Ironically, last year the Obama administration increased the number of countries that may face U.S. sanctions for not doing enough to combat human trafficking, “calling on those and other nations to get serious and take tough steps to eradicate the lucrative illicit practice.”

Yet there are countless children being neglected, abused, and trafficked in the name of religion, and the United States does little to stop it. Even when allegations of child trafficking has been supported by credible testimony, the AG’s office in Utah still drags its feet when it comes to searching for these missing children because, for one thing, they have no documentation on the young lives that have gone missing.

And whose fault is that? In Utah and Arizona there are no laws requiring educational accountability for the home-schooled children.  Once a child is pulled out of school for religious homeschooling reasons, the families have zero educational accountability with the state ever again. If a child goes missing or gets “married off” to a pedophile, no one knows but the conspirators. It’s the perfect environment to protect predators. There’s no teacher to inquire about the absence of a child, no system to ensure mandatory reporting of child abuse, no time when the parents have to account for the welfare of their children, no having to check in with any agency for any reason. The home-schooled children in Utah and Arizona are not required to be tested or pass minimum educational standards or learn to read. Families don’t have to show that the children are being educated at all.

Or that they are even still alive for that matter.

When children are born in a religious society such as Short Creek, it’s probable that they have never been to public school. If children have been reported missing by relatives on the outside, it’s probable that the state cannot even confirm that these children exist.

Children of religious fundamentalists are the perfect slaves to be used for child labor or trafficked as child brides since there’s an almost-guaranteed “we-will-look-the-other-way” policy from law enforcement. Cpl. Dan Moskaluk of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police confirmed this, stating that Canada has known about the child-trafficking allegations from late ’90s upwards to as late as 2006, yet no investigation was launched until December of 2011.

Former FLDS member Kathleen Mackert told CBS News, ”Child brides have been trafficked to Canada for my entire life and before then. As long as I’ve known, it’s been going on.”

Watch this video clip that confirms the lack of action on the part of law enforcement.

The attorney general of British Columbia alleged in a court affidavit that the parents of two 12-year-olds and a 13-year-old smuggled them out of Canada in 2004 and 2005.

In a story broadcast by KSL-TV in November 2004, Linda Price spoke on behalf of a group of anti-polygamy activists centered in nearby Creston, BC. She alleged that young brides were being smuggled in both directions between Utah and Canada.

Yet it took until Dec. 12, 2011 – seven years later, for officials to even begin to investigate what happened to these little girls.

Officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force will be in Texas from Dec. 12 to 16 to gather information about underage Canadian girls believed to have been victimized by Warren Jeffs, the convicted pedophile and leader of a fundamentalist Mormon group. SOURCE: Religious News Blog

Ironically, seven years of ignoring-human-trafficking later, the U.S. hypocritically announced sanctions against 23 countries for “not doing enough to combat human trafficking.” This is like the pot calling the kettle black.

“The report analyzed conditions in 184 nations and ranked them in terms of their effectiveness in fighting what many have termed modern-day slavery. The State Department estimates that as many as 27 million men, women and children are living in such bondage around the world.” Large numbers of men, women and children are enslaved in cults right here in the U.S. with the traffickers protected by the cloud of religious freedom.

The United States should be ashamed of its track record of ignoring human trafficking in it’s own back yard. After the evidence of trafficking in Short Creek emerged in the raid of the polygamist compound in Texas, agents were all ramped up and finally ready to intervene when word came down from from “the highest authorities in the United States government” calling off this life-saving raid designed to save children at the last minute.

Consequently, the crimes have not only continued, but grown in severity and number.

Today, even more children are missing, hidden who-knows-where, and authorities know about it.

They’re called ‘houses of hiding.’ The worry is that there are still children being trafficked in potential sexual crimes or being held for the prophet for that purpose…That is a concern and that is something I intend to look into.” –Utah AG Mark Shurtleff. KSL

In its annual Trafficking in Persons report, the State Department identified 23 nations as failing to meet minimum international standards to curb the scourge, which claims mainly women and children as victims. That’s up from 13 in 2010. Another 41 countries were placed on a “watch list” that could lead to sanctions unless their records improve.

Watch this clip about the “Trafficking Protocol” that could be used in the states to help thousands more.

