Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas judge walks off bench; when FLDS children will return is unknown
The Deseret News ^ | 5/30/2008 | Ben Winslow and Nancy Perkins

Posted on 05/30/2008 6:40:22 PM PDT by Utah Girl

The devil was in the details.

Discussions about a proposed order involving the return of children taken from the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch broke down late this afternoon when attorneys for the families wanted to review proposed changes with their clients.

Judge Barbara Walther announced the attorneys had better get all of their clients' signatures before she would sign the agreement and abruptly left the bench late this afternoon.

A lawyer for the families, Laura Shockley, said she expected attorneys would return to an Austin appeals court Monday to push for an order returning the children. It was the 3rd Court of Appeals that said Walther should not have ordered the children to be removed from the ranch and warned that if Walther failed to act, they would do it for her.

Lawyers for the families said that an agreement had been tentatively reached with Child Protective Services when they walked into court earlier today. Walther, however, expressed concerns about the proposed agreement and called an hourlong recess. She then returned to the bench with her own proposed order.

That led to concerns from many family attorneys who raised objections and questions on behalf of their clients.

The judge added additional restrictions to the the agreement, including psychological evaluations and allowing CPS to do inspections at the children's home at any time. Several of the more than 100 attorneys in the courtroom and patched into the hearing through phone lines objected to the judge's additions.

"The court does not have the power, with all due respect, to enter any other order (other than vacating)," said Julie Balovich of the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid over the telephone. She argued that no evidence justifying the additional restrictions had been entered as evidence before the judge.

After reviewing the appellate court decision, Walther returned to the bench and announced she believed the Supreme Court's decision upholding the appellate court decision gave her the authority to impose whatever conditions she feels are necessary.

"The Supreme Court does say this court can place restrictions on the parents. I do not read that this decision says that this court is required to have another hearing to do that. You may interpret that however you choose."

With that, the judge abruptly left the bench, saying she would await any submitted orders.

Immediately, attorneys in the courtroom and over the phone, expressed confusion.

"What did she say?" one attorney asked.

"Do We have another hearing?"

"What did she order?"

No additional hearings are currently scheduled. The judge signed no orders that would allow for the release of any children.

Lawyers for CPS left the courthouse declining to speak about the hearing.

"I'm going to do what the court directed," said CPS attorney Gary Banks.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cpswatch; flds; imspeechless; judiciary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 501-515 next last
To: Utah Girl

I hope the FLDS people file a huge class action civil rights suit against the state and the officials responsible for this mess. Officials need to know that therer are boundaries to their power and in this case there are many that need to see the inside of a jail for an extended time.As a Texican I know that this means I may have to pay higher taxes but the CPS and other want to be dictators need reigning in.


261 posted on 05/31/2008 12:02:23 PM PDT by fella (Is he or is he murtadd? Only his iman knows for sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
The raid of the FDLS was unlawful. The Texas Supreme court has said so.

No it didn't. The Texas Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals in ruling that the order signed by the trial court granting temporary managing conservatorship to CPS was not supported by sufficient evidence and must vacated. The Supreme Court did not "rule" anything with respect to the initial raid.

262 posted on 05/31/2008 12:05:21 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: patton
patton said: "Never mind that they [M16s] are not, in fact, machine guns."

Is there some military classification called "machine gun" which does not include the M16? I'm pretty sure that the BATFE would think that an M16 is a machine gun.

263 posted on 05/31/2008 12:05:21 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: abb

I understand the difficulty in applying the proper technical term to certain vehicles. I had a ‘73 Chevy which was, without question, a “tank”, but it also qualified as a “pile of sh*t”. I never really quite resolved that question to my satisfaction.


264 posted on 05/31/2008 12:09:08 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: patton
"Where is the front door?"

You lost me there.

But if you are referring to my other comment about carrying toops and busting down gates...
To a civilian sitting in his or her house, even behind sandbags and dobermans, an M113 looks pretty much "like a tank".
You have to believe that, if they want inside your house, it'll get them there.

But, in general, the front door is out front.

265 posted on 05/31/2008 12:18:56 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
You just think you had a 'tank.' I had one of these back when I was young and foolish. You could put an entire clan of gypsies in the back seat.

1967 Oldsmobile 98

266 posted on 05/31/2008 12:21:37 PM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: norton

The front door to the davidian’s place contained evidence as to who fired first. The govt apparently misplaced the door and it has not yet turned up.


267 posted on 05/31/2008 12:21:54 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: abb
You could put an entire clan of gypsies in the back seat.

There was so much room the thing could roll over three times and the band of gypsies wouldn't even bump heads.

268 posted on 05/31/2008 12:25:53 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

The BATFE would consider a single-shot bb gun a machine gun, if it advanced their agengda.

Sort of like CPS considering a bad scolding as “child abuse”, and for exactly the same reason - to expand government power.

An “assualt rifle” is designed to fire semi-auto, single round bursts, most of the time - when charging the hill or enemy bunker, it can be selectively fired in three-round bursts, or, in extreme need, full auto. Given that the magazine only holds from 7 to maybe 100 rounds, however, you won’t fire full auto long. Also, in the case of the M16, max standard mag is 30 rounds, and the rifle will not be in good shape if you empty all 30 full auto.

Now, in contrast, a “machine gun”, like the M60 (23.8 pounds of G_D pissing lava), the M240, or the browning-designed M2, will fire full auto all day, is usually belt-fed, crew-served, and has an attitude.

Again, an M16 is to a machine gun like a rubber duck to the QE2.

Which is why the Brady Bunch is out to ban black rifles - “they look like machine guns!” they say, wetting their pants.

