The allegations are in this FBI affidavit; here is the summary, from Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause):
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that authorities [Wednesday] arrested Samuel Mullet, Sr., the Bishop of a break-away Amish group, known as the Bergholz clan, as well as three of his sons and three other followers, on charges of forcibly cutting the beards of 4 Amish men who were members of a different Amish community. The FBI Affidavit in support of a criminal complaint … says that Mullet controlled all aspects of his followers lives, forced extreme punishments on them and cleansed married women [clan members] of the devil by sexual intimacy with them. After 8 families moved away from the Bergholz community in 2005 because of religious disagreements, Mullet excommunicated them. However a special committee of bishops from other communities determined that Mullet’s excommunications were invalid. The 4 victims of the beard cuttings were involved with the bishop’s committee, or aided break-away families, or, in one case, was one of the excommunicated members (and the father of one of those charged in the case)….
The Affidavit seeks a criminal complaint charging the 7 defendants with conspiracy to violate the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (18 USC Sec. 249). The federal Hate Crimes statute permits federal prosecution only if the crime involves one or more specified links to interstate commerce. One of those links is that the defendant employed a dangerous weapon that has traveled in interstate commerce. The FBI affidavit states that the attacks were carried out with “hair clippers and 8″ scissors manufactured in the state of New York.”
And from the Plain Dealer article [UPDATE: link fixed]:
“You’ve got Amish all over the state of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana that are concerned,” said Jefferson County Sheriff Fred Abdalla. “We’ve received hundreds and hundreds of calls from people living in fear. They are buying Mace. Some are sitting with shotguns. They’re putting locks on their doors — because of Sam Mullet.”
Plus this:
The hair and beard cuttings, bizarre in today’s culture, are meant to degrade Amish men, who grow their beards after marriage based on their religious beliefs. In some of the attacks, Mullet’s followers used a camera to capture the images of the cut beards, a further attempt to insult the victims, authorities said.
These are not your Harrison Ford’s Amish.
Jeff Walden says:
2 Samuel 10:1-5 is an instance of this happening in the Bible, which might perhaps make the meaning of the action more obvious.
November 28, 2011, 1:57 amReaderY says:
The idea that if something once travelled in interstate commerce, any use of it can be regulated at will, is absurd.
And if it can be punished, the fact is the sole federal interest here is the proper commercial use of the pair of scissors.
Any punishment more than a fine of up to four or five times the value of the pair of scissors would seem to be cruel and unusual punishment, excessive in light of any legitimate compensation for the actual federal interest, which is solely in the pair of scissors.
Punishing violent crime is a state matter.
November 28, 2011, 2:02 amSingle Acts of Tyranny says:
Have you noticed how punishment meated out by religous clowns always seems to involve rape of women?
November 28, 2011, 2:25 amDawnsblood says:
It is a way of exerting power through control and shame. Take a look at the actions of many victorious armed groups in history and you will see rape is an often used weapon.
November 28, 2011, 2:44 amptt says:
No, no, you’re misreading. It was cleansing, not punishment.
Mighty convenient gift to have, I imagine…
November 28, 2011, 4:30 amGordon Walker says:
Please tell me that this is a joke!
November 28, 2011, 5:55 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I shouldn’t laugh, but: “clop-clop-clop-bang!-bang!-bang!-clop-clop-clop….”
Other than that, just routine CC overreach, which the Court will routinely smile upon.
November 28, 2011, 8:18 amAnonymous Jim says:
Damn straight. Those were the punk ass Amish from Pennsylvania. These are the hardcore Amish. Straight gangsta lean.
November 28, 2011, 8:37 amSk says:
Wow. For once, ‘those darned Amish again’ isn’t ironic.
Sk
November 28, 2011, 8:39 amaeolius says:
Something is A-mish in the state of Ohio :)
November 28, 2011, 9:15 amBob_R says:
This has been up for several hours and no one has commented on “Mullet” being accused of felony hair assault. Admirable.
November 28, 2011, 9:29 amkarrde says:
…were the perps singing a song about an Amish Paradise?
On a more serious front, how hard is it for the law to deal with violence done between members of an insular religious community?
November 28, 2011, 9:32 amArthur Kirkland says:
Despite all the chattering and hand-wringing, Samuel Mullet Sr. seems to hold two trump cards: A command of the God of the Bible, and the First Amendment. It is difficult to lose while holding two trump.
