Texas judge walks off bench; when FLDS children will return is unknown

The Deseret News ^ | 5/30/2008 | Ben Winslow and Nancy Perkins

[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.

[El Gato]

Just a thought. I wonder- is it possible for civilians to own one of these things?

Yes, as long as you don't arm it with a "prohibited" weapon. Even an M2 heavy machine gun could be legal, if you'd done all the proper paperwork to acquire it, including paying the "stamp tax". But you could "look" just like those guys, and maybe be just like them, if you had AR-15s or clones, rather than M-16s. (from the pictures we can't tell if they had AR-15s or M-16s.
(Technically an M-16, made by Colt, is an AR-15, that being Colts designation. But in "the vernacular" AR-15 generally refers to semi-auto only versions, while M-16s are either full auto or burst fire capable. I used the vernacular).

But the rest, the M113 itself, the Kevlar "Fritz" type helmets, the black suits (I'd choose something more appropriate for the region you intended to operate in, like "desert" cammo, even the old "chocolate chip" variety, or more modern ACU/ABU (Air Force type) "digital" cammo), etc. are all perfectly legal for you to own. Not cheap, but legal.

[El Gato]

he would have happily and deftly skinned that rabbit and cooked and ate it quickly.

(1)We weren't allowed to skin it deftly and quickly, we had to pretend it was something larger and skin it slowly, with each guy taking a turn. I could have done it myself, and have, much faster. This was a big bunny though, much larger than the cottontails I'd dealt with before then.

(2) We cooked it the same way, like it was something bigger, but it was on a spit over an open fire. Yummy.

(3) Three, I was secretly glad he didn't eat his share.. more for me. :)

(4) After that, he wasn't even up for some chili, made with the dehydrated "meat" and the chili powder out of our seat pack survival kit. But it wasn't too good anyway, and was difficult to eat with my poorly made "survival spork". The rabbit was easier, since we each had a small knife. Just slice off a hunk and eat it off the knife, like Davey Crockett. Ah life was good that night. So was sleeping on the ground under (and over) a parachute gore (segment) tied to the trees by it's shroud lines.

Then there was the tale of the Rabbit eyeballs, eaten by a cadet from El Cajon, who wanted to become an undertaker. But that's for another thread perhaps. :)

[Tammy8]

I found info about the squidbillies- sounds like something my brother would love to see- I'll have to get it. It seems you are part of the Squidbilly cult mentioned here:

Although Adult Swim's Squidbillies was supposed to start airing in late 2004 the show didn't really show up until about a year later in October of 2005. Since then the series has slowly but surely built up a well deserved cult following

[duckln]

They haven’t proved they are the legal parents is the point.

[Tammy8]

You are so right- the outrage would be huge if that things was used by BP on the border. It would seem to me that LEOs using this type of thing would tend to escalate peoples fear, agitate them, and generally take the whole situation up a notch- I don’t think that is too wise. Might make a tense situation worse. I can see using something like this if the situation is already out of control- LEOs or others being shot at, etc- but otherwise not a good idea IMO.

[SouthTexas]

They haven’t proved they are the legal parents is the point.

I believe our law requires the state to prove guilt, not vice versa.

[El Gato]

But it’s OK to terrorize the little children at the FLDS ranch. Go figure.

While I don't really approve of the use of the M113 in this instance at least, I don't think the kids were so much terrorized as fascinated. There are photos of some of the young boys being 'shown around' the interior of the APC. Generally they don't know enough to be scared of it. Others don't know enough *not* to be scared of it, as long as it's not breaking down the door or walls.

I suspect in that case they were, unjustifiably as it turns out, worried about "mighty men" or some such blather, firing on them from the various buildings on the ranch. The M113 would provide protection from somethings the FLDS was likely to have.... but not everything. They could have had .50 BMG rifles, and the M113s "armor" won't stop that. Nor will it stop something like .300 Winchester Mag, AFAIK, maybe not even 30-06, or 7.62x51 especially the AP type rounds. And of course in that configuration, they'd have to either stick their upper body out of the vehicle, or exit it entirely, to return fire. I'd go with exiting, and then putting two layers of it between me and whoever was shooting at me.

[duckln]

When asked by authorities, you must identify yourself, isn’t
that the law.

[SouthTexas]

I would, if stopped on the highway. Probably not if someone came into my house, but that’s just me.

Either way, how do you get from there to DNA testing of your children?

[El Gato]

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!

It was designed to be repairable by a farm boy with basic tools. Looks like that design goal was met. :)

[Peter Libra]

My post #411.

Thank you both for your well informed and courteous replies. Having made my final point, I am able to retire from the field.

I, in fact, trust I am totally wrong in one area. This being my suspicion that there is exploitation of females and children.

I will await events again though, my sympathies with the judge. She is, I am sure a conscientious person, with the welfare of the children foremost.

Bye bye.

[SouthTexas]

I, in fact, trust I am totally wrong in one area. This being my suspicion that there is exploitation of females and children.

I wouldn't go quite that far given the history of the cult. That said, our law requires proof before the fact, not after and that is all most of us are speaking about. Just equal application of the law, not much to ask is it?

[SouthTexas]

Would seem so! LOL

[Alice in Wonderland]

And the Beltway Baptist Church donated bicycles for all of the children. Oh, the horrors!

[El Gato]

You can be fined for getting excessive mud on the road, so imagine the response to a tracked vehicle. ;)

Most of the roads are just rock or dirt anyway in that area. Put a "Slow moving vehicle sign on it, and stay off off the blackop and you'd probably be OK. Maybe license it as a farm truck or farm vehicle. Farmers move alot bigger stuff along the roads than that. Like big old combine for instance. Many times I've had to go around those, even on the blacktop. Farmers always pull 'em over as far as they can, but it's not far enough. Sometimes they dismount the reel, and then it's just a big slow farm vehicle. Never saw a license on one of those.

Or she could get a low boy and haul it anywhere she wanted until she got to where she wanted go "off roading".

Of course another possibility is to find a surplus, former SAC "War Wagon" or a similar MP vehicle.

Larger image (Lots of Police forces use these or similar vehicles as well). Here's a later model in Saudi Arabian colors:

A Buffalo would be nice

You can even get a civilian version of the Cougar

But maybe that's not threatening enough for Tammy8? In which case, here's the miliary version (These are for the Iraqis)

[El Gato]

They haven’t proved they are the legal parents is the point.

They don't have too, the CPS knows, or should, who they were taken from. The CPS has been allowing visits by the mothers of the children. Failing all that, they know *where* they removed them from.

CPS tried that line of argument on the higher courts. It fell quite flat.

[mouser]

so with gas so cheep how many gallons to the mile.

[patton]

As was suggusted before, a smart lawyer would be telling his clients, don’t sign squat. She can order whatever she wishes, we can appeal it. If you sign, you just admitted guilt.

IMHO.

[patton]

Careful on ice - when they turn into a hockey puck, you pretty much have no choice but to button up, and hope for the best.

Never know where that sucker is going to slide.

But, look at the bright side - there might be a bar at the bottom of the hill.

[patton]

I would argue both sides, of course. ;)