*#*^$(^&&%


269 posted on 05/31/2008 12:27:33 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

Well, the whole thing is a mess from start to finish.

As I said earlier, the chief sufferers are the children. If they are sexually abused, that’s bad; if they are taken from their parents, that’s bad; if they are taken over by the state system, that’s worst of all. Although the charge that brought on the intervention was evidently false, there is also some evidence that there were, in fact, some problems.

IMHO, the Texas authorities should have acted much sooner, and probably would have in earlier days, before things began to loosen up in the late 60s. It makes no sense to overlook public polygamy for years, and then swoop in and confiscate all the resulting children.

In earlier days, polygamy simply was not allowed in the U.S. Of course the Mormon Church had problems with this in the nineteenth century, but then had the revelation that polygamy was no longer to be practiced in the old way, and it has not been a problem since except with sects that have broken away from the LDS.

It certainly makes no sense to let polygamists assemble numerous wives, have children with many of them, raise their families, and then swoop in and break it all up, maybe 20 years too late.

There doesn’t seem to be any really good solution, but in the circumstances it is certainly best to return the children to their parents.


270 posted on 05/31/2008 12:31:13 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

That “entire community” lived at one address. This wasn’t multiple family homes, it was a cultist compound.


271 posted on 05/31/2008 12:52:51 PM PDT by JRochelle (Keep sweet means shut up and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: patton; abb
And OBTW, nor is it an “Armored Combat Vehicle.”

According to the folks at Golbal Security it is

An Armored Combat Vehicle [ACV] is a self-propelled vehicle with armored protection and cross-country capability. Armoured combat vehicles include armoured personnel carriers, armoured infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armament combat vehicles. The term "armored personnel carrier" [APC] means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20 millimeters calibre.
ACV’s, like the russian BMP or the US Bradley, are designed to fight.

No those are armored infantry fighting vehicles

The term "armored infantry fighting vehicle" [AIFV] means an armored combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters caliber and sometimes an antitank missile launcher. Armored infantry fighting vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of armored infantry or mechanised infantry or motorised infantry formations and units of ground forces.

272 posted on 05/31/2008 12:55:50 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Society is well governed when the people obey the magistrates, and the magistrates obey the law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Well, that is it, then. The experts at global security have spoken, I must be wrong.

I humble myself before their brilliance.


273 posted on 05/31/2008 12:59:53 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

He nails it. Ben: “What the state of texas is doing is gestapo tactics pure and simple.”


274 posted on 05/31/2008 1:04:34 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (shshshsh, the sheeple are sleeping and do not wish to be disturbed,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: patton

BTW, what was in the pic of you in “Jane’s?” Abrams? Bradley? I’ve been a military history nut for nearly 50 years.


275 posted on 05/31/2008 1:05:34 PM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle; All

“That “entire community” lived at one address. This wasn’t multiple family homes, it was a cultist compound.”

With this mis-informed comment, you JRochelle have zero credibilty on this subject. There are multiple single family homes on this RANCH. All built by the blood and sweat of these people.

Save your lies for the easily fooled.


276 posted on 05/31/2008 1:10:50 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (shshshsh, the sheeple are sleeping and do not wish to be disturbed,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: abb
Боевая Машина Пехоты
277 posted on 05/31/2008 1:15:34 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: All

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD910QM7G5

Texas agency under magnifying glass over sect raid

By MICHELLE ROBERTS – 31 minutes ago

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — For nearly two months, Texas child welfare officials had insisted conditions at a polygamist group’s ranch were so abusive that none of its members should be allowed to keep their children.

Now, however, one of the of the largest custody cases in U.S. history is unraveling, and some are looking for what went wrong when the state raided the Yearning For Zion Ranch and removed more than 400 children.

Since the state Supreme Court ruled that the Texas Department of Child Protective Services overreached when it swept the children into foster care, agency officials have been unwilling to discuss the case, their strategy or what went wrong.

However, some close to the debacle say the operation was doomed from the start by a series of missteps.

First is the oddity of a religious sect the agency knew little about, exacerbating the inherent perils of balancing parents’ rights and child safety. Then there were the abuse allegations, starting with a mysterious telephone call and echoed by disgruntled former members, seemingly accepted at face value.

snip


278 posted on 05/31/2008 1:16:13 PM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: patton

BMP? Ok. It won’t do until you scan and post the pic.


279 posted on 05/31/2008 1:20:23 PM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
For God's sake, FReeper, are you justifying what the government did to the Branch Davidians? Are you justifying the illegal raid of the FLDS, rounding up all of the innocent children at gunpoint?

Of course I do not justify entirely what was done at FLDS and Waco. What I was trying to do was to get inside the heads of authority. This includes the judge, whom I am sure is an upstanding citizen. She is sworn to protect people. This is the basis of her job. It is especially the vulnerable and innocent who the law is supposed to protect. Any lawful authority at once bridles at possible sexual abuse of children. If they do not, then they are lacking.

In this I would point at the Canadian Provincial Government in British Columbia. The local police and RCMP have tried to lay charges there. (Law S153) Care and trust of minors. Politicians are measuring their backsides against biting the bullet and applying the law.

Who knows what the authorities had in front of them at Waco? A "Jim Jones" scenario was posed by informants. Containers of volatile liquid were said to have been spread around the compound.

I will concede the Ruby Ridge deaths were likely gross incompetence or deliberate murder. I will concede how ugly a stand- off always is.

The bottom line for me is this: If people act right and up front. Rarely does the law interfere.

280 posted on 05/31/2008 1:21:25 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 501-515 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson