FAMILY TIES

Hey All ...

While watching the sisterwives show I remember them saying they all had individual wedding rings but also all wives wore a claddagh (sp?) ring on their right hand.

Got me intrigued.

Though myself I'm not a huge ring person I was thinking it would be nice to have a such a "family" ring.

Any thoughts or input ??

Got me thinking......

After watching the sisterwives show on tlc the other night, I was sitting and
thinking about what things were important for me and to me as a 1st wife in
regards of when another wife was/is added.

Bonding time w/ the GF.
First and foremost, I had to have bonding time with the new lady. Just her and
I. Don't try moving a stranger into my home!
LOL......this was/is not a problem since we are strong love-not-force people.

But even if there is a bond that doesn't guarantee a smooth transition.

So, here are more of my scattered thoughts......

A vehicle.
With a vehicle at your disposal - that way if the hubs is out on a "date", ya
don't feel trapped and abandoned...just hop in and go somewhere, anywhere, even
to the coffeeshop lol.

Spending money.
Ok ok, I can hear you saying,"money is too tight, there is no extra". To this I
say POPPYCOCK ! I'm not talking about the kind of spending allowances the
wealthy get. but I think it is important for all wives to have spending money.
In most homes money is pooled and one person handles the finances - hence the
need for "spending money" - keeps you from feeling like workhorses. So, even if
it's a minimal as $5.00 per week..it's necessary and should be included in the
household budget. LOL

Dates.
Yes dates. No not all together. Just the 2 of us. Not every week necessarily,
but definately occasionally. And the dates don't have to be anything more than
hanging out somewhere for a few hours. This is especially essential when hubs is
dating a gf. This will help squelch the "you do things with HER! You never do
anything with ME anymore!" feelings. (GROCERY SHOPPING AND DR APPOINTMENTS ARE
NOT DATES!)

Individuality appreciated.
A big peeve (personally) is being compared to others. It is probably stemming
from being the baby in a large family, but it really makes me wanna scream
whenever it happens. So - Don't say "so&so cleans a room in this order" or
"maybe you should try doing such and such like so&so does". Yes, it is very
possible that she has a better way. I'm not so pompous as to think I'm good at
everything, but for pete's sake - DO NOT COMPARE ME TO ANYONE! lol....it could
result in the unfortunate  accident of my hand meeting your head ;-)
Compliment a strength rather than point out a weakness.

Quick response time.
Texts, phone calls, emails - even if ya can't talk right then, a response is
needed. It gives peace of mind that you are important and acknowledged. This
does NOT mean that repeated contact should happen if ya know hubs is on a date
w/ the gf...I mean really! Would you like that happening if it were YOUR date ?

Space.
That's right I said space. Whether it be a whole room, or just a desk, it is
important to have a space that is all yours. This allows you some individuality.
Some people have said to me "then you are really not understanding what a family
is". UMMM....yeah...let me ask this...do you have siblings? did you all share
everything ? Did you all stay in the same room using one bureau? Doubt it. Same
thing as I am saying - we all need a little bit of personal space - to retain
our individuality.

Boundaries.
Hmmm, this one might pertain only to me personally. I have heirloom items that
cannot be replaced. Are they expensive? No. But if I express that I don't want
them touched then don't touch them unless absolutely necessary - and even then
BE CAREFUL !
Maybe that last one sounds very petty, but for me it's important.

Ok lastly........

Emotions.
They do exist. They are natural and healthy. I have them, you have them, even
men have them. Though i do agree that issues and feelings need to be out in the
open and discussed, sometimes one needs time to process what & how they are
feeling BEFORE discussing it. It helps make the discussion more rational -
belive me. Point being - never ever ever ever ever say to me (or anyone), "you
don't/shouldn't really think that, feel that way". right or wrong it is what it
is.

That about sums it up....any thoughts ?

FALL HAS ARRIVED !!!!

Loving it. Crisp air yet still comfortable. Fresh apples right off the trees. Hot apple cider. Leaves changing colors.


And............


