The child's attorney did not try to stop the girl from being returned to her mother. She only wanted certain restrictions, which were granted.
The child's attorney is not a defense attorney. Are you suggesting that the attorney try to prevent service of the subpeona, which is an order for a person to appear in court. If the person given a subpoena does not appear, the court has the discretion to find the person in contempt of court and either order the person’s arrest or issue fines.
And, before you jump to conclusions, no, I do not want the girl to be arrested or fined. But I do want to know why the men of the flds are so dead set against the girl appearing in court. I'm sure they'd love to replace the present attorney with one more to their liking, maybe Rod Parker.
"The girl "wants to go home and doesn't understand why everybody else can. The only obstacle is her lawyer," he said. "When a person and their lawyer cannot get along, then the appropriate solution is to appoint a new lawyer.""
The child's attorney is not a defense attorney. Are you suggesting that the attorney try to prevent service of the subpeona, which is an order for a person to appear in court.
The attorney for the child should be her advocate and as such is identical with a Defense Attorney, that is what a Defense Attorney is. Certainly, the Attorney should do everything in her power to prevent the lady from testifying. The easiest way is to not have the lady served.
And, before you jump to conclusions, no, I do not want the girl to be arrested or fined.
Why would the Lady be arrested or fined if she avoids service?
But I do want to know why the men of the flds are so dead set against the girl appearing in court.
What is the benefit to the Lady for testifying before a Grand Jury? She doesn't even get the benefit of council. Are they guaranteeing her immunity? Are they paying her for her testimony? Bribes? What does she have to gain?
Are you familiar with the joke/half truth about the Prosecutor, Grand Jury and Ham Sandwich?