November 28, 2011, 9:41 amJoe T. Guest says:
I got 99 problems, but a Beachy ain’t one…
November 28, 2011, 9:42 amKen Arromdee says:
So why don’t they rape men as well? That’s certainly used as a way of exerting power in places where it’s done.
(We often say that rape is not about sex, only violence, but while it may not be to the victim, it can be to the perpetrator.)
November 28, 2011, 9:48 amEugene Volokh says:
Arthur Kirkland: I don’t quite understand your argument. Are you saying that God will intercede on his behalf? Or that courts will find that the First Amendment gives people a right to physically attack people, so long as it’s for religious reasons?
November 28, 2011, 9:49 amsubpatre says:
Living near Mennonites and Brethren (including OO) I have often seen the results of their ‘shun’ justice system. It works —after a while and after a fashion— for most criminals who steal from or rob members of the community. Much less common is sexual assault; but even there, the shunning seems to eventually work. [At great cost to the victims]
Having now accepted that my neighbors want the shun system, I formerly argued that shunning would not work is the case of person(s) who want to take over or dominate the entire community. It looks like a similar flaw is being exploited by Mullet’s cult.
November 28, 2011, 10:25 amArthur Kirkland says:
I don’t understand that argument, either, but I have encountered it regularly in some environs. Just trying to fit in.
November 28, 2011, 10:39 amB-Rob says:
The Northern District of Ohio involved one of the earliest post-9/11 anti-Muslim violence prosecutions. A liquored up Christian guy got 5 years plus for driving his car through the front door of a major most right after 9/11. With the size of the Amish population in the N.D. Ohio, this is a very serious matter.
November 28, 2011, 11:13 amrarango says:
if he alleged perpetrator had a name other than “Mullet” and involved tonsorial considerations, this story would never have legs.
November 28, 2011, 11:13 amWilliam Wilcox says:
In my opinion the use of the term “fundamentalist” in the post title is not helpful and probably inaccurate. If anything it appears that the Mullets are the heretics.
November 28, 2011, 12:30 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Subpatre, does the shunnee get due process at all? It’s a harsh punishment, and it would be too bad for a person to be shunned because he was generally disliked, made a scapegoat, or was the victim of false accusation or baseless gossip.
November 28, 2011, 12:37 pmAnonimus says:
Arthur is just exhibiting his usual bigotry.
November 28, 2011, 1:52 pmsubpatre says:
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer is more complex: First keep in mind that Old Order mennonites and anabaptists are human, so will
sincommit crimes, be immoral, and other deviations from perfection. The OOs, have murder, rape, and robbery; they have unwed mothers and drug abuse. Balance that against people who believe every aspect of their life must be in accordance with G_d’s word, even to their own detriment; no cars, radios, no advanced medicine. The result (in studies) is lower crime rates, and less abuse of their fellows, but some is still there.That established, shunning or avoidance is only for the excommunicated; it is practiced after an individual has been judged by elders or deacons and the bishop concurs. Avoidance is based on the Letters (1Cor 5:11-13, 2John 1:10-11) It is not an American trial, but it is reasonably fair. There is no right to confrontation, but the deacons can take months to ask questions, find evidence, and make their decision.
Excommunication is a big deal to them, is not treated lightly, and the person may re-enter the fellowship by repentance.
November 28, 2011, 2:13 pmgooners says:
I was thinking the same thing, except my reasoning is that the Amish are about as fundamentalist as you can get. Labeling one of these groups “fundamentalist” doesn’t help much in distinguishing the two.
November 28, 2011, 2:16 pmKendra says:
How sexist is everyone — the Amish, the Feds, especially — when stretching to such absurd reaches (scissors transported across state lines) for felony hair assault — to say n-o-t-h-i-n-g of RAPE. Oh, that… It is more than disgusting and even outrageous that beard cutting, is construed as a felony act of “violence”; but, worse, is the focus although women were raped.
[EV says: I respond to this in this follow-up post.]
November 28, 2011, 3:14 pmDebrah says:
This is hilarious!
