NOOOOOO!

[LucyStoner]

On the facebook page, Truth About The Nauglers, Truth About The Nauglers posted that Mr. Naugler's alleged menacing victim was neither smaller nor older than Mr. Naugler.

 

Per Mr. Naugler's January 2013 mugshot data online, he was supposedly either 5'8" or 6'0", 240 or 250 lbs and 37 years old at the time.

 

Thus, if it is accurate that the person who contacted police is no smaller or older than Mr. Naugler and there have not been substantial changes in Mr. Naugler's dimensions, then the complainant, allegedly a female neighbor, is at least 5'8", possibly 6'0" or more, around or over 250 pounds and younger than 40.

 

Further, if it is true that the mother of the menacing victim was inside the home, logically the mother would have to have been older than her adult child and Mr. Naugler.

 

Wonder if six feet tall 250 pound women are common in the area.

By coincidence, I come from a long line of 6 feet tall women in a family who lived in one small area of rural Kentucky from the very end of the 18th century until after my mother was born in 1954. Weights from 180-300 not uncommon.

 

I jest.

 

But it's true.

 

At 5'9", I'm practically a munchkin.

 

I would pay good money to see Joe Naugler try to intimidate my mother, whose many jobs included being a bouncer. Joe's goose would be cooked.

[LucyStoner]

I watched the videos and it turns out I'm a nutter. Who knew? (Don't answer that.)

 

The crux of the video is that the police want to talk to Olivia alone because so she can speak freely. They are not wiling to have her mom there, and they aren't willing to come back later in case the parents get a chance to talk to Olivia first. He used the analogy of an abused woman telling the police everything is okay and the sheriff talking to her alone to see if that's true.

 

Let me say, the Nauglers went about this horribly. They seems to have a gift for escalation and they have many problems. While I generally tend toward reunification, I hope these kids move on.

 

That said, I do see their point. IMO, finding a 7 year old child walking along the road is not grounds to question them about abuse without their parents present. The happens all the time to all kinds of families, including my own when I was young and my brother wandered off and was brought back by a trucker. If my child wandered off I would be forever grateful to the person who returned them, but I would not voluntarily turn my child over for questioning about abuse without my presence. Kids say the craziest things. Last week my 7 year old, who's never ever been spanked, told someone we spank her often. Turns out she didn't even know what spanking means. I completely understand the need to talk to kids who may have been abused outside their parents' presence, I just don't think wandering along the road should precipitate that.

 

I would decline unless I had no right to. Maybe I don't, I don't know. Of course, I wouldn't go about it the same way they did.

 

The Resident Nutter

I see your point. That said, sizing up the situation, I also see the officer's point. He probably sensed something was not right from the living situation. I think these people have been on the radar for a while now.

[MistyMountain]

A friend of mine had to have supervised visits with her kids for a short time.They questioned her kids without parents present and used leading questions to really young children. The kids claimed things happen that never occurred. I do see your point ibnib. It is hard in these situations because if you ask questions a certain way kids can describe things that did not really happen.

[Corraleno]

Someone posted on the Blessed Little Homestead page that they are actually staying at a motel (and they gave the name so I assume it is someone local who saw them there) for the past couple of weeks.  So not just at a friend's house. . . .  

 

And their supporters are claiming they are in a hotel because they are afraid to stay at the homestead from fear that someone will stalk and hurt them. 

 

Nicole has confirmed that they're staying at the hotel because they're being stalked and harassed and people are trespassing on their property, and the sheriff isn't protecting them. The only thing funnier than pretending they've had to flee to an $80/night hotel to avoid "stalkers" is acting incensed that the sheriff, whom she recently screamed at to shoot her, isn't protecting them.