Click the following link to view House Bill 7049: http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=48921 

Signs

There was a lot of religious nonsense during Jeff’s court proceedings, including the documents where, um, Jesus Christ weighed in on Jeffs’ behalf, informing the judge she no longer had power over Jeffs.  Jeffs delivered these ‘revelations’ from Jesus, but he was just the messenger, you know. It was God that placed Jeffs above the law. “I, the Lord Jesus Christ, am above all, and my law is religious and of me, a heavenly power over all creation,”  stated a court document Jeffs filed on Oct. 13, 2011.  Prison officials, no doubt, had a hunch that the convicted polygamist prophet and pedophile was more than some crazy nut to laugh about.

The man is still dangerous.

On Aug 9, 2011, after Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison, CNN quoted Prosecutor Eric Nichols.

“Rarely if ever in the criminal justice system in Texas have we ever encouraged a person such as Warren Jeffs, whose criminal conduct spans decades, multiple jurisdictions and hundreds of victims,” Nichols said. CNN

Nonetheless, utilizing his phone privileges, the prisoner still managed to essentially overthrow the U.S. government and become the sole lawmaker of a small American town. According to the Salt Lake Tribune (12/15/11), Jeffs ordered members to relinquish all personal possessions to designated FLDS leaders who would then determine whether they would be worthy of getting them back.  All forms of entertainment have been outlawed by Mr. Jeffs. Large items like ATV’s and trampolines – contraband. Young females were commanded to quit their jobs and forbidden from possessing cell phones or other communications devices.

Children’s toys were ruled as evil and idolatrous. All toys had to be eliminated, including the children’s brand new Christmas presents.

And if that wasn’t enough emotional cruelty, family pets had to be eliminated.

Let that sink in.

——–

Can you imagine the psychological trauma to a child that could come from that proclamation alone?

——–

This is not the Grinch that stole Christmas presents one year.

This is the Grinch that is forcing his innocent, misled followers to share the misery of his life sentence.

Warren Jeffs orchestrated virtual search-and-seizures (without warrants) to ensure private citizens were complying with his laws or face severe consequences. He demanded confessions and lengthy interviews (which were handled by his minions,) and believers had to fill out detailed questionnaires that invaded even the most private parts of people’s personal lives.

And then he invalidated all marriages, dissolving every family unit – removing every last fragment of permanence, security or stability in family life.

This made physical relations between (former) husband and wife a mortal sin – and enabled him to psychologically torment his true believers and further control their lives.

There’s an exception though.

Intimate relations can take place if it is pre-approved by him or other church leaders for the sole purpose of procreation.

Just one more small detail. Allegedly, the sex act has to be, um,

“witnessed”

by a group of hand-picked priesthood holders.

Who would be shocked if it turns out to be true?  Especially considering the heart-breaking audiotapes played in court regarding how he molested the child ‘brides’ in the temple in front of witnesses.

He wasn’t sentenced to life in prison for nothing.

If this “pre-approved and witnessed” thing is true, talk about a recipe for disaster!

Imagine the male-female ratio of one young wife, one old ‘husband’ to whom she was assigned, and a clan of the convicted child molester’s religious colleagues (who themselves have been deprived of sex and no doubt have screaming hormones,) watching live pornography in a secure, private location.

Not good for the girl. Not good at all.

Yet if these modest, sheltered, believing women desire to have children, they have no choice but to subject themselves to the humiliation of disrobing in front of a quorum of elders that they know from church. And it might even include relatives.

For young women whose clothing covers their bodies from neck-to-ankle and have been taught since birth that it’s better to lose their life than lose their virtue, publicly disrobing would be traumatizing enough.

But it’s not enough. The young woman must then perform her procreating acts before a gang of male onlookers.

Priesthood holders, mind you. Ecclesiastical leaders. These are clergy who are SUPPOSED to have a special trust relationship and fiduciary duty to look after her, not watch her have sex with one of their buddies.  

Excuse me, but isn’t this sexual abuse?

Where in Heaven’s Name is the FBI?

Some of them are in Ohio doing their job, thank goodness. The Daily Mail reported “The FBI has busted Samuel Mullet, the leader of a breakaway Amish sect” behind the “beard and hair cutting attacks against other Amish in rural eastern Ohio.”

