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.
I would be really surprised to see that happen - a quiet phone call offering to disbar her (TX SC is head of TX Bar) is, I think, much more likely.
Depends on local laws. In NE, eg, you could probably license it as a snow cat.
Rubber tracks?
Metal track with rubber track pads.
Might make a difference. Know they frown on D-8s crossing the road.
I don't think the process of disbarment works quickly enough to address the need to compel a judge to follow the law. Hauling the judge before the Supreme Court to show cause why a contempt citation should not issue can be accomplished in several hours.
A lot depends upon whether the higher court can discern some justification for the lower court judge being confused about the order. The FLDS parents have won this round and need not agree to anything under the duress of losing custody without individual hearings.
A really smart lawyer in this situation will probably realize that he can't just call a halt to reasonable discussions with CPS to protect the children. But the smart lawyer will drag his feet on anything questionable, like allowing CPS unfettered access to the children, so as to cause the judge to have to release the children without such an agreement.
I am frustrated by seeing the lawyers appear to be "negotiating" but I realize that they have no choice but to wait this out. Anything the judge orders to apply to ALL the children should be resisted and is as unjustified as the original taking of the children.
There’s no river here, but we could easily get it to the border without getting on the highway or using any public roads at all from where we live. I am in a perfect spot to make this work. We are even friends with a land owner with about 50 miles of property on the actual border. Now all I would have to do is convince hubby and some others that it would be a good idea without them deciding I needed to be committed. If the border gets more out of control that will be easier to accomplish.
Newer ones are much too costly. I will have to plan for cool weather when I make my trip.
So wintertime would be better for this journey? That is better actually- we are really busy in the summer and not quite so busy in the winter.
When I was a kid, many of the ranches had old military vehicles from the Willys on up. Not many left these days though.
Well which side of the debate would you be on? No doubt you and a couple others on this thread rightfully could claim you helped me form the idea/plan- so if you choose to be those with “inside” knowledge and a part of the plan you would have to be on my side. Of course you could act as though you knew nothing about it and argue which ever way you wanted to. Or you could be like some and argue both sides.
We used a Willy’s 1 1/4 ton Jeep Pickup on the ranch in the late 1980’s. I hated it though. I have seen tons of old military Jeeps and even some construction equipment on ranches- though don’t know of anyone that has any now. Usually somebody came along and offered the rancher more than he thought it was worth.
3-4 years ago, my 80 year old neighbor acquired and old Willys. He completely rebuilt engine and transmission, then proceeded to “make” body parts by hand out of 18 ga sheetmetal.
Came out pretty darn good!
Except that there were no federal restrictions on machine guns prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934. Not on BARs, nor M1917s, nor M1919s nor M2, nor M1928 submachine guns.
The law was motivated, supposedly, by the misuse of sawed off shotguns and submachine guns by the likes of Machine gun Kelly and Al Capone's boys. Of course by the time they got it passed, the motivation for all that, prohibition, had been repealed. There were folks like Bonnie and Clyde, running about with BARs and the civilian version the Colt Monitor. (although even B&C had met their end, via those same sort of short shotguns, BARs and Colt Monitors, about a month before Congress passed the NFA. The law still resides in the Internal Revenue part of the US Code, even though they no longer collect the tax on machine guns. (They still do on the other weapons covered by the NFA.
He was, while he went to BYU, he lived in the DC area. His father worked for NASA. All the missile shots we got see at Vandenberg were somewhat boring to him, since he'd seen the Mighty Saturn V launched, more than once, and from closer up too. :)
Nope, read their opinon for yourself (pdf file)
The bottom line is:
... " the district court abused its discretion in failing to return the Relators children to the Relators. The Relators' Petition for Writ of Mandamus is conditionally granted. The district court is directed to vacate its temporary orders granting sole conservatorship of the children of the Relators to the Department. The writ will issue only if the district court fails to comply with this opinion."
I'd say the Writ is about to issue.
Some may be lawfully married to their first wife. Common law if nothing else. Some of those first wives are shown as in their 40s and even 50s.
Besides, I said "shown as", meaning on the Bishops' lists, where they are shown as "wife" under "relationship". Except one old boy (younger than me though) apparently turned that around and wrote "husband" and "father" where appropriate, rather than "wife" and "son"/"daughter". But I guess that is his relationship to the persons listed. :)
What we see is people in various levels of leadership positions just interjecting their beliefs and ideas and not following the law, even when it must be adhered to.
Put simply.. it looks like the judge has a personal agenda that she must believe trumps the higher court's ruling.
Now that's interesting. A tie in between the fake Sarah, and Ms. Jessop, the anti FLDS crusader. Hmmm. Of course she says her first call "from" "Sarah", but where there any calls to Rozita, April,” “Dana,” “Ericka” or “V.” before then?
My tinfoil hat is starting to itch. :)
In the Duke Lacrosse Case - with which I am quite well versed on - it turns out it wasn’t just a ‘hoax.’ It was a cold-blooded FRAME. Indeed the civil lawsuit now working their way through the federal courts allege that very thing.
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.