November 28, 2011, 3:45 pmDan Parker says:
I saw a reference to “sexual intimacy” with married women, but no mention of any allegations of rape. Not that I would doubt for a second that it occurred, but automatically concluding the latter from a mention of the former seems a bit presumptuous.
November 28, 2011, 3:49 pmMick says:
Who’s calling? I mean, it’s not the Amish.
November 28, 2011, 4:06 pmJamie says:
It helps in emphasizing that religious groups who place their own interpretation of their morals over that of secular society tend to do scary, weird, violent things.
Twin towers. Abortion clinic bombings and targeted assassination of doctors. Beard cutting. “God hates fags”. It is a continuum of bad behavior with differing motivations, but it is all religiously inspired antisocial behavior. There is nothing wrong with noting that.
November 28, 2011, 4:38 pmAnonimus says:
But to be honest and fair, you’d have to also note the scarier, weirder, and more violent things done by the irreligious.
Of course, the United States has never been a secular society, but that’s a separate issue.
November 28, 2011, 5:00 pmgooners says:
Certainly one of these groups is violent and the other isn’t. But violence isn’t a part of the definition of fundamentalism, is it? I’m just saying, there is no such thing as a non-fundamentalist Amish person.
November 28, 2011, 5:07 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Let’s not forget troublemakers like Niemöller and King, either. Very anti- the societies of their times.
November 28, 2011, 6:10 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I don’t think it’s religiously inspired. I think it’s people using religion to excuse doing what they want to do. If you read that affidavit, it’s all about getting back at people who left the group, or who helped others leave. Nowhere in there do they say God told them to assult those people.
November 28, 2011, 6:32 pmTed says:
You’ve said this before. But I’m not sure I fully understand. I know when people do something bad under the guise of religion, it’s an excuse. Does the same principle apply when they do something morally good or amoral?
Does a Jew use Judaism as an excuse to “do what they want to do” and wear a yarmulke? Do Muslim’s use Islam as an excuse to avoid eating pork?
I worry that your statement seems to determine an actions’ religiousness based on the moral result of the action, rather than any connection to the underlying religion.
November 28, 2011, 7:44 pmAnonimus says:
That’s really obtuse, even for Ted.
November 28, 2011, 7:58 pmTed says:
More “acutely” then: Who are you to say what is religiously inspired?
November 28, 2011, 8:00 pmjmaie says:
Single Acts of Tyranny says:
Have you noticed how punishment meated out by religous clowns always seems to involve rape of women?
Freudian slip?
November 28, 2011, 8:23 pmDan Parker says:
You know, educated (to one degree or another) speculation is not exactly an uncommon or invalid basis for a view. In your years on this planet interacting with people, have you not learned enough about human behavior and what tends to motivate certain types of actions?
November 28, 2011, 8:26 pmJamie says:
Surely, believing a higher power condones some acts that secular society condemns (blowing up skyscrapers, assassinating doctors) is at least plausible evidence worthy of consideration.
November 28, 2011, 8:34 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Ted, can you see a difference between a person forgoing the eating of pork when it’s really inconvenient, not having an affair when he really wants to, feeding the poor when he’d rather take that money and having fun with it, being patient and forgiving when it’s a whole lot more satisfying being an a-hole – and cutting off somebody’s beard because they ticked you off? Here’s a hint: if your religion “requires” you to do something you really, really want to do, maybe you should take another look. Now sometimes our religions ask us to do things we actually want to do, and that’s cool. But if those things hurt other people, or appear bizarre to the outside world, and we find those things really satisfying, that could be a clue.
November 28, 2011, 8:46 pmDaniel Chapman says:
EV: Arthur Kirkland, I don’t undertand your argument.
AK: I don’t understand that argument either.
Well, at least he ADMITS he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about…
November 28, 2011, 9:36 pmMDJD from NY says:
People do these things in the service of secular movements as well. Of course, if they control secular society (like the Khmer Rouge), they aren’t doing something weird in the context of opposing that society.
November 28, 2011, 10:40 pmDoc Rampage says:
No, actually, I haven’t noticed that. I can only think of a couple of instances before this report. Rape is often used to humiliate women by criminals, secret police, and conquerors, but not usually with any religious pretext.
I suspect that this is a case of you focusing on the rare events so much that they seem to be the common case. Sort of like focusing on the trial of Galileo makes people think that religious persecution of science was a lot more common than it actually was.