Mullet and six men who were already facing charges in the beard cuttings are now accused of committing federal hate crimes against the Amish who disagreed with them or tried to split with the clan. Cutting the hair is a highly offensive act to the Amish, who believe the Bible instructs women to let their hair grow long and men to grow beards and stop shaving once they marry. The attacks struck at the core of the Amish identity.  ~Daily Mail UK

Sam Mullet was charged with a hate crime and faces up to 10 years of prison for beard cutting. Yet Warren Jeffs, as a punishment to the male FLDS whose religiosity wasn’t up-to-snuff in his eyes, ordered the virtual kidnapping of the men’s wives and children in the middle of the night, leaving countless people missing, hundreds of families in a state of emotional devastation, and authorities in Utah failing to intervene because, well, it’s their religion.

Detective Sam Brower, author of Prophet’s Prey, is beside himself. His dogged seven year investigation was invaluable in getting Jeffs convicted. After visiting with the traumatized FLDS on New Year’s Day, in a private facebook group Brower wrote, “I’ve been in the Crick witnessing the end of the world. In reality, there is a human crisis going on there of epic proportions.”  He said, “I spent part of my day today speaking with a man whose wife and children were removed from his home at 3 a.m. last night, and he had no idea where they were being taken. To say it was heartbreaking was an understatement.”

I simply cannot believe the pain and human suffering that is being wreaked upon thousands of people by a mad, completely evil, narcissistic sociopath, pedophile, rapist who is still wreaking havoc from a prison cell. All the while, irresponsible people are going on the news joking about throwing the criminals revelations in the round file, and stating that they are not worried about it because “they” have never been violent in the past. Besides not being true, it is completely imprudent and unwise for someone in a position of public trust to take such an irresponsible posture, when history has taught us to be wary of radical extremist religious freaks.

This is without a doubt one of the scariest times I’ve seen out there, and I do not see it ending well. And, it’s not just Warren and his cronies that are going to have blood on their hands. It is the courts and judges, the governors and legislators, prosecutors, the even the President. I’ve seen all these people, not only in UT and AZ, minimize, joke about, cover-up, look the other way, and even defend the largest and most lawless group of fanatics in the country.  ~Detective Sam Brower

Attorney Natalie Malonis who is connected with residents of Short Creek described the conditions at “the creek” as chaotic. “Families are being split apart with no warning. Parts of families are being spirited away to parts unknown. Acts of vandalism have run rampant, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage,” she wrote. “The upper level priesthood men have been required to take an oath of celibacy, and the intense interrogations, mandated confessions, and extortion continue.”

Why aren’t these people protected?

Ironically, Jeffs is protected from harm while he is in custody, but he’s been granted the freedom to harm others and take their liberties away. In fact, he utilizes the tax-payer-funded prison facility to direct the illegal activities of his enforcers on the outside which result in severe mental anguish to his believers, loss of property and denial of freedoms, not to mention a violation of their human rights. His mandates have directly contributed to the destruction of the very families over whom he has a high duty of care as their ecclesiastical fiduciary, and over whom he has undue influence. It’s a triple outrage.

Yet authorities are in a hard spot.

He’s got rights, ya know.

Officials would have found a faster way around that hard spot if Jeffs’ enforcers mercilessly entered their homes in Palestine, Texas in the middle of the night to ‘remove’ their own wives and children as a punishment for not relinquishing the titles to their vehicles or forking over the $5,000 donation to God’s work fast enough. There would probably be bloodshed, SWAT teams would be called in, law enforcement would explode into immediate action to protect these people, and it would create international outrage. But this?  They think it’s complicated because of religion.

Maybe Texas and Utah authorities could have intervened and prevented this, but who knows? On Dec. 28, Lyndsay Whitehurst of the Salt Lake Tribune reported about Jeff’s followers, “Everyone has to undergo a rigorous interview session, and those who don’t earn the approval of Colorado City-Hildale bishop Lyle Jeffs (Warren’s brother) by the end of the year are out.”  Out. Translation: if believers did not follow orders to ‘donate’ $5,000 to the church and sign over all possessions to the bishop, the men might risk never seeing their wives and children again.

Definition of Extortion

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Extortion is a crime. And religious freedom can not be used as a defense – remember what the prosecutor said during Jeffs’ criminal trial in Texas?

Prosecutor Eric Nichols warned jurors not to be swayed by Jeffs’ frequent invocations of religious freedom as a defense.  The case, he said, has nothing to do with an attack on religion. Instead, it is about Jeffs and his actions. (CNN)

It’s not Jeffs’ beliefs that are making grown men in Short Creek weep in agony. It’s his actions. Are authorities intervening to help the men find their missing daughters, missing children, missing wives?  Maybe, maybe not. Because it’s a religious matter, witnesses won’t talk, and it’s complicated.

