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.
But I suspect in those other cases the original order to take the children had not been ordered vacated by a higher court. Changes things a bit.
No matter what you guys say IT STILL LOOKED LIKE A TANK!
The M113 is clearly marked as being from Midland County, which has a estimated 2006 population of 124,380.
But your point is still well taken.
Why don't you tell us then what the Texas Supreme Court ruling means?
No such animal. There are various components in the Texas Department of Public Safety. The one that is primarily concerned with enforcement of criminal law is the Texas Rangers
The Texas Highway Patrol does support the Rangers as required. Local sheriffs and inside cities and towns the police, are the agencies chiefly responsible for law enforcement in Texas.
I suspect the Rangers would be ones to be used in a case such as this. Of course they have their own parallel criminal investigation going in the case.
Returning a bunch of kids to a bunch of illegal polygamists would be wrong.
Reaing comprehension isn't your strong suit I see.
Under the law, M16s and even 9mm H&Ks are machine guns. Anything designed or redesigned to fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger is a machine gun. By interpretation it does not include manually operated Gatling type weapons, but does include those which use a motor to operate the mechanism.
Yes, the military only calls M249, M240, M2 and the like machine guns, but civilian law is much broader in that respect. Even a little M2 carbine is a machine gun under the law ... in point of fact the only sort I've actually fired, and then the slide broke on the second magazine. (The owner was not amused, until he took a look at the part and then said: "where did this come from, it's not Mil-Spec?". Army Guard special forces type, after his active service, and electronics engineer, also owned an M1919 machine gun converted to 7.62x51. and M79 (but no live projectiles, just ones powered by .32 blank which lofted a capsule of talcum powder)
It's refreshing to finally see a judge with a spine.
I very much doubt Reno even knew about Showtime before the fact. For one thing, at that time, BATF did not work for her as AG, but rather under the treasury secretary, so she wasn't in their chain of command. The FBI was of course.
Faulty, maybe, but not illegal. The evidence gathered will stand.
This time you are wrong. Under federal law, anything that can fire more than one round per trigger pull is a machine gun. If you have one without having the proper tax stamps, which they no longer issue for any weapon made after 1986, you cat, your wife and your children, even if they are still in the womb, are in grave danger.
On a real modern battlefield, against a real army, every armored vehicle, save perhaps the Abrams or other western Main Battle Tank, is a "jump off and runaway sort" just as much as the M113 was in it's hehday. The video below indicates why I say that.
Javelin Vs. Soviet Tank (A T-72 I think)
Yes it was, just as much as any appartment complex. There were some buildings that housed a single family, others that where duplexes, but the majority lived in separate residences within several large buildings, like small to medium apartment buildings. When I was born, my parents lived in an apartment in the same building, with the same address, as the five and dime (Ben Franklins if anybody cares), and a couple of other apartments as well. But no way did we live in the five and dime or with whoever occuppied those other apartments. Similarly my grandmother lived above the post office, along a whole bunch of other people, in the building that contained a funeral parlor, a car repair shop, and at one time a bank. I've been in the vault, most of the building is now a second hand furniture and furnishings business, except for those apartments above, and I wouldn't be too suprised to find families still living in them, although I'll have to check later this summer when I'm up there. Did grandma live at the funeral parlor? She did end up there though, at a pretty young age, younger than I am now.
The group didn't move to Texas until 2003. Or at least that's when they bought the property. They moved from other locations, Utah, Arizona and Canada, after that.
She must still act within the law. The higher courts said she didn't.
The basis of her job it to see that the law, including the Constitutions of Texas and the United States, are followed. CPS is the agency charged with protecting children, but they too must follow 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.
There were no "informants", not that had any knowledge of what went on at Mount Carmel, there interviews with those released during the standoff, some of which ended up being prosecuted and convicted for using weapons that where never proved to be present. (Machine guns) There was also a report from a BATF agent who talked to the Davidians and even shot with them. But the initial raid used no such "For the Children" justification. It was strictly based on the supposed presence of untaxed machine guns and "destructive devices", the later on the basis of delivery of demilled grenade hulls, the former on a misreading on an invoice for AR-15 clone kits, some reports of rapid firing and also on the presence of Shotgun News in their reading rack. Well, a knowledgeable FReeper thought my M1 Carbine was going burst fire, but that was just me working the trigger rapidly, and as far as Shotgun News, well I have several issues in the house at the moment, a couple of them in the "Throne Room" for casual reading.
Just like in an apartment complex. Some are even called "Lazy Acres Ranch" or some such, as are some mobile home parks
Last I checked,living communally was not a crime under the laws of Texas or the United States, as long as your commune doesn't violate zoning regulations.
But the issue of a single address is a red herring anyway, the law says "residence" not address. They have multiple buildings, some with more than one residence, most in fact, again like an apartment complex.
Apparently you don't. It's quite common, in much of the great plains, to have multiple dwellings on the same property, owned by either a single person, or a corporation. Generally they are parents and one or more grown children, living in separate residences. If a corporation owns the land, and runs the "business" that is the farm or ranch, then the corporation must pay the family members so they can eat, buy cars, etc, although even cars are sometimes owned by the corporation, certainly trucks and farm equipment are.
Sure the buildings are huge, they house mulitiple families, but same is true, only more so, of any apartment building in New York City or Chicago, including ones owned and run by the government, where underage girls are being impregnated by older men all the time, although under different, and generally less lasting arrangements.
But all that doesn't matter.They are a cult, and thus not protected by the laws of the State of Texas, or the Constitutions of Texas and the US..right?
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.