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.
That's right, it does. But evidence is still required. The law must still be followed. The law in this case is contained in the Texas Family Code, 261. INVESTIGATION OF REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT and PROCEDURES IN SUIT BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY TO PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CHILD
Which court, one wonders.
Clearly only those men could be checked. However a court could order all the men, or more likely just those listed on the Bishops' lists as having underage wives, to undergo such testing.
You guys are a hoot. Everyone knows only the govt can have cults; like the armed services, LEOs, the recognized major political parties, and finally the Kennedy and Bush cult compounds.
Well, except maybe for the Catholic cult, the Baptist cult, and Presbyterian cult, the Methodist cult, the Jewish cult, the Islam cult, the Mormon cult, the Buddhist cult, the wiki cult, the pop cult, the hollywood cult, the south beach cult, the long island cult, the miami beach cult, the malibu cult, the long beach cult, the elite cult, the gay and lesbian cult, the poverty cult, the middle class cult, the geek cult, the nerd cult, the golpher cult, the baseball football and basketball cult, the fubu cult, the hilfiger cult, the izod cult, the motorsports cult, the mexican, chinese, korean, south american, european, german, irish, italian, russian, french and all other cults.
I’m sure others can add more cults found in our society, since I have only brushed on a few of the cults known to exist in America.
The task is to pick which cult suits you if you don’t already belong to one. Then do your best to condemn all the rest. You just can’t condemn to a point of trying to eliminate an entire cult you do not like. There’s that nasty little document in the way, we call it the Constitution.
Face it, you are just a trouble maker. If you were really as concerned about the children’s well being as you say you are in your shrieking posts you would educate yourself on the facts of the case and the other things you post about so you could make reasoned arguements to make your points and concerns clear to everyone. You would read and attempt to understand the reasoned posts of others that don’t agree with you to see if they have a good point- or if they are wrong- if they are wrong then you need to attempt to in a reasoned fashion pursuade them with a counterpost explaining your position on their points and why. This is how you attempt to get folks to see things your way- or to educate them- to see things your way, not by wild attacking posts that for the most part are strung together hyperbole and at times are out and out personal attack. You fling nonsense here and there and attack anyone that doesn’t march in lockstep with what you think you know about everything.
You described a living situation that is exactly the same as many farms and ranches and acted like that was proof they were a cult compound. As another poster pointed out, your description could also fit the military living conditions. I didn’t want people to get the impression (that you gave them) that everyone that lived in that fashion was a cultist so I corrected you.
There are a zillion wierd reasons why this group could be termed a cult, or sect or many other terms. You could have made your point by listing them. There is a ton of information out there that supports your idea of this group that is not hyperbole and you haven’t bothered to post but a sliver of it this whole time- and when you do, you do it in such a way that most people are offended or don’t bother to read due to your “tabloid” style of posting/attacking.
Your posts have convinced me that you are either an anti-Mormon zealot- or a drama queen. In short I really don’t take your posts or your points of view on this case seriously- but rather as a joke.
If you are for real and your true concern is the children, then you are doing them no favor by your posting style on these threads. There are a million ways to remind people that this should be first and formost about those children. I am concerned about the children, and I do think this group has done enough that we do know about to warrant investigations into their actions and possible charges brought against some or many of the members. I also know there are legal avenues in which the authorities can and should do this. I am just a poster on an internet forum (as you are) so really there is nothing that I personally can do for those children that I know of.
I am concerned when authorities act against the Constitution and will speak out about that at every opportunity. Since many do not seem concerned with how or why we get these folks (who are presumed to be innocent until found otherwise in court) as long as we get them; then I feel I must remind people of our Constitution and what impact the actions taken in this case can have on all of us. I also try to correct wild posters hyperbole along the way- which is why we are posting back and forth at this time.
And you say logical thinking is not my strong suit?
“The molester defenders get all bent out of shape if anyone posts that picture on most threads. They don’t like to actually see that this cult is vile and evil.”