Just as a person’s religious beliefs can not be used to justify the commission of a crime, a citizen’s religious beliefs should not be used to justify a lack of protection on the part of the law enforcement in the United States of America.

The believers are doubly victimized and penalized.

Just because they believe it, doesn’t mean they deserve it.

How ironic is this? What if the FLDS victims are not protected and assisted by the Utah attorney general, the FBI and other government agencies because they are over 18, and they believe.

There’s a word to describe when a government agency refuses to protect a group of people from harm because of their religious beliefs.  It’s called

discrimination.

It’s a violation of human rights.

Even if they ‘consent!’

If a parishioner believes that his priest has the right to cause him significant harm in the name of God, it is still criminal for the priest to do so.  Canadian Chief Justice Bauman who recently ruled that polygamy was inherently harmful to its believers and should remain illegal in Canada, wrote in his ruling that the government has a responsibility to protect people - even from themselves.

Definition of Sanctioned

Sanction is a broad term with different meanings in different contexts. Sanction can be used to describe tacit or explicit approval. Used in this sense, the term usually is used in assigning liability to a party who was not actively involved in wrongdoing but who did nothing to prevent it.  ~Legal Dictionary

Definition of Torture

Prison officials have allowed (aka ‘sanctioned’) Jeffs to mandate forced confessions and direct the execution of punishments that cause severe suffering to his flock. Could that amount to government-sponsored psychological torture? Before you roll your eyes, read the basic definition of torture contained in the UN Convention Against Torture:

“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining ..a confession, punishing him for an act …or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by … or with the consent or acquiescence of a …person acting in an official capacity. “ UN Convention Against Torture 

The Torture Reporting Handbook states, “There may be many different goals related to identifying victims of torture: holding the perpetrator accountable, etc.  It goes on to explain, “The identity of the victim is important because:

• Specific groups, such as children, women, the elderly, or religious persons, may be more vulnerable to the effects of ill-treatment, making it easier to consider that the degree of suffering is severe enough to amount to torture.
• It helps to identify patterns of abuse being directed at a particular group of victims.
• Additional international mechanisms which are specific to particular groups can be used – e.g. UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women.”

Jeffs’ followers are particularly vulnerable to being harmed by Jeffs because he is their spiritual leader; he is in a ‘special trust’ relationship with his followers. He confirmed this himself. “There is sacred trust given to religious leadership not to be touched by government agencies,” Jeffs said in court. Furthermore, he has provided the court with a plethora of evidence about his powerful status as an oracle of God.

In several outbursts during his trial he condemned the judge, jury, and prosecutors, claiming that they would experience the wrath of God for their actions. At one point he read a revelation from God to the court in a terroristic attempt to stop the trial from proceeding. “I will send a scourge upon the counties of prosecutorial zeal to make humbled by sickness and death,” he read. Judge Walther reprimanded Jeffs, telling Jeffs he could not threaten the jury.

“If you call for their destruction,” she said, “or in any way say that they will be injured or damaged because of their service, you will be removed from the courtroom.”

On August 4, 2011 MSNBC reported, “Jeffs tried three times unsuccessfully to have State District Judge Barbara Walther removed and filed a brief based on what he said was a revelation from the Lord saying she will suffer a crippling sickness that will soon take her life.”

Definition of Terroristic Threats

From the Legal Dictionary:  A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

• cause a reaction of any type to his threat[s] by an official …
• place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
• place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
• influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.[/quote]

If threatening the officials and counties with sickness and death did not qualify for additional charges, at the very least it should have resulted in the intensified monitoring of his communications. They gave him the benefit of the doubt, allowed him phone privileges, and he used them to do more damage.

Warren Jeffs’ revelations and threats may seem like hilarious water cooler fodder to his Texas custodians.

But they are more terrifying than a bomb threat to his believers.

“There is great fear among the community, but for the most part they are going along with these actions because they are in shock and have no opportunity to stop and think and plan to react any differently than with obedience,” Malonis said.

When will the believers merit protection?

When threats are made to his followers over whom he has undue influence and special trust, they are traumatized. It’s not a laughing matter whatsoever.

The Torture Reporting Handbook understands this extreme vulnerability: “religious persons may be more vulnerable to the effects of ill-treatment, making it easier to consider that the degree of suffering is severe enough to amount to torture.”

