR/><BR/>First, are their any documents showing the 'spiritual' marriage? Did any of the 'wives' give statements to CPS or police? Are the wives willing to face Bigamy charges themselves if they don't want to cooperate? Is there a child born to the couple? Do they live together? <BR/><BR/>The intent of the couple can be proven by acts, you don't necessarily need an overt statement.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17847945569997086062008-04-25T23:30:00.000-05:002008-04-25T23:30:00.000-05:00Bluesman correctly restates the definition of biga...Bluesman correctly restates the definition of bigamy I had already listed above. However, I disagree that it is "easy" to prove common law marriage in Texas. In fact, it is quite difficult, mostly due to the requirement that the parties "agreed to be married" and that the couple "represented to others that they were married." Absent things like filing taxes jointly or listing someone as a spouse on rental papers or things like that, you just don't see alot of common law marriage being proved in contested settings. Of course, an essential element of a common law marriage missing in the YFZ case (at least from the evidence seen so far) is that you can't be ceremonially or common law married to more than one person and minors can't get common law married, parental consent notwithstanding. Tex. Fam. Code sec. 2.401(c)(1) & (2). So, the State cannot use informal marriage to prove either bigamy or marrying someone under age in Texas the way they did in Utah.The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41874618271320648062008-04-25T22:29:00.000-05:002008-04-25T22:29:00.000-05:00Kids missing now?<A HREF="http://gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/25/lawyers-2-sect-kids-missing/" REL="nofollow">Kids missing now?</A>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45678759373321896822008-04-25T21:37:00.000-05:002008-04-25T21:37:00.000-05:00Headmistress said:"[a] person is guilty of bigamy ...<B>Headmistress said:</B><BR/><BR/><I>"[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know where you found that, but it is not the definition of Bigamy in Texas. I invite your attention to the Penal Code, Sec 25.01, which states:<BR/><BR/>"(a) An individual commits an offense if: <BR/> (1) he is legally married and he: <BR/> (A) purports to marry or does marry a person <BR/>other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or<BR/> (B) lives with a person other than his spouse in <BR/>this state under the appearance of being married; or<BR/> (2) he knows that a married person other than his <BR/>spouse is married and he:<BR/> (A) purports to marry or does marry that person <BR/>in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under <BR/>circumstances that would, but for the person's prior marriage, <BR/>constitute a marriage; or<BR/> (B) lives with that person in this state under <BR/>the appearance of being married."<BR/><BR/>Lets break this down into easy portions.<BR/><BR/>A legally married person includes married by license or by common law. Common law is easy to prove in Texas, and by stating 'first wife,' etc., the person generally meets that requirement. Note that there is not a requirement for cohabitation, although this helps to prove a common law marriage. There is no minimum time in Texas to establish a common law marriage.<BR/><BR/>The second 'marriage' can occur when there is a 'spiritual' marriage, they live together, they hold themselves out as being married, and have children together.<BR/><BR/>Note that the second and any subsequent marriages are not legal marriages.<BR/><BR/>In addition to charging the husband with Bigamy, each of the wives after the first wife can also be charged with Bigamy. If one of the parties is under 18, and the proper affidavit is not filed with the County Clerk attesting to parental consent and that neither party is currently married, then the offense is a 1st Degree Felony with a sentence of 5-99 years or life in prison.<BR/><BR/>I imagine that the prosecutors will use this to get information from the wives, especially since felony charges on the wives will not help them get their children back. If they don't want to cooperate, then they face prison time also.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8209238130525750392008-04-25T20:59:00.000-05:002008-04-25T20:59:00.000-05:002,000 years ago, it was common in Jewish communiti...2,000 years ago, it was common in Jewish communities for parents to arrange marriages (betrothal) of girls with older men. The typical age of marriage was 13 for girls and 18 for men after a period of a few years of this betrothal period (aka "spiritual marriage").<BR/><BR/>On this basis it is likely that Mary was married to Joseph when she was 13, became impregnated by God at about that time and bore Jesus at the age of 14. Given the widespread celebration of that act by many churches, I propose that a warrant be issued to investigate the background of all Christian parents and remove their kids from this potentially dangerous environment until they prove that they are not abusing their kids.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63321484799136906602008-04-25T20:04:00.000-05:002008-04-25T20:04:00.000-05:00Texas statutes of limitations 1. Prosecution of ...Texas statutes of limitations<BR/><BR/> 1. Prosecution of the offense of sexual assault may commence at any time IF "during the investigation of the offense biological matter is collected and subjected to forensic DNA testing and ¦the matter does not match the victim or any other person whose identity is readily ascertained." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.01(1)(B).<BR/> 2. Prosecution of the offenses of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault must commence within ten years of the offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.01(2)(E).<BR/> 3. The prosecution of all other felony sex offenses must commence within three years of the offense. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.01(6). These offenses include: indecency with a child, Tex. Penal Code § 21.11; improper relationship between educator and student, Tex. Penal Code § 21.12; and prohibited sexual conduct, Tex. Penal Code § 25.02.<BR/> 4. Prosecution of the offenses of indecency with a child, sexual assault, and aggravated sexual assault, if the victim was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense, must commence within ten years of the victim's eighteenth birthday. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.01(5).<BR/><BR/>http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sexual-assault-issues/state-statutes-of-limitations<BR/><BR/> Were these laws recently changed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6544015674316277432008-04-25T18:04:00.000-05:002008-04-25T18:04:00.000-05:00FLDS attorney challenges Texas count of pregnant m...<A HREF="http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9056589&siteId=297" REL="nofollow">FLDS attorney challenges Texas count of pregnant minors from polygamous sect</A> <BR/><I>"Of the three teenagers listed as pregnant, Parker said, one is about to turn 18 and another refused to take a pregnancy test, he said. "That leaves us with one," he said. </I>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-87937644684103634062008-04-25T16:17:00.000-05:002008-04-25T16:17:00.000-05:00The State has been taking such good care of these ...The State has been taking such good care of these children. From the El Dorado Yellow Press--I mean, Sucess:<BR/><BR/>"Five buses loaded with YFZ children stopped in Eden, Texas Friday morning because one of the children was reportedly ill. An ambulance met the bus, as shown in the photo below. The condition of the child is unknown at this time."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.myeldorado.net/" REL="nofollow">Link</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com