Actually they'd have called it a Sturmpanzerwagen 
Which is another reason we can be glad Germany lost, Imagine having to use "Sturmpanzerwagen" every time you wanted to say "tank".
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.
Nope - send me your email addy.
Here are a few facts. The Baptist buses were used because the compound was raided on a Thursday afternoon.
Believe it or not, school was in session that day. The kids had to go home somehow. They ran out of Baptist buses, and they did end up using some school buses later.
I know that you are Mormon and you feel a connection to the FLDS Mormons, but come on! It is possible that this judge has the best interest of the kids in mind!
Actually they'd have called it a Sturmpanzerwagen
Which is another reason we can be glad Germany lost, Imagine having to use "Sturmpanzerwagen" every time you wanted to say "tank".
“The Supreme Court did not “rule” anything with respect to the initial raid.”
The Tx supreme court said, and I quote: “On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted.”
IOWs, the raid was not lawful.
So yes, the Supreme Court did find the initial raid unwarranted. You see, the children were removed during the initial raid. The SC said the removal was unwarranted. Therefore, the raid was unlawful.
Hope this helps.
Whoa...as far as I know she's sworn to protect the Constitutions of the United States of America and Texas.
“Armored Personnel Carrier, Fully Tracked, Amphibious - But NOT a Tank®”
Well I'm sticking with Sturmpanzerwagen™ 'cos it's shorter and easier to say
Nope - I can get a warrant for your house, with resonable suspicion that you are hiding a dead body in your basement.
Now, suppose I sieze the empty friezer out of your garage.
The TX SC says siezing the freezer, especially since I knew it was empty, was not lawful
In no way does that invalidate the initial warrant, it just invalidates the siezure of the freezer.
I thought you were sticking with Global Security, since they are the world-renowned experts?
Well, we could just used the word “Panzer” since the literal translation is “armor” or “shell.”
Funny about that.
I left open what particular type of ACV the M113 was.
But it still feels wrong not to mourn.
Never in my play-book.
I said I was only a passing acquaintance.
And it'd still be scary if parked on your porch.
“Combat Vehicle” implies that one would intentionally choose to fight in it, as opposed to jump off and run away from it.
The M113 is in the “Jump off and run away” category.
You have a point there but...... being as it is better to let ten guilty men go free, rather than one innocent man found guilty, there is a risk.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.....etc.
"Guilty as sin and free as a bird" (William Ayres,terrorist now academic). To digress, before I get a little emotional and back against the wall (laughs).
Yep, someone always gets the benefit of the Constitution. I wonder how many paunchy old men are depending on it, so they can go home to wifey/s.
It is called the Yearning for Zion Ranch, not ranches.
They do not each own any of the land.
I repeat, this is not a gated community, with single family residences. This is a communal living ranch, huge living quarters, (most of the men have one building for their harem and offspring.)
Property taxes are paid by the ranch, not each individual man.
So yes, it is a cultist compound.
But the court, not as a matter of opinion since it was not a matter of the appeal, did mention in it's response that no Sarah was found. I found that interesting.
For those who like to read rulings, here it is: Tx Supreme court ruling
LOL. I love dry humor:^)
Cordially,
It is interesting, and I am sure that more cases will be filed.
But nobody has ruled the initial warrant illegal, that I have heard of.
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.