Sam Brower put it like this. “I simply cannot believe the pain and human suffering that is being wreaked upon thousands of people by a mad, completely evil, narcissistic, sociopath pedophile, rapist who is still wreaking havoc from a prison cell.”

The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not allow for speech that incites or produces imminent lawless action, even if it is delivered in the form of a hand-written message from Jesus Christ.  ”If speech intends to produce illegal actions, and if, as a result of this speech, the illegal actions are imminent and likely, then there is a reason to limit freedom of speech.”  (Brandenberg vs. Ohio)

Free speech?  Or a violation of human rights?

For prison officials to knowingly allow psychological torture and the violation of human rights - is to sanction it.

True or false?

You tell me.

_______________________________

To whom it may concern, please review the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights HERE

 

UPDATE:

For the moment, Warren Jeffs’ phone privileges have been suspended.

PLEASE SHARE THIS BLOG.

• That trafficked persons, especially women in prostitution and child laborers, are no longer viewed as criminals but as victims of a crime

• That global trafficking will be answered with a global response. Although organized crime such as traffickers, smugglers, pimps, brothel keepers, forced labor lords, enforcers, and gangs are powerful forces or ganized cooperation by police, immigration authorities, social service agencies and NGOs is encouraged by this Protocol (Art. 10)

• That there is now an accepted international definition of trafficking and an agreed-upon set of prosecution, protection and prevention mechanisms on which to base national legislation against trafficking, and which can serve as a basis for harmonizing various country laws

• That all victims of trafficking in persons are protected, not just those who can prove force (Art. 3a and b)

• That the consent of a victim of trafficking is irrelevant (Art. 3b)

• That the definition provides a comprehensive coverage of criminal means by which trafficking takes place, including not only force, coercion, abduction, deception or abuse of power, but also less explicit means, such as abuse of a victim s vulnerability (Art 3a)

• That this new international definition of trafficking helps insure that victims of trafficking will not bear the burden of proof (Art 3b)

• That the exploitation of prostitution and trafficking cannot be separated. The Protocol acknowledges that much trafficking is for the purpose of prostitution and for other forms of sexual exploitation (Art 3a)

• That it is not necessary for a victim to cross a border so that women and children who are domestically trafficked for prostitution and forced labor within their own countries, are also protected subject to provisions listed in Article 3 of the main Convention

• That the key element in the trafficking process is the exploitative purpose, rather than the movement across a border (Art. 3a)

• That this Protocol is the first UN instrument to address the demand which results in women and children being trafficked, calling upon countries to take or strengthen legislative or other measures to discourage this demand that fosters all forms of exploitation of women and children (Art. 9.5)

♦

Download the Guide to the New UN Trafficking Protocol HERE

Loyola Law Professor Dr. Kathleen Kim wrote a paper called “The Coercion of Trafficked Workers” describing labor settings where coercion is explicitly codified as a fundamental legal element in human-trafficking crimes. Although this paper is about  using psychological means to hold immigrants hostage and achieve slave labor, the concepts can even be applied to adults in polygamy and other cults.

The Coercion of Trafficked Workers

Abstract: 

Enacted pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment’s section 2 enforcement power, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (“TVPA”), criminalizes the use of psychological coercion to compel labor. The TVPA further aims to protect and provide immigration relief to the victims of psychologically-induced trafficking crimes. The TVPA represents a significant departure from previous Thirteenth Amendment doctrine which limited cases of involuntary servitude to those evidencing actual or threatened physical or legal restraint. However, the TVPA’s open-ended prohibition on non-physical and non-violent coercion does not provide further guidance on the exact range of coercive tactics sufficient to meet the legal standard. Hence, while recognized as a key component of human trafficking, courts and legislatures have yet to define the legal dimensions of psychological coercion, leaving its scope ambiguous, and ultimately, difficult to enforce. The legal uncertainty of psychological coercion has the additional, graver consequence of marginalizing a class of coerced trafficked workers who might otherwise be eligible for protection and immigration relief under the TVPA.
This Article presents a framework for clarifying the role of psychological coercion in the cases of human trafficking. Drawing from the coercion discourse developed by contemporary philosophers and legal theorists, this Article explores the prevailing theories of coercion, replicated in the law, which rely on the specificity and moral wrongfulness of a coercer’s threats to establish coercion. However, this Article argues that the prevailing theories may be inappropriate in the context of human trafficking where coercion is often non-specific and determination of the wrongfulness of threats is subject to the arbitrary judgments of individual law enforcement officials. Hence, this Article sets forth a new model of coercion unique to human trafficking. Called ‘situational coercion,’ this coercion theory focuses on the circumstances of the trafficked worker to identify the contextual features that create the conditions for coercion.