 

Spending hours and hours on FB insisting that sleeping on dirty blankets in the mud, eating moldy pancakes, and swimming in a trash-filled sewer is their children's idea of "living the dream," while they're sitting in an air conditioned hotel room with clean sheets, cable TV, and indoor and outdoor pools and a spa, is a level of hypocrisy that truly boggles the mind. Since neither she nor Joe cook, I'm gonna guess they're eating out a lot, too. I'm sure the donors are thrilled that the money they contributed for a cabin and homeschool supplies for the kids is being well spent.

 

And yet, the supporters are still there, bashing and insulting anyone who would dare question the wisdom of this...

[Rivka]

I haven't visited their FB page in a while.

 

Wow. Their supporters are...

 

Wow.

 

Everything critics say about the Naughlers is wrong. Everything. There are people vigorously arguing that the Naughlers aren't spending any of the GoFundMe money on the hotel room. It's all coming out of Nicole's business - you know, the one that opened a couple of weeks ago after a $20K loan she's supposed to pay back. WHAT DO YOU MEAN that's implausible?! If you know what  you're doing, it is ENTIRELY possible for a small business to grow to the point of funding hotel-and-restaurant living after two weeks. HOW CAN YOU SAY IT ISN'T.

 

I get why Nicole and Joe are so embedded in their counterfactual beliefs. I don't get why other people are similarly invested.

[Ottakee]

 

Wonder if six feet tall 250 pound women are common in the area.

I live in an area where 5'5" is SHORT and 6 feet for a woman is not uncommon at all.  1/3 of the girls in my 8th grade class were 6 ft tall by then.  Not all are 250+ pounds but at 6ft tall they are very solid women.

[Heather in VA]

Is the reasoning behind The Truth about Nauglers pointing out the supposed height and weight of the woman Joe threatened that if she's the same size as him he can't menace her? That is ridiculous. If Joe is being aggressive and threatening plus telling one of the kids to get a gun then it shouldn't matter if the person is his size.  She could still be scared and felt threatened. Plus he's on her property taking her water. 

[gardenmom5]

I'm not so sure they've totally bought into their parents' craziness. Someone said that when Sheriff Pate arrested her, Jacob and Quinton not only did as they were asked and got into the police car without any resistance, but that Jacob told his mother she was just making things worse. 

 

I actually find Jacob's situation the most heartbreaking. He was 3 when Alex left, so at best he saw what was happening to Alex and at worst he was a victim himself. He has been dragged all over the country, never allowed to stay in one place long enough to make real friends or establish ties. When they were living in the old farmhouse, and the local LDS church was taking care of the family, Jacob was really involved in Scouts and various church activities, and he was really proud of having been made a Deacon in the church. There are lots of photos of him on her old blog and he looks so happy. I think the 18 months or so they spent there, when they had a nice big house and adequate food, was probably the most stability they'd had for a while, and obviously he felt like part of the community there.

 

Then his parents had to totally piss off and alienate everyone to the point they were kicked out of the church, lost their home, and had to start over in a new ward. So then Nicole was posting that Jacob didn't seem as enthusiastic about scouts or church as he used to be, and I think he probably just gave up. What's the point of putting in so much time and energy, trying to set down roots in a community, when you know your crazy parents will just screw it up and you'll be yanked away and have to start over again?

 

Someone commented that Jacob does all the building and all the hard physical work (clearing brush, widening the driveway, building the "cabin" and the furniture), and that he seems so much older than his years, and someone else said "Yeah, Jacob is the husband Nicole never had" and that just brought tears to my eyes. Especially in light of the fact that Nicole mentioned wanting to build a separate little cabin on the property for him, since he's almost an adult — she obviously expects him to just stay there and keep taking care of her and Joe and all the other kids, since the actual "parents" have the emotional maturity of 8 year olds.  :crying:  I think you are being *very* generous with that assessment.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some of the older kids are cooperating, at least to some extent. Like they may be smart enough not to mention it if Joe is smoking weed, while still acknowledging that they were really cold and hungry last winter and liked it better when they had an actual house.

 

this is truly heartbreaking.