CROCHET ! I haul out my crochet projects when Fall arrives. I buy yarn when Fall arrives. I get the crochetting fever when Fall arrives :-)


So consider yourself warned.....my fever is contagious and I usually infect at least one person every year ...LOL.
When you find yourself sitting on a porch with a crochet hook and ball of yarn, think of me and smile.

(Special Report from Pro-Polygamy.com) Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited

I got this yesterday. It is so amazing....we can really use this argument!

Blessings,
Sunnie


Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0079




TEASER LINE
Joseph Henrich, from the University of British Columbia, filed
a biased anti-polygamy report for a Canadian Supreme Court case
considering the issue of polygamy. The report regurgitated the
unproven "unmarried criminals" theory without source-attribution,
used the same flawed interpretation technique which his other
published academic research denounced, and contradicted
established economic principles and easily available evidence
in Western societies that actually indicate an under-supply
of men who want to marry women.




=====================================
============ OUTLINE ==============
=====================================


-------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction:
"Scholar" Never Thought about Polygamy Before
-------------------------------------------------
1.1. FOREWORD
1.2. HENRICH FILED ANTI-POLYGAMY REPORT TO COURT


--------------------------------------------------
2. Discredit #1:
Copied the "Unmarried Criminals" Theory
--------------------------------------------------
2.1. THE UNFOUNDED THEORIES REGURGITATED
2.2. NOT HENRICH'S OWN THEORY
2.3. JONATHAN RAUCH IN 2006
2.4. ROBERT WRIGHT ORIGINATED THE THEORY IN 1994 BOOK
2.5. HENRICH COPYING RAUCH COPYING WRIGHT


-------------------------------------------------
3. Discredit #2:
Henrich's Other Research Set Standard
-------------------------------------------------
3.1. HENRICH'S OTHER RESEARCH ONE MONTH BEFORE
3.2. WESTERN SOCIETIES ARE UNUSUAL FROM OTHER SOCIETIES
3.3. CONFINE INTERPRETATIONS ONLY TO SAMPLED POPULATIONS
3.4. HENRICH DREW THE VERY INFERENCE HIS OTHER RESEARCH DECRIED


-------------------------------------------------
4. Discredit #3:
Under-Supply of Men Wanting Marriage
-------------------------------------------------
4.1. ECONOMICS & EVIDENCE IN WESTERN SOCIETIES NOT CONSIDERED
4.2. NO "IMBALANCE" FROM ALLOWED MULTIPLE GIRLFRIENDS
4.3. THREE EVIDENCES IMPACTING WESTERN MARRIAGE RATIOS


-------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion:
Henrich's Anti-Polygamy Report is Discredited
-------------------------------------------------
5.1. DISCREDITED THREE WAYS
5.2. CHIEF JUSTICE CAN DISMISS HENRICH'S DISCREDITED REPORT


=====================================


To read this, go to:

Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0079

Hellooooooooo

Well, wow, September already....sheesh....where did the summer go !

It was a good summer though. Vacation was very restful and fun. Polygamy Day was a blast too.

So, just a quick HELLOOOOOO from me until next time.
Blessings all !

BROKEN TOYS

Broken Toys

As children bring their broken toys,
With tears, for us to mend;
I brought my broken dreams to God
because he was my friend.

But then instead of leaving him in peace to work alone,
I hung around and tried to help with ways that were my own.

At last, I snatched them back and cried,
"How could you be so slow?"
"My child," He said, "What could I do?
You never did let go...."

author unknown

Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial

I got this the other day....and I saw it in Google News. I think it tells this
news in the best way for us.

Blessings
Sunnie

Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0076

TEASER LINE
Unanimously determining that the lower court had given
improper instructions to the jury in the original 2007
trial, the Utah State Supreme Court reversed the two
"felony rape as an accomplice" convictions of Warren Jeffs
- leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the FLDS – for his
ordering the arranged marriage of an unmarried 19 year
old young man to his 14 year old cousin, Elissa Wall.

On July 27, 2010, in a unanimous 4-0 decision, the Utah Supreme Court
reversed the two convictions of Warren Jeffs and ordered a re-trial.

The leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), Jeffs had been convicted in Utah, in
2007, of two counts of felony rape as an accomplice. The convictions
pertained to Jeffs being the religious leader who ordered the 2001 arranged
marriage of an unmarried young man who was only 19 to his 14 year old
cousin. Notwithstanding that many media erroneously labeled Jeffs as a
"polygamist leader," the case only involved arranged marriage, under-aged
marriage, and incest in a rogue Mormon sect. But it never involved
polygamy.

At the time of Jeffs' convictions, Allen Steed - the teenager who had been
19 at the time of the arranged marriage - had not even been charged with
rape. As the Associated Press reported, "Steed was charged with rape the
day after Jeffs' September 2007 conviction, but the case has languished and
it's unclear how it might now proceed." No court has yet determined a
conviction that the actual crime of rape itself had occurred. The lower
court had convicted Jeffs of being an accomplice to a crime while the actual
crime, itself, had not yet been proven by conviction.

So, as according to The Washington Times, "The court declared a mistrial on
the grounds that jurors were wrongly told they could decide in judging Mr.
Jeffs whether the marital relations between Miss Wall and Mr. Steed were
consensual. Mr. Steed was not charged with rape, pending Mr. Jeffs'
conviction, and still has not been tried."

The Associated Press explained, "In its ruling Tuesday, the court agreed
with defense attorneys who argued that jurors should not have been told to
decide whether Wall's marital relations were consensual based on Jeffs'
actions and his role as her religious leader. That essentially equates Jeffs
with Steed - the person who allegedly has had nonconsensual sex. Justices
said prosecutors were wrong to make that leap."

Both of those media reported that the Court's justices wrote, "Only after
there is a determination that an offense has been committed can the law
impose liability on another party who 'solicited, requested, commanded,
encouraged or intentionally aided' in the commission of that offense."

The prosecution has the option to request a rehearing before the Utah
Supreme Court. If no request is made by August 10, 2010, the re-trial
proceeds back down at the 5th District Court. Assistant Utah Attorney
General Laura DuPaix "said no decision has been made about whether to
prosecute Jeffs again," the Associated Press reported. Utah Attorney
General Mark Shurtleff said, "it would be tough to retry him here because we
don't have much to hold him on as an accomplice to rape," The Washington
Times reported.

Beyond even the issues raised by the Utah Supreme Court's decision, a
re-trial of Jeffs' case might be less likely to achieve convictions.
Emerging evidence about Elissa Wall has been raising valid credibility
concerns.

The Associated Press reported, "Jeffs faced charges of accomplice to sexual
conduct with a minor in Arizona, but they were dismissed last month after
prosecutors said the two alleged victims no longer wanted to proceed with
prosecution."

Back on June 10, 2010, a report at Pro-Polygamy.com reported that AZCentral
had reported that Jeffs' defense attorney Michael Piccarreta - speaking
about the dismissal of the charges in Arizona - "said he believes the
charges were dismissed because the victim, the chief accuser in the
government's case, made false statements during the Utah trial and to
officials in Arizona that undermined her credibility... (He) said a midwife
who was scheduled to be a witness in the Arizona case recently admitted
re-creating and backdating records of Wall's miscarriage, an event that
verified the marriage was consummated while she was underage. According to
Piccarreta, Wall misrepresented the medical records during Jeff's first
trial in St. George, Utah, and during a more recent discovery interview."

Over a month later, the Associated Press reported that the July 27, 2010,
"ruling from Utah's high court comes as Washington County authorities
investigate allegations that Wall may have lied about her medical records
that were used in the trial. County Attorney Brock Belnap launched an
investigation in February after he was told by a third party that Wall's
'medical records had all been created in one day to make it look like she
had seen a caretaker on several different occasions.'"

In an extremely more-than-unusual co-incidence, ABC re-broadcast its
anti-polygamy episode of "What Would YOU Do?" on the very same night that
the Utah Supreme Court overturned Jeffs' convictions in the case involving
Elissa Wall. Hosted by the most dishonest media personality about polygamy
throughout all the media, John Quiñones, the anti-polygamy segment had
teamed up with Elissa Wall. They hired actors to dress up in stereotypical
FLDS clothing and pretend to be "polygamists" forcing polygamy on a 15 year
old "child-bride" actress in a public restaurant.