Trafficked workers are often economic migrants whose lack of stable immigration status and financial need render them vulnerable to being trafficked. Irregular immigration status and economic desperation, thus, situate trafficked workers in a unique class, highly susceptible to coercion. ‘Situational coercion’ accommodates these particularities, with the goal of promoting a new model of coercion that will more effectively protect the full range of trafficked workers.

Kim, Kathleen. “The Coercion of Trafficked Workers” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Renaissance Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, May 27, 2010 .  2011-06-05

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p407898_index.html

Abstract: 

Theories of coercion exist across multiple disciplines to explicate the ability of one actor, the coercer, to diminish the free will of another, the coercee, in the absence of overt physical force. A valid claim of coercion places legal blame on the coercer or relinquishes the coercee from legal responsibility for a coerced act or omission. Defining the point at which coercion occurs, however, is the conceptually more difficult task. Recently, coercion has emerged as a significant source of analytic concern in a developing area of the law – contemporary involuntary labor or human trafficking. It is in this setting where coercion is explicitly codified as a fundamental legal element in human-trafficking crimes. However, the laws addressing human trafficking continue to struggle with delineating the dimensions of coercion. Legal scholars, moreover, have not yet engaged in a focused exploration of this issue to bring efficacy and substantive meaning to coercion within the human-trafficking framework.

This Article examines the empirical and normative scope of coercion in the laws addressing contemporary involuntary labor. Incorporating perspectives from modern philosophy, this Article critiques older standards of coercion within Thirteenth Amendment doctrine and advances a new theory of coercion sensitive to the intricate power dynamics that characterize many human-trafficking cases. Called “situational coercion,” this new paradigm recognizes that instead of experiencing coercion through direct threats of harm from their traffickers, many trafficked workers comply with abusive working conditions due to circumstances that render them vulnerable to the exploitation, such as a lack of legal immigration status and poverty. By more accurately capturing the sociological realities of human trafficking, which victimize workers in subtle ways, the situational coercion framework advances the Thirteenth Amendment’s aim to ensure free labor and protect a broad category of coerced workers.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710282

How many human rights are being violated by polygamist cults and the states who fail to protect the people? Read the list and figure it out.

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one shall be compelled to belong to an association.

21. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

26. (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

29. (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Taken from:

Click the banner to go to the web site.

Americans Against the Abuses of Polygamy

http://polygamyisabuse.com/

recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas

disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas

it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas

it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas

the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas

a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

proclaims this

Universal Declaration of

HUMAN RIGHTS

as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Taken from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Posteren.pdf

The obligation of the government is to protect the rights of those deprived of their liberty, yet governmental failures to protect individuals who are not in custodial settings also raise human rights concerns.

The United States has an international legal obligation to protect individuals from violence perpetrated by the state and by private actors. And when public officials such as border agents or police officers have the authority to use force, human rights standards require that it be used proportionally, and only when necessary. Unfortunately, either because abuse happens at the hands of public officials, or because public officials turn a blind eye to victims of private abuse, the United States sometimes fails those who seek and deserve government protection. In so doing, it violates basic human rights and erodes public safety by making it less likely that victims will seek justice when they believe they will be met with abusive treatment, inaction, or indifference.

FROM http://www.hrw.org/united-states/us-program/-failure-protect

HILDALE, Utah — A new crackdown on followers of Warren Jeffs by his own lieutenants and a ban on everyday items such as children’s toys have triggered turmoil in the FLDS community.

Former members of the group say a large-scale purge is under way in the twin towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz. Many followers of the imprisoned polygamist leader are being forced out, and many others are said to be leaving voluntarily because they’re disturbed by what’s going on.

Now Read THIS

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional infliction of emotional distress involves outrageous and extreme conduct that goes beyond the bounds of common human decency and causes emotional harm to another. In order for an act or acts to rise to the level of “emotional distress” they must far surpass mere insults, annoyances, indignities and other trivialities.

The conduct must be regarded as atrocious and beyond the bounds tolerated by a civilize society. The act must be so egregious that a reasonable and prudent human being would be unable to tolerate such conduct. An example of such a case would be for someone to falsely inform a parent that their child had just been raped and killed.

