Posted on 06/11/2008 4:59:10 AM PDT by Flo Nightengale
Texas police have been standing guard outside the home of the Texas judge who ordered the removal of all the FLDS children from the YFZ Ranch. The heightened security was ordered after authorities from Utah and Arizona warned them to be on the lookout for FLDS "enforcers," the Deseret News has learned.
Every officer guarding Judge Barbara Walther's San Angelo house was provided dossiers and photos of 16 FLDS men and women whom Utah police deemed a threat. However, e-mails obtained by the Deseret News from the Washington County Sheriff's Office warned Texas authorities to be suspicious of everybody, not just those on the list.
"There are many individuals who are willing to give up their life for the cause and you can never underestimate what a religious fanatic is capable of," according to the e-mails, which were obtained through Texas' public records law.
Police were also keeping close tabs on witnesses, as the "enforcers" might try to "intimidate kids and other witnesses, watch foster homes where kids may be placed, bribe witnesses, appear at court hearings, and make attempts to contact FLDS kids," according to an e-mail from an investigator with the Tom Green County District Attorney's Office.
Law enforcement in Texas has been on alert since a Fundamentalist LDS Church-related Web site published Walther's home address and work and home telephone numbers.
Walther signed the original order to remove all of the FLDS children from the YFZ Ranch in April and place them in state custody.
An attorney for the FLDS Church said its followers are peaceful people and that law enforcement has nothing to worry about.
"Have they ever seen an act of intimidation or violence against law enforcement from the FLDS community at all, ever?" Rod Parker told the Deseret News. "Before they start spreading those kinds of rumors, they ought to be able to ID an example of them ever doing that in the past."
As for the threat to "pay Ms. Walther's home a visit," on the site www.flds.ws, Parker said the site is not sanctioned by the FLDS Church. The site is run by Bill Medvecky, a Fort Myers, Fla., man who has donated to the fund for captive FLDS children, Parker said.
Once Parker told church leaders that the post could be construed as a threat, they contacted Medvecky and had him remove the judge's address, he said.
However, Walther's work and phone numbers are still listed on the Web site. The site calls Walther the "leader of the Gestapo," and includes a link to a petition to impeach the judge.
Medvecky doesn't see the harm in publishing Walther's address on the Internet. After all, it's in the phone book, he said.
"They are not confrontational whatsoever. I am," Medvecky told the Deseret News. "They are not me, and they have nothing to do with the site. We support them 100 percent."
Texas law enforcement wasn't aware of the threat until early June, but the dossiers "regarding any FLDS members who may engage in acts of intimidation or violence against law enforcement and/or potential witnesses" started circulating April 16.
The dossiers track individuals in FLDS leader Warren Jeffs' circle of trust, as well as a few "wild cards" that make Utah authorities "uncomfortable."
The list includes Willie Jessop, who has acted as one of the main spokesmen for the FLDS Church after the April 3 raid on the Yearning For Zion Ranch. The dossier calls him — William Roy Jessop — "the most serious threat associated with the FLDS religion."
Others included on the list are Lyle Steed Jeffs, Warren Jeffs' brother; and Lindsay Hammon Barlow, who witnesses described as Warren Jeffs' "muscle," among others.
"It is very obvious that Washington County officials do not let the facts get in the way of a good story," Willie Jessop said. "These are the types of paranoid allegations that can hurt a lot of innocent people if they are allowed to go unchecked.
"I don't know what the remedy is, but it should alarm everyone when an investigator does not even bother to fact check what he is supposed to be investigating."
The dossiers include the persons of interests' last known address and possible vehicles.
Washington County sheriff's deputies compiled the dossiers by tracking individuals during Warren Jeffs' 2007 trial, where he was convicted of rape as an accomplice after performing a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin. He was sentenced to a pair of five-to-life prison terms.
Police believe Jessop, also known as "Willie the Thug" or "King Willie" in the dossiers, is the primary FLDS "enforcer" and has a passion for violence, weapons (legal and illegal) and explosives.
On the third day of Warren Jeffs' trial, Jessop was banned from the courthouse after "it was determined he was attempting to intimidate the witnesses, after he was observed numerous (times) staring menacingly at the witnesses," according to the dossiers.