I imagine even kids who are initially resistant will respond to *real* beds with clean bedding, regular hot meals of *real* food, plenty of water for bathing, real medical care if they get ill . . . .

I hope they never go back. 

the fact joe and Nicole are already on record of having parental rights terminated does bode well for the other children.

 

It still stands out to me that in the audio of Joe telling the kids they were going to be "kidnapped" the next day and removed from the home there was almost no reaction from any of the children.

hard to say.  they may have been conditioned into never giving an emotional response (J & N's instability means the kids never know how crazy  mom and dad are this hour), or they may be secretly thinking "YES!"

Nicole and Joe should be prosecuted for child endangerment. They should serve time. Honestly, I think their parental rights should be terminated.

I agree joe should be in jail.   I really think the most appropriate place of Nicole is a long-term state mental institution.

 

I haven't watched all of the "Olivia incident" videos, but someone said that in one of the videos, Joe is asked if they are the family that was living in the double-wide, since that family was also named Naugler, and Joe lies and says no, that wasn't them. The mobile home they're referring to is the one the Nauglers had been evicted from a few months prior to this, which they allegedly trashed by smearing feces everywhere and taking a hatchet to the walls, in retaliation for being evicted.

 

The person who originally posted about that incident on the Homeschoolers Anonymous page, said that the sheriff had been called and had taken pictures of the way they left the mobile home, so I hope that's true and they still have those on file. That would provide clear evidence to CPS that the issues go far beyond just needing a fourth wall and a few more beds. They live like animals even when they have a nice house.

most animals don't poop where they sleep.

[Mimm]

I watched the videos and it turns out I'm a nutter. Who knew? (Don't answer that.)

 

The crux of the video is that the police want to talk to Olivia alone because so she can speak freely. They are not wiling to have her mom there, and they aren't willing to come back later in case the parents get a chance to talk to Olivia first. He used the analogy of an abused woman telling the police everything is okay and the sheriff talking to her alone to see if that's true.

 

Let me say, the Nauglers went about this horribly. They seems to have a gift for escalation and they have many problems. While I generally tend toward reunification, I hope these kids move on.

 

That said, I do see their point. IMO, finding a 7 year old child walking along the road is not grounds to question them about abuse without their parents present. The happens all the time to all kinds of families, including my own when I was young and my brother wandered off and was brought back by a trucker. If my child wandered off I would be forever grateful to the person who returned them, but I would not voluntarily turn my child over for questioning about abuse without my presence. Kids say the craziest things. Last week my 7 year old, who's never ever been spanked, told someone we spank her often. Turns out she didn't even know what spanking means. I completely understand the need to talk to kids who may have been abused outside their parents' presence, I just don't think wandering along the road should precipitate that.

 

I would decline unless I had no right to.  Maybe I don't, I don't know. Of course, I wouldn't go about it the same way they did.

 

The Resident Nutter

 

I do get what you're saying. And at the very start of the video, I was on Nicole's side. (She managed to turn that around real fast.) The kid was just going for a walk? She's right, there's no law against that.

 

But really, the police CAN check up on your child. And I don't blame him for not wanting to wait, let the parents prepare her and coach her on what to say, and come back the next day. If Nicole had said, "Yes, you can talk to her for a couple minutes, but not out of my eye sight. You stand over there, where I can't hear, and I'll stand over here. See our perfectly beautiful homestead? We're all doing fine, you can go now." They probably would have gone for that. Of course, Nicole was probably (rightly) afraid of them seeing the squalor of the place, so that wouldn't be an acceptable solution. I get that it's scary to let your kids talk to police and social workers where you can't clarify things that sound wrong. But I think in Nicole's case, the reason she didn't want the police there is because there were actual reasons her kids could be taken away. Which is what eventually happened. Plus she's a fanatic.

 

Also, if you're going to free range your children, the idea is to educate them to be safe and make good decisions. In other words, go for a walk and NOT get in the car with a stranger. This is no longer "free range parenting" but simple neglect.

[Mergath]

And their supporters are claiming they are in a hotel because they are afraid to stay at the homestead from fear that someone will stalk and hurt them. 

 

Where the heck are their bajillion dogs while they're lazing around in the hotel, I wonder? Did they just leave them at the "home"stead figuring they can hunt for their food or something?

[Renai]

this is truly heartbreaking.

I imagine even kids who are initially resistant will respond to *real* beds with clean bedding, regular hot meals of *real* food, plenty of water for bathing, real medical care if they get ill . . . .

I hope they never go back. 

the fact joe and Nicole are already on record of having parental rights terminated does bode well for the other children.

 

hard to say.  they may have been conditioned into never giving an emotional response (J & N's instability means the kids never know how crazy  mom and dad are this hour), or they may be secretly thinking "YES!"

I agree joe should be in jail.   I really think the most appropriate place of Nicole is a long-term state mental institution.

 

most animals don't poop where they sleep.

 

Only Joe has had parental rights terminated, and Nicole is not the mother.

[Word Nerd]

Where the heck are their bajillion dogs while they're lazing around in the hotel, I wonder?

Keeping all the goats company?

[Kerileanne99]

Did anyone catch in the Olivia Incident part 2 video where Joe is talking to Nicole and says "we aren't doing anything wrong. Just camping on the property for a couple of months..."

No mention of homesteading, setting up anything, just this. It almost seems as if they have discussed what to say to anybody regarding conditions and he is making sure she remembers what to say. In fact, many of their conversations read like that, with Nicole 'yupping' an affirmation.

Also, does anyone know if the word 'reverent' has specific meaning (thinking more connotation here)? Joe uses it at several different times and it almost seems like a code? He uses it at the kids when he informs them they are about to be kidnapped and taken into custody, and when he tells them to get into the 'cabin' and sit at the table so they don't get Into the Olivia thing. Oh, except for Jacob, who is told to put his foot against the door in the officer's way. That poor boy! I felt like Joe purposely put him there thinking the cop would hesitate to involve the boy. Zero regard for Jacob's safety, just a pawn:(

[Renai]

Did anyone catch in the Olivia Incident part 2 video where Joe is talking to Nicole and says "we aren't doing anything wrong. Just camping on the property for a couple of months..."

No mention of homesteading, setting up anything, just this. It almost seems as if they have discussed what to say to anybody regarding conditions and he is making sure she remembers what to say. In fact, many of their conversations read like that, with Nicole 'yupping' an affirmation.

Also, does anyone know if the word 'reverent' has specific meaning (thinking more connotation here)? Joe uses it at several different times and it almost seems like a code? He uses it at the kids when he informs them they are about to be kidnapped and taken into custody, and when he tells them to get into the 'cabin' and sit at the table so they don't get Into the Olivia thing. Oh, except for Jacob, who is told to put his foot against the door in the officer's way. That poor boy! I felt like Joe purposely put him there thinking the cop would hesitate to involve the boy. Zero regard for Jacob's safety, just a pawn:(

 

Interesting. Maybe reverent IS code. For "shut up and don't give them anything when they ask." Then again, maybe it isn't code. Maybe they told them that's what reverent actually means.

[idnib]

I see your point. That said, sizing up the situation, I also see the officer's point. He probably sensed something was not right from the living situation. I think these people have been on the radar for a while now.

 

Yeah, there's probably background not shown on the video.

 

I do think there's a socio-economic component too. If I were in such a situation and I was opposed to having my children questioned about abuse outside my presence, I would call my lawyer friend to understand my rights. Now it might turn out he would tell me they had a right and then I would acquiesce, but I would check first. If my child were allowed to have a lawyer present while being questioned, I would make that happen. Regardless, I would have them go through a lawyer for all correspondence and would have the lawyer write them a strongly worded letter. 

 

If this were to happen today, maybe they would call their lawyer. But this was in the past so I'm sure they didn't have someone available.

 

Most of the upper middle class and and higher income people would have a lawyer get involved, even if the sheriff were in the right, just to let the sheriff know they have representation and rights. Poor people can't swing that.

 

I'm not defending their atrocious behavior. 

[Heather in VA]

If it can be shown that they used GoFundMe funds for the hotel is that something they can be prosecuted for? It seems to me like that would be fraud since it gave specific things they were using the money for and hotels wasn't one of them. Or is the only recourse to shut down the GoFundMe fundraiser which has already happened?

[Corraleno]

Well, the GFM had $2000 earmarked for "miscellaneous expenses," so I guess they could claim it fell under that. I wonder if they've gotten all of the money out of the GFM, or if people managed to challenge it (or the IRS got into it) before all the money was disbursed. I think Nicole posted a screen shot of the dates when the first 20K or so was transferred, and it looked that that had already happened or was about to happen. But some people have been disputing the credit card charges, so the GFM administrators would be smart to hold some of it back. 

[Heather in VA]

Today she posted that they have people who want to come and visit them on the homestead so she's offering it as a 'guest cabin'. I guess it's not being terrorized enough for other people to stay there. Just them. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Did you know there is a Wikipedia article on them?  

[LucyStoner]

If it can be shown that they used GoFundMe funds for the hotel is that something they can be prosecuted for? It seems to me like that would be fraud since it gave specific things they were using the money for and hotels wasn't one of them. Or is the only recourse to shut down the GoFundMe fundraiser which has already happened?

I doubt it. The law has not caught with the possible pitfalls of online crowdfunding and crowd fundraising. Technically, outside of gifts for personal purposes, like wedding presents, many GFMs seem to violate the requirements of some states for charitable solicitation at all. I think they could likely only be charged with fraud if their appeal was patently false (like raising money as a cancer patient when you don't in fact have any cancer) and the legal protections vary.

[LucyStoner]

Today she posted that they have people who want to come and visit them on the homestead so she's offering it as a 'guest cabin'. I guess it's not being terrorized enough for other people to stay there. Just them.

Ohhhh, I can hardly resist that offer.

 

They should put it on air B&B.

[Heather in VA]

She is also claiming they are "moving up" their plans to build a cabin but will live in that lean-to while it's being built. Uh.... ok. I don't see any signs that a cabin is being started and they aren't even living there now. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

According to the Wikipedia article, the warrant listed them living in a tent and having no septic or running water as part of the complaint.  It also mentioned the unfenced garbage and pond.  IF the article is correct, then having a dwelling that is not a tent and having septic and running water would seem to be a condition for getting the kids back, wouldn't it?  

[Heathermomster]

Today she posted that they have people who want to come and visit them on the homestead so she's offering it as a 'guest cabin'. I guess it's not being terrorized enough for other people to stay there. Just them. 

The guests can get an all natural experience complete with ticks, mosquitoes, humidity, and the joy of pooping in their own buckets.  In the evenings, the guests can grab a child hewn pointy stick, which supports the tarp ceiling, and run naked through the woods skewering wild boar for a open fire pit roast.

[Corraleno]

The guests can get an all natural experience complete with ticks, mosquitoes, humidity, and the joy of pooping in their own buckets.  In the evenings, the guests can grab a child hewn pointy stick, which supports the tarp ceiling, and run naked through the woods skewering wild boar for a open fire pit roast.

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Amber in SJ]

The guests can get an all natural experience complete with ticks, mosquitoes, humidity, and the joy of pooping in their own buckets.  In the evenings, the guests can grab a child hewn pointy stick, which supports the tarp ceiling, and run naked through the woods skewering wild boar for a open fire pit roast.

 

Your own bucket will cost extra.  Don't forget to tip the child who empties your bucket into the pond. 

 

Amber in SJ

[Lang Syne Boardie]

The guests can get an all natural experience complete with ticks, mosquitoes, humidity, and the joy of pooping in their own buckets.  In the evenings, the guests can grab a child hewn pointy stick, which supports the tarp ceiling, and run naked through the woods skewering wild boar for a open fire pit roast.

 

I have read this novel. It doesn't end well!

[Mimm]

Regarding them living in a hotel, that really makes me think that that's how they'd prefer to live but they can't because they have too many kids and not enough to rent a place and they tear apart the houses they do live in and poop in buckets and stuff.

 

[Renai]

According to the Wikipedia article, the warrant listed them living in a tent and having no septic or running water as part of the complaint.  It also mentioned the unfenced garbage and pond.  IF the article is correct, then having a dwelling that is not a tent and having septic and running water would seem to be a condition for getting the kids back, wouldn't it?  

 

Just fyi, the bolded is something Nicole has posted - a typed paper with the complaint on it. I didn't look at the Wikipedia, so don't know if that info is on there.

[Hkpiano]

Did anyone catch in the Olivia Incident part 2 video where Joe is talking to Nicole and says "we aren't doing anything wrong. Just camping on the property for a couple of months..."

No mention of homesteading, setting up anything, just this. It almost seems as if they have discussed what to say to anybody regarding conditions and he is making sure she remembers what to say. In fact, many of their conversations read like that, with Nicole 'yupping' an affirmation.

Also, does anyone know if the word 'reverent' has specific meaning (thinking more connotation here)? Joe uses it at several different times and it almost seems like a code? He uses it at the kids when he informs them they are about to be kidnapped and taken into custody, and when he tells them to get into the 'cabin' and sit at the table so they don't get Into the Olivia thing. Oh, except for Jacob, who is told to put his foot against the door in the officer's way. That poor boy! I felt like Joe purposely put him there thinking the cop would hesitate to involve the boy. Zero regard for Jacob's safety, just a pawn:(

"Reverent" is LDS-speak for being quiet and respectful (usually at church). When I am asking my children to "be reverent" at church, I am usually asking them to fold their arms and not talk during a service. Or walking down the halls, I would remind them to "be reverent" and they would take that to mean walk (not run) and use a regular voice instead of shouting. Not sure how it applies to what Joe was asking the kids to do, but reverent is used so frequently by LDS and since they at one point identified as LDS, it can't be a coincidence.

[Renai]

"Reverent" is LDS-speak for being quiet and respectful (usually at church). When I am asking my children to "be reverent" at church, I am usually asking them to fold their arms and not talk during a service. Or walking down the halls, I would remind them to "be reverent" and they would take that to mean walk (not run) and use a regular voice instead of shouting. Not sure how it applies to what Joe was asking the kids to do, but reverent is used so frequently by LDS and since they at one point identified as LDS, it can't be a coincidence.

 

It is not just LDS-speak. That's how I grew up with the word in the Bible-belt. I think the question is whether he used it in a different sense, also considering Nicole posted that the children (at least a couple of them) were not answering any questions asked of them.

[gardenmom5]

Only Joe has had parental rights terminated, and Nicole is not the mother.

He was living with Joe AND Nicole at the time.

[Mimm]

He was living with Joe AND Nicole at the time.

 

Yes but as a step parent, she doesn't have parental rights over Alex to terminate.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just fyi, the bolded is something Nicole has posted - a typed paper with the complaint on it. I didn't look at the Wikipedia, so don't know if that info is on there.

Yes, I think they used Nicole's post as their source.  Is the typed paper she posted a legal typed paper (ie. official from a govt. agency) or something that someone just typed up?  

[gardenmom5]

Yes but as a step parent, she doesn't have parental rights over Alex to terminate.

True but the fact Alex was living with her when Joe lost custody is one more mark against her case of claiming to be a fit parent.

 

I'm on a phone, so typing is hard. ;p

[Heather in VA]

According to the Wikipedia article, the warrant listed them living in a tent and having no septic or running water as part of the complaint.  It also mentioned the unfenced garbage and pond.  IF the article is correct, then having a dwelling that is not a tent and having septic and running water would seem to be a condition for getting the kids back, wouldn't it?  