The relationship of the parties and the susceptibility of the plaintiff are two other factors that are considered in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress. If the defendant has been in a position of authority over the plaintiff, then the claim is given more weight. In addition, if the plaintiff had a certain peculiarity or susceptibility that the defendant knew about and took advantage of in an egregious manner, then this is also given more weight in the claim.

In order for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to go forward, the following must be proven:

1. The conduct by the defendant was outrageous or extreme
2. The defendant, by intention or reckless disregard, caused the emotional distress
3. The plaintiff did, indeed suffer emotional distress
4. The proximate cause of the emotional distress was by the defendant’s actions
Bystanders may also make claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress especially if they were in the “zone of danger” for the offense. Some jurisdictions require that the bystander be physically injured or impacted in order to make this claim, while others do not. For instance, some courts hold that the proximity to danger and the fear for one’s own life is enough to cause emotional distress.

Intentional infliction of emotion distress claims may also be a part of slander, libel and defamation of character cases.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a claim that is not widely accepted by many states and jurisdictions. The legal concept is that Person A owes a duty of care to Person B to take reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress or injury. Many states have shunned the theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress since it is difficult to define and quantify.

In another early undue influence case, a local Rhode Island religious sect directed by a married couple, the Dodges, compelled church members to transfer possessions to the sect and live in the sect’s house/church. Nelson v. Dodge, 68 A.2d 51 (R.I. 1949). A member, also the Dodges’ son-in-law, gave everything he owned, including his children’s life insurance policies, to the Dodges. Eight years later, he and his family were expelled from the church and left destitute. The issue before the court was whether by inducing the person to transfer all his property on the pretext that if he did not his and his family’s souls would be lost, the Dodges’ conduct amounted to undue influence. The court found a confidential relationship existed. Also, the court found the Dodges’ actions amounted to undue influence–noting the isolation of the community and the continual pressure imposed even after initial rejections by the son-in-law to transfer his property. The court also found that the eight year delay did not, in these circumstances, constitute laches.

In Robert-Douglas v. Meares, 624 A.2d 405 (D.C. 1992), parishioners alleged that their contributions were obtained through undue influence. The court reversed a lower court ruling and found that evidence of repeated individualized threats of eternal damnation for failure to contribute or increase contributions was relevant to the issue of whether undue influence existed. Although general invocations from the pulpit on God’s wrath could rarely, if ever, be the basis of an undue influence action, the court found that continued, one-on-one personal threats, made against vulnerable listeners may not be afforded First Amendment protection and could sustain an action in undue influence.

There are two basic types of undue influence:

- The first form of undue influence is as a type of coercion – that is, if the victim could discuss his feelings, he would say, ”this is not my wish, but I must do it” [a definition taken from the classic legal case "Wingrove v. Wingrove," 11 Prob. Div. 81 (U.K. 1885)].

- The second form of undue influence is “false goodwill” (or “covert coercion”) – that is, the betrayal of a trusting relationship.  This takes two forms: 1) portraying unintended benevolence by the perpetrator; and 2) generating undeserved goodwill from the victim.  ”False goodwill” is a more insidious, and more common, type of undue influence.  In fact, one of the ancient names for undue influence translates as “Theft of Knowledge” and “Theft of Intimacy” – reflecting the combination of deception and betrayal that characterizes this type of manipulation.

Undue Influence Wheel

The Undue Influence Wheel is sometimes referred to as the Brandle/Heisler/Stiegel model (by Bonnie Brandle, MSW, Candace Heisler, JD, and Lori Stiegel, JD; Copyright©2006 YWCA Omaha).  It is based upon domestic violence relationships, stalking and sexual assault and one of its assumptions is that the process of undue influence parallels these other situations.  The suspected perpetrator is portrayed as a predator who finds susceptible victims, “grooms them,” then uses a variety of tactics (isolation, fear, shame, etc.) to increase their control.

The factors are:

1.    Keep Unaware

2.    Isolate from Others and Information

3.    Create Fear

4.    Prey on Vulnerabilities

5.    Create Dependencies

6.    Create Lack of Faith in Own Abilities

7.    Induce Shame and Secrecy

8.    Perform Intermittent Acts of Kindness

This model is currently being promoted for use in criminal prosecutions, but could be applicable in some civil or probate proceedings.