Jessop said he and other FLDS men and women who attended Jeffs' highly publicized trial were there as observers, nothing more.
"The fact that we would show up in court and then to have them turn that around on us shows how biased these public officials are," Jessop said. "There are no facts, no history of violence, not a shred of evidence to support these irresponsible allegations. Not one bit of it is true and these officials know it."
Other FLDS members showed up on the dossiers for a variety of things, from staring down and intimidating witnesses, being an active member of Warren Jeffs' security team, or holding a high rank in the FLDS Church's hierarchy.
Utah police also warned Texas officials of so-called "wild cards" or "religious fanatics," including Ruth Cooke, a woman police said is "blindly devoted to Warren and the FLDS religion," according to the dossiers.
"She is just the kind of person who may be capable of doing something crazy but justified in her head," the dossiers state.
Dee Yeates Jessop is another "intimidating enforcer" who police described as a fanatic who blindly follows Jeffs. Witnesses told police Dee Yeates Jessop is "relatively unimportant" in the church's command structure.
"His social status makes all the more dangerous. What would he do to improve his standing?" according to the dossiers.
Several other high-ranking church officials show up in the dossiers, like William E. Jessop, a high-ranking elder in the FLDS Church, and David Allred, who is involved in the church's finances and is "fairly high in the FLDS pecking order." However, the dossiers said the men were unlikely to be considered a threat, but could be involved in the decision-making process because of their positions of power.
Both Willie Jessop and Parker, who has also acted as a spokesman for the church, discounted the dossiers.
"If they are going to malign people's character like that, they ought to have something better than someone staring at somebody or looking at them funny," Parker said. "This is the same kind of rumor-mongering that I've been complaining about for a long time. These rumors tend to feed on themselves."
My question would be why you feel the ones held as children that were over 18 would not be able to sue for violation of their rights.
Understand I am no legal scholar and I would appreciate your take on what I feel is the best case against CPS.
thank you
“Can’t you see I care.”
We’ve batted back and forth enough to be clear on the issues of this case. I don’t see you as some kind of flds-defender, or pervert defender, in any way. I understand your care is for the legal rights of the men, women, and children involved in the YFZ Ranch case.
“I don’t want the mental gymnastics to go so far as to have people get hurt.”
God forbid anyone should exercise their mind, and explore all options before coming to a proper conclusion.
You don’t want others to ‘think’ things that you ‘think’ might get people hurt.
So, you are saying you wish to limit my thoughts? Or others to think about what I might comment?
“Just looking out for you.”
Hard to accept, coming from someone who says things like “what’s a matter, scared of prairie dresses”.
And, it smacks of Big Brotherism.
Well, if they are breaking laws they need to be dealt with appropriately. I am sure that they make it difficult to do so, but sometimes enforcement of our laws in a constitutional manner is difficult. If they can abide by the laws of this country, then I see no need to harass them. So far, the only ones flaunting the rules and laws are CPS and the initial judge. Meanwhile the Appellate court and Texas Supreme court did the right thing.
Ahhh, I shouldn’t be so hard on you because you take it too personally. Carry on.
Procedurally, she was faced with an enormously difficult task. She was required to hold a "full adversarial hearing" within 14 days. At the conclusion of the hearing she was required to return the child to the parent unless there was evidence of "danger to the physical health or safety of the child" AND an urgent need for protection required immediate removal AND all reasonable efforts had been made to return home, but there is a substantial risk of continuing danger if the child is returned home. (Section 262.201, Texas Family Code).
She could hold joint or combined hearings for the children, but there would have to be the required level of evidence referable to each individual child, IMO. I know a number of visiting judges came in to help, but I don't really know the manner in which they were set up to function.
The higher courts found the evidence to be insufficient. The CPS basically wanted to maintain control of the kids for however long it took to make sure the parents would not harm the kids with all those weird beliefs, especially, I'm sure, the underage sex thing. As the parents showed themselves to be properly reformed, they would have a shot at getting the kids back, but the CPS would be in charge, basically. The trial judge went along, but she was reversed.