November 29, 2011, 12:39 amBarb says:
I couldn’t tell from the headline which ones were the heretics and which ones were the fundamentalists. For one thing, Amish are all fundamentalists in their beliefs. Fundamentalist is not the bad word media has made it to be. Seems Mullet regards the others as heretics –but he is the heretic –especially committing adultery as a spiritual cleansing ritual! Really! Don’t people read their Bibles?? about false prophets who are wolves in sheep’s clothing?
November 29, 2011, 1:11 amBarb says:
We hear of Muslims doing it –as the Somalian stoning of the young girl for BEING raped –and I understand her rapists were among those who stoned her in front of a stadium of onlookers. And didn’t we hear of a Muslim daughter being raped by townsmen for having a boyfriend?
But I think U R right that rape is not usually in a religious context.
November 29, 2011, 1:16 amBarb says:
I meant that Doc Rampage was right about rape.
November 29, 2011, 1:18 amEric says:
They do.
I’ve listened to several stories on NPR & BBC World Service about male rape victims in Africa.
Unsurprisingly, there’s not a lot of support for them; far less than there is for female rape victims.
November 29, 2011, 1:24 amBarb says:
Yes, False prophets use religion to control and brainwash and — as you say–do what they really want to do –commit adultery or any other sin against their followers. This is typical of groups we call “cults” instead of churches. Most of Christendom considers Mormonism a cult because of its extra-biblical teachings which DID include polygamy –a man’s idea.
That’s why the Bible is so important as the foundation for real Christianity — any religious yahoo can mislead people –as Jesus noted –like the wolf in sheep’s clothing. So He said we would know the good from the evil by their fruits! But cult followers get brainwashed into ignoring the Bible which would clue them in about their oppressive cult leader. Denominations are good, too, to provide some oversight –as in the Amish bishops here bucking Bishop Mullet.
November 29, 2011, 1:27 amBarb says:
Really? God won’t defend his adultery, for sure. Neither God nor the first amendment give him a right to terrorize, forcibly cut others’ beards, or sleep with other men’s wives (though we never jail for that if the women are willing, I guess.)
A church can excommunicate you from the church–but Christians generally believe from the Bible that it is Christ who will determine our entrance into Heaven by our repentance and faith in Him –and by any other criteria He chooses. Biblically, we can KNOW we are saved by our repentance and faith and effort to follow Him. We have a relationship with Him. “There is no mediator between God and man except Christ.” Religious people need to know their Bibles to keep from being deceived by charlatans –which most clerics are not.
November 29, 2011, 1:46 amBarb says:
In fact, I understand that one reason the Bible was so highly recommended in early America was to protect the church from the state as in nations oppressed by false doctrines in Catholicism –where state and church were together in oppressing and exploiting people.
November 29, 2011, 1:49 amjab says:
Wow. Just wow. You are so freakin ignorant of your own Bible. There is PLENTY of polygamy in the Old Testament… that fact that you pretend that this is some weird deviation that only cults (Mormoms? Muslims?) used to follow is just ahistorical horseshiiiiit.
On the other hand though… who gives a rat’s piss what your MAN-MADE bible says… this is a legal blog. For the love of the one and true flying spaghetti monster, why the bleep are you here?
November 29, 2011, 3:07 amYes, yes, I know you feel you are free to express your opnion, and you most certainly are correct in that narrow sense… but really, why the bleep are you here? To “preach the Good News”? Because if anything, your ignorance, bigotry, but most importantly, your lack of any logic most assuredly turns more away from your side than towards it. You are the equivalent of some wacked-out preacher on the corner screaming into the wind (oh, wait, you see that as a compliment, I’m sure.)
Ted says:
I guess not. Perhaps I’m still to young and naive. IMO, such “speculation” is simply going to lead me astray. Speculating about the motives of other people, and especially ones they’ll never admit to or even recognize themselves, is really a fools’ game.
November 29, 2011, 11:31 amDan Parker says:
And you think you’re going to win someone over to your way of thinking with sociopathic little rants?
November 29, 2011, 11:38 amTed says:
Here’s the thing, Laura. People always do what they want to do. How do you explain my decisions to donate money instead of spend it on myself, when I have no religious inspiration or reason for doing so? If I can do them without religious inspiration, why can’t people with religion do them without religious inspiration?