It is a disgusting picture. The perp is in jail.
No one here I have read is defending polygamy much less child molesters. What I am defending and what I see others defending is individual rights, due process, rule of law, and the Constitution of these United States. Do you have a problem with our rule of law?
As one of the folks here defending same, I take offense to your suggestion. A basic principle of this site involves a high regard for our Constitution.If you are anti-Constitution, you should seek a site where folks hold it in contempt. They would welcome your anti-Constitution venom; and your hate for people who are different.
Thank you.
You got that right- except you left out the Redneck Cult, which I am a lifelong proud member of. There are folks who laugh at us, and a few who would like to eliminate us- but thank goodness for that pesky old musty piece of paper that is stopping them from actually doing it.
That’s why I am out here on the front lines with my trusty old keyboard smoking from firing so many shots- to protect that old piece of paper so the anti-redneck zealots aren’t cheering for the government to eliminate me next.
They don't have to demand anything. The forms for registration are online and may be mailed to the Voter Registration Official in their county, in their case, Brenda Mayfield, in the county seat of Eldorado. The voter registration card will then be mailed to them. The requirements to register are:
* be a U.S. citizen; * be a resident of the county;
* be 18 years old (you may register at 17 years and 10 months);
* not a convicted felon (unless a person's sentence is completed, including any probation or parole)
* not declared mentally incapacitated by a court of law
Most the adults at the FRZ would seem to qualify, at least for now.
L
“You got that right- except you left out the Redneck Cult, “
Dang, how could I ever forget the squidbilly cult. You gotta catch these guys. I have them on demand with my Comcast cable DVR. Produced by Williams Street. If you think you are a redneck, you gotta see these squidbillies. They’re a hoot.
PS Your #347 was righteous.
And Texas law provides for doing just that. However, the law contains protections for both the children and the parents. The law was not followed. That's what the Appeals and Supreme Courts said.
I find it odd how some here want to defend a cult where 50 year old perverts rape 13 year old girls.
People aren't defending that, they are defending the rule of law. Follow the law, put the perps in jail, or execute them if the law allows, and we'll be pleased as punch.
Unfortunately it's not. It's a second degree felony punishable by 2 to 20 years plus a 10,000 fine. Of course that's for each count. Might be a lot of counts for each perp.
The law even provides for the temporary removal of the persons constituting a threat to the children. Takes a court order and evidence, but it can, and with the evidence, should be done. That would be men shown as married to underage girls or even include those shown as married to more than one wife, even if they are all 18 or over. Perhaps especially them, if any of their wives are considerably younger than they are, they'd likely be "in the market" for another young one. But it takes evidence, not something written by an ex member in a book, who never resided at the YFZ, something admissible in a court of law
Srry: I got my “terms” mixed up. I didn’t mean incest- I meant the underage childrens parents (who now have custody) letting them have contact with their “overaged” pervert “husbands” -
I don’t think the issue with FLDS is incest, it is multiple wives, where some of the wives are underaged. It was the underaged “wives” (i.e., someone’s children) that I was referring to.
(Sorry for being so imprecise...)
CPS acted on good faith that the info they got was real. They got a search warrant. All legal requirements.
Your particular preferences do not dictate whether it was constitutional or not. The judge made a call. The SC disagreed. I think the judge was right. Even the SC of Texas did not declare the seizure of those kids unconstitutional. Yet you all seem to think so. Are ya'll Constitutional Scholars or what?
Actually all of it, except in the cases of the pubescent girls. Even the three "dissenters in part" agreed that there was no legal justification presented for taking the other children, which means the vast majority of them.
I though they already had come to a consensus, between the parents and CPS, before the judge decided that the conditions weren't tough enough.
They will, probably on Monday. They might do it sooner if the attorney's for the family go to them sooner. Judges, like Generals, do not like to be ignored or have their orders not obeyed.
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.