 

Several people on here who have had foster children say they would expect there to be non-housing related expectations as well like mental health and drug evaluations for Joe and Nicole as well as physicals and counseling/evaluations for the kids. The general consensus is that Joe and Nicole won't submit to the evaluations for themselves. Its unknown if they are able to decline for the kids. But without compliance they could move into Versailles and they won't get the kids back.

[Mimm]

BLH just posted more pictures of the clean up. Her followers are commenting that they can't believe how much trash the previous owners left behind on the property. Am I alone in not believing for a second that all that trash is from the previous owners? Did she post pictures of what the property was like when they moved on to it? Have they not cleaned it up at all in the two years (year and a half?) they've lived there?

[Mimm]

 

I don't know if this was posted, if so, I missed it. Five part video tour of the property. I had no idea there was this much trash on the property! Regardless of where it came from, it's a huge task to get it cleaned up. She mentions that things need to be bulldozed but says bulldozers cost money and that's why it hasn't been done. Seems like it's time to go ahead and rent one, since they've got the GFM money.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

If I'm hearing correct, their family tore apart the mobile home. She says there were walls and furniture. So is most of the trash around the frame from what they've done?

[Renai]

If I'm hearing correct, their family tore apart the mobile home. She says there were walls and furniture. So is most of the trash around the frame from what they've done?

 

The mobile home was in a different place, not on that property. From what I remember of the videos (I saw tours a couple of weeks ago, not sure if the same ones posted), there had been a couple of other mobile homes on that property from previous renters. One burned down.

[Corraleno]

The mobile home was in a different place, not on that property. From what I remember of the videos (I saw tours a couple of weeks ago, not sure if the same ones posted), there had been a couple of other mobile homes on that property from previous renters. One burned down.

 

I think she did say at one point that the kids tore apart one of the mobile homes on the property and used the pieces for various building projects. But I don't know if it was in any kind of habitable state when they bought the property, or if it really wasn't useable for anything but parts. Unless it had already collapsed, it's hard to imagine it could've been less habitable than a three-walled stick fort.

[Mimm]

There's another one of her videos uploaded in 2013 of a traffic stop due to a child not having a seat belt on (though the Nauglers say he did). It's simply called "Cop". It's a glimpse of Joe's hostility and anger. And them being belligerent and hostile to the police again. This was almost two years ago, and Nicole is outspoken and uncooperative. And toward the end of the video Joe says something like, "If he tells me to sign something, do I do it?" She says no. He says, "What if they threaten to arrest me." She says, "They can't." He says, "Well what do I say?" She mumbles something I can't understand. Anyway I think they're very much in it together as far as their political beliefs go.

[LucyStoner]

There's another one of her videos uploaded in 2013 of a traffic stop due to a child not having a seat belt on (though the Nauglers say he did). It's simply called "Cop". It's a glimpse of Joe's hostility and anger. And them being belligerent and hostile to the police again. This was almost two years ago, and Nicole is outspoken and uncooperative. And toward the end of the video Joe says something like, "If he tells me to sign something, do I do it?" She says no. He says, "What if they threaten to arrest me." She says, "They can't." He says, "Well what do I say?" She mumbles something I can't understand. Anyway I think they're very much in it together as far as their political beliefs go.

I don't think that they can possibly have a very good lawyer. Any decent lawyer would have immediately wanted them to take down these videos and blogs and lay low.

[Anne in CA]

What kind of lawyer would take them? I can't imagine, it is a very no-win situation. If they did get a rock star lawyer and manage to get their kids back the guy would feel like a heel over ruining the lives of so many kids at once. So my guess is that they will only get a lawyer who is in it for the money, or who believes any publicity is good publicity, ect, and those guys generally aren't good.