You know, sometimes people actually want to do good things as much as they want to do bad things…sometimes they even want to do good things more than they want to do bad things.
So something is only religiously inspired if you really, really don’t want to do it, but do it anyway? That’s a pretty dismal view of religion and very cynical view of human nature. And it raises the issue of how do you know what other people really, really want to do and what they really, really don’t want to do? Do you use the “speculation” method employed by Mr. Parker?
November 29, 2011, 11:39 amAnonimus says:
Reporting things that happened and condoning it are obviously two different things.
On the other hand, who gives a rat’s piss what jab, some bigoted nobody on the Internet, says?
November 29, 2011, 11:42 amTed says:
He had me at “Wow.”
November 29, 2011, 11:44 amAnonimus says:
Did you grow up in Judeo-Christian America, or in some entirely secular society?
People want to do bad things sometimes, and they know how to rationalize their wrong-doing after the fact. That’s not a cynical view, that clear reality.
November 29, 2011, 11:54 amTed says:
Sure, I adopted some of my morality from American culture and society, but not all of it. And I don’t currently ascribe to any religious beliefs at all. The fact some of my morality coincides with some religious morals does not make my morality “religiously inspired.” Correlation is not causation.
November 29, 2011, 12:02 pmDan Parker says:
Perhaps you should have someone explain to you the difference in meaning between the phrases “winning hearts and minds” and “preaching to the choir”.
November 29, 2011, 12:04 pmTed says:
Except that many religiously inspired wrong-doers rationalize it before-the-fact. The line that you and Laura appear to be drawing is:
Good/Neutral Act = Religiously Inspired
Bad Act = Not Religiously Inspired
Is this is the line you intend to draw, then say that…don’t act like you actually know what acts of others are and are not religiously inspired.
November 29, 2011, 12:06 pmTed says:
Or I could just speculate that his motives were pure, and so I will side with him. ;P
November 29, 2011, 12:07 pmDan Parker says:
Or you could give honesty a try.
{Steve Martin}Naaaaaaaaaah.{/Steve Martin}
November 29, 2011, 12:14 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Is that really what you took away from what I said? Is that the best you can do? Refraining from adultery is exactly the same as cutting somebody else’s beard off over their objections if somebody says you are doing it for religions reasons?
November 29, 2011, 12:16 pmAnonimus says:
I believe it is, in this case.
There, fixed it for you. Human nature isn’t limited to religious or irreligious humans.
I think it’s possible to determine when a person is arguing in good faith and when they’re not, whether the person religious or not.
If a person says “the Bible says I can do X” when I know the Bible says “don’t do X” I can be pretty sure they’re rationalizing their own desired behavior.
November 29, 2011, 12:41 pmTed says:
To be honest (Happy, Mr. Parker?), I still don’t quite understand your opinion. I feel that I may have conflated your more nuanced line with Anonimus’ bright line of good and evil. But your last sentence doesn’t really illuminate that difference. What specific reasons do you have for discounting someone’s claim that their actions were religiously inspired?
Do you have a better understanding the religious beliefs of another than they do? Do you suspect that anyone doing anything they want to do is lying about their motivations for doing it? What is it? Maybe provide an example of an action that is claimed to be religiously motivated but that you think is not, and then explain why you come to that conclusion?
November 29, 2011, 12:50 pmDan Parker says:
Then it’s a good thing that the law never attempts to determine someone’s motivation for committing a crime.
Oh, wait….
If you’re going to sit there with what I must assume is a straight face and claim that it is simply not possible to determine with a relatively high degree of certainty, based on knowledge of general human behavior, what a man’s motivation likely was for, say, having sex with several married women…well…I’m afraid it’s going to be equally impossible to take you seriously.
Or maybe you’re just being disingenuous.
November 29, 2011, 2:12 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
You conflated me with Anonimus? Holy cow. I doubt he/she is any more pleased about that than I am.
In this particular case, go back and read the sheriff’s affidavit and see if you can find where the perps claimed religious inspiration for anything they did. Arthur and maybe some others have claimed it for them, but perhaps they have their own ax to grind.
November 29, 2011, 2:40 pmjab says:
Nonsense… the OT doesn’t just “report” that polygamy existed, but there are many references to the fact that God apparently endorsed it for some of his chosen. See especially the stories of David and Solomon.