After that anti-polygamy propaganda - of invented fiction - first aired on
ABC in 2009, National Polygamy Advocate, Mark Henkel, composed a
comprehensive Special Report about it. The article-description explained,
"On March 17, 2009, ABC-TV's new 'unreality' show, 'What Would YOU Do?,'
teased the question for one of its segments, asking, 'How far would you go
for money and fame?' The host, John Quinones, asked someone on the show, 'So
you would lie for money?' But the reality is – as yet again proven in a
separate set-up segment with actors pretending to be 'polygamists' in the
same episode - John Quinones, himself, has repeatedly lied for money and
fame.' That Special Report was distributed to the media through
Pro-Polygamy.com on April 3, 2009.

The third section of that Special Report specifically reported about Elissa
Wall's turning her actual suffering into dishonesty for money-making.
Before exposing her dishonesty, the Special Report made it adamantly clear:
"Without question, the hearts of such regular pro-polygamists around the
country had always gone out to Elissa Wall for what that Mormon sect had
forced upon her."

The Special Report then explained, "Elissa Wall... had come out of the FLDS
- that same, one criminal sect about which Quiñones repeatedly used in order
to slander all normal polygamists. ...She embraced Quiñones' offer and
allowed her real story of cult-style abuse by the FLDS to be erroneously
misused. She allowed Quiñones to slander all consenting-adult
pro-polygamists whose hearts otherwise deeply sympathize with her."

Identifying the reason why Elissa Wall had allowed herself to be so used,
the Special Report revealed the evidence, "Her motivation to allow Quiñones'
deception was revealed on the show: Elissa Wall stood to make money and fame
by selling a book she had written about the FLDS, ...as if being about 'all
polygamy.' Hence, Elissa Wall had (disappointingly) fully sold out, seeking
to earn money and fame by allowing her story of real cultish abuse in the
FLDS Mormon sect to thereby falsely imply that it had anything to about
polygamy - when it did not."

Even when the Associated Press reported the Utah Supreme Court overturning
Jeffs' convictions, the reporter, Jennifer Dobner, also mentioned Elissa
Wall's book.

With such increasing evidence of Elissa Wall's dishonesty, there is a very
real possibility that she may choose to decline to testify in any re-trial.
If she had participated in any false testimony or falsification of evidence
in the previous trial, then Elissa Wall, herself, could face criminal
charges. If that is the case, she would have strong motivation to not
testify again against Jeffs in a re-trial. And if she did refuse to
testify, not only would that refusal strongly implicate her own likely guilt
of alleged false testimony or of alleged falsification of evidence, but it
also could possibly force the Utah prosecution to actually "have" to drop
the Utah charges against Warren Jeffs.

In the meantime, Texas has been seeking to extradite Jeffs to that State.
As the Associated Press reported, "Texas authorities used family records
gathered during a 2008 raid on a church ranch near Eldorado to charge Jeffs
with bigamy, sexual assault of a child and aggravated assault. The charges
allege marriages between Jeffs and girls ages 17 and 15 in 2005. In an
e-mail to The Associated Press last week, Bugden said Jeffs intends to
oppose extradition. It's expected that Texas authorities will have to start
a new proceeding to continue efforts to extradite Jeffs."

Considering its options in Utah, "The Utah Attorney General's office has not
decided whether to retry Mr. Jeffs but will hold him until it can turn him
over to Texas, according to department spokesman Paul Murphy. The federal
government also has a warrant out against Mr. Jeffs for unlawful flight, he
said," reported The Washington Times.

Regardless of what happens with the various States' cases against Jeff's
very real criminality, the National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting
Adults has always, consistently, and vehemently declared its opposition to
arranged marriage, under-aged marriage, and Warren Jeffs.

-------

The Biblo URLS for this are at the bottom of this webpage...Check out the
page anyway at

Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0076