Remember, the cases are not over. The suits go on. The issue of permanent custody is still in litigation. The supreme court just ruled on temporary orders at this point. It remains to be seen if CPS is firing blanks as far as the permanent orders are concerned.
“I really doubt that they would attack any government official, especially in this climate. They operate in the shadows and will do anything to prevent attention being drawn to them. “
I doubt they have the time to plan any such attacks, little lone the idea they might actually try and carry out such a thing. But I’m not there, not them, and can’t fault the LE for taking proper precautions. It’s their job.
The Deseret News. They seem to have articles which are mostly negative for the YFZ Ranch case.
Of course, that may be just my impression. At first, I thought they were actually pretty unbiased in their reporting.
Maybe, they still are.
Having said that, I think patton raises a decent point on the issue of adult women being taken into custody as minors. Such a person may have a cause of action. Even if the substantial immunity issues could be overcome, I don't think anybody would get rich from what an average West Texas jury would award insuch a case.
As I indicated at #187, I guess a claim for false imprisonment (being held against one's will without legal justification) brought by an adult over which the CPS has no jurisdiction could be a formidable claim. I just don't think it would be the gold mine some have suggested. However, I have been surprised by judges' and juries' decisions more times than I would like to admit.
I also did not mean to suggest that suits based on first amendment, fourth amendment, 14th amendment, Sec. 1983, etc. could not be brought. I just don't really look for them to happen, even though they have been threatened according to today's Fort Worth newspaper. Somebody posted the link earlier in this thread.
Isn’t that true for many in this country? Do you see one ounce of love for this country at more democrat leaning sites? Just because you hold certain government agencies in disdain doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
“I DO have VERY STRONG opinions about the slippery slope that unconstitutional state persecution of religious groups puts us onto.”
You must also realize the slippery slope of having a *religious* group in our state who is or may be openly violating the laws of said Constitution.
For some reason this reminds me of the arguements for illegal immigrants.
“Well, they are breaking the law but, we can over look that because they work hard.”
“Well, they are breaking several laws but, since they’re a *religious* group, we can let them slide.”
I won’t speculate on possible awards, but I would bet that there is a lawyer in TX who would take the case of the detained 37-yo on a contingency basis.
More than one lawyer, probably.
Remember that one? The DPS is keeping this strictly internal to avoid giving away any security protocol while Perry is calling for an intensive investigation. Should be fun to watch yet a sad day for Texas.
“Just because you hold certain government agencies in disdain doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”
And just exactly who isn’t being allowed to vote?
They went and got a ton of registration cards.
Looks like to me that is exactly what they intend to do, vote.
Otherwise, why bother with the registration process?
If all the adults at the ranch voted in the county (about 3000 people) election for sheriff they could have a great effect.
Personally, I think it stinks but, they do have the right.
If all the adults at the ranch voted in the county (about 3000 people) election for sheriff they could have a great effect.
Personally, I think it stinks but, they do have the right.
They are allowed to vote, but what I see is some folks questioning why they should. It is not a nefarious action to register to vote. Speculating as to why they might be registering to vote as some egregious act is silly. They have every right and they now have every reason.
I think the sheriff sort of befriended them and then as required by law under orders from a judge did what he had to do which probably ticked them off a bit. Yes, it might stink if he pays a price for doing what he is told. He hasn’t seemed to play himself off as a victim like CPS and the Judge are doing.
Come on, stares and sideways glances are historically the danger with the folks on the list, yet we see things like this....
“They have every right and they now have every reason.”
Simple self defense has been one answer.
But, as a citizen, I can look at history and see that their past practices include dominating the voter rolls, putting in their own leaders, and and continuing to violate the law.
I can then speculate that it might be another option, rather than some ‘sudden light of patriotism’ that occurred to them all at once.
If you live in that county, you can at least do something, if you think they are trying to ‘takeover’ the political system, like go vote yourself.
I seem to have a foggy recollection of a manhunt in the late 60's or early 70's in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico for one of the enforcers who killed a cop. I think the cop tried to stop the enforcer, who had just committed a string of widely dispersed murders, on an unrelated traffic issue. As I remember it, the enforcer paniced and shot the cop who had already radioed in his tags. In looking for a reason for the cop shooting, they began to suspect him in the other murders which were business related.
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.