November 29, 2011, 2:44 pmAnonimus says:
Such as?
And why are you so bitter, angry, and vulgar? Lighten up, Francis.
November 29, 2011, 3:03 pmTed says:
Also, what laws “attempt to determine someone’s motivation for committing a crime?” Are you sure you’re not confusing “motivation” with “intent?”
November 29, 2011, 3:43 pmShelbyC says:
Hate crime laws?
November 29, 2011, 4:04 pmDan Parker says:
What do you mean, “Also”? You didn’t even address what you were responding to.
As for the rest…no, I’m not confused about anything. Apparently you’ve never heard the term “hate crime”.
Edit: Damn…beat by 5 minutes.
November 29, 2011, 4:09 pmTed says:
I was not referring specifically to this case. Jaime said this:
Note the multiple examples of “religiously inspired” actions in Jaime’s comment. You responded:
Were you commenting only on this case, and on the four other examples Jaime provided?
Also, does God really need to say something directly to the actor for it to be “religiously inspired?” Maybe that’s the point of misunderstanding. I consider any act done with the purpose of complying with religious teachings, tenets, and doctrines to be “religiously inspired.” If you mean to refer to only actions that God told the actor to do, then I would suggest that no actions are religiously inspired.
Finally, with respect to the affidavit, I agree that the evidence is not entirely clear on the Mullets’ motivation (a little help, Mr. Parker?). The barbery itself appeared to be motivated by anger and revenge. But anger and revenge for violation of religious doctrine, and refusal to be excommunicated. Specifically, “It started with us excommunicating members that weren’t listening or obeying the laws.” (Aff 19). IMO, the Mullets’ actions were clearly inspired, at least in part, by their own religion and the religion of their victims.
Anyhow, if you were truly limiting your comment about religious inspiration to the barbery in this case, not the sexual “cleansing” and not the four other examples cited by Jaime, then I took your comment as broader than it was intended, and I apologize.
November 29, 2011, 4:11 pmTed says:
Oh, yes. Touche’. I wasn’t thinking of those.
November 29, 2011, 4:18 pmTed says:
Yeah, that was a messed up comment. Sorry. Regarding the motivation, I concede that certain, broad assumptions as to general motivation, like biological motives, are probably justified. But they are generally too broad to be useful, and usually non-exclusive. More specific, and more meaningful motivations, require extrinsic evidence and context, not merely experiencing human nature.
In line with your example, you could ask the same question about Bob, and why he is eating a turkey sandwich. He’s clearly eating a sandwich because he’s hungry. But why a turkey sandwich? What’s the motivation? In your example, why married women? Not not single women? What’s he more specific motivation? It seems to me that the religious motivation, or religious inspiration for action, falls into the latter category, not the former.
November 29, 2011, 4:23 pmDan Parker says:
The two most likely reasons that I can think of for that have nothing at all to do with religious motives:
1) In Amish society the girls tend to all get married at a young age, meaning that most all of the women (who would not be of such a young age as to make him a pedophile) under his sway are married, not counting the aged widows.
2) Having sex with the wives of men in your group offers the additional benefit of further asserting your dominance.
November 29, 2011, 4:44 pmTed says:
Neither of those motives are exclusive of religious motives. Why can’t he assert dominance over married women in addition to, or even in furtherance of, his religious motives?
November 29, 2011, 4:57 pmDan Parker says:
In addition to the previous explanations I recommended that you seek out, add a lesson on the difference between “most likely” and “only possible”.
Your challenge was…
…prompted by the following opinion from Laura:
Note that she does not claim that the actions in question are definitely not religiously inspired, or that such a motive is not a possible explanation of said actions. You seem to have forgotten that, and are now engaged in contructing a strawman argument based on a pedantic misrepresentation of what it is that you’re railing against.
November 29, 2011, 5:17 pmKirk Parker says:
Doc Rampage, never mind that that’s a pretty tendentious reading of the Galileo affair in the first place.
November 30, 2011, 10:49 amArthur Kirkland says:
For anyone interested in the circumstances underlying this insanity, a Pittsburgh newspaper has been covering the situation . . . well, somewhat religiously for a few months, with articles such as this one.
November 30, 2011, 6:56 pm