[gardenmom5]

BLH just posted more pictures of the clean up. Her followers are commenting that they can't believe how much trash the previous owners left behind on the property. Am I alone in not believing for a second that all that trash is from the previous owners? Did she post pictures of what the property was like when they moved on to it? Have they not cleaned it up at all in the two years (year and a half?) they've lived there?

 

I'm skeptical it was from the previous owners. and even if it was - debris from a torn down building isn't going to phase someone who takes no issue with poop where babies crawl.

 

There's another one of her videos uploaded in 2013 of a traffic stop due to a child not having a seat belt on (though the Nauglers say he did). It's simply called "Cop". It's a glimpse of Joe's hostility and anger. And them being belligerent and hostile to the police again. This was almost two years ago, and Nicole is outspoken and uncooperative. And toward the end of the video Joe says something like, "If he tells me to sign something, do I do it?" She says no. He says, "What if they threaten to arrest me." She says, "They can't." He says, "Well what do I say?" She mumbles something I can't understand. Anyway I think they're very much in it together as far as their political beliefs go.

 

and the disconnect from reality.   they sound very co-dependent.  very unhealthy dynamic.

 

I don't think that they can possibly have a very good lawyer. Any decent lawyer would have immediately wanted them to take down these videos and blogs and lay low.

 

that's assuming they would actually listen to a lawyer and do what one says.  I read a post by a public defender who was lamenting about a client group that absolutely attack him as being against them - when he is being paid to help them.  I can see J & N falling into that mindset of attacking a public defender as being against them and completely ignoring everything one says - even if they are trying to help them legally.

[blondeviolin]

"Reverent" is LDS-speak for being quiet and respectful (usually at church). When I am asking my children to "be reverent" at church, I am usually asking them to fold their arms and not talk during a service. Or walking down the halls, I would remind them to "be reverent" and they would take that to mean walk (not run) and use a regular voice instead of shouting. Not sure how it applies to what Joe was asking the kids to do, but reverent is used so frequently by LDS and since they at one point identified as LDS, it can't be a coincidence.

LDS materials teach that reverence is a deep love and respect. A lot of people use "reverent" as code for quiet, but it's a lot more than that. Someone who has reverence towards God would have a wholly different demeanor than just quiet.

 

The Nauglers, though, must have missed that message. Perhaps "subservient" or something similar should have been their key word.

[LucyStoner]

I'm skeptical it was from the previous owners. and even if it was - debris from a torn down building isn't going to phase someone who takes no issue with poop where babies crawl.

 

 

and the disconnect from reality. they sound very co-dependent. very unhealthy dynamic.

 

 

that's assuming they would actually listen to a lawyer and do what one says. I read a post by a public defender who was lamenting about a client group that absolutely attack him as being against them - when he is being paid to help them. I can see J & N falling into that mindset of attacking a public defender as being against them and completely ignoring everything one says - even if they are trying to help them legally.

There aren't public defenders available for family law cases. They have to pay someone or represent themselves or get a volunteer.

 

If they have a public defender it would be for the criminal charges like harrassing the neighbor and resisting arrest.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There aren't public defenders available for family law cases. They have to pay someone or represent themselves or get a volunteer.

 

If they have a public defender it would be for the criminal charges like harrassing the neighbor and resisting arrest.

 

I believe that varies by state.  I googled several that do provide representation.

[LucyStoner]

I believe that varies by state. I googled several that do provide representation.

That's great. I wish they had that everywhere. I should have said "generally" and "probably". I've heard of some counties and public private partnerships piloting programs. It's a huge problem for people navigating the legal system blindly because they can't afford a family law attorney. And pro bono family law is very difficult to obtain in most places.

[Tanaqui]

There aren't public defenders available for family law cases. They have to pay someone or represent themselves or get a volunteer.

 

That seems problematic. I mean, in *this* case I think there's enough evidence that I'm comfortable saying they're guilty as anything of child endangerment and neglect, but surely we don't think that child services is the one human endeavor that's error proof and is never subject to systematic biases or anything.