I was only remarking on the way the article is written. The child has requested a new attorney and seems to want no part of the lawyer’s assertions yet they are there. In addition, the lawyer is requesting the things in the order, not the child nor the child’s mother. The way the title and the first paragraph reads, one would gather otherwise. I was actually quite happy that perhaps someone in the circle cracked who could allow legal indictments and constitutional correct charges brought forward if wrongdoing exists. After reading the full article I get an entirely different picture. So I asked the question if the attorney is the same one, the single lawyer that has been on Nancy Grace making outrageous claims. If so, does she represent the true interest of the child, or does she represent self interest..?
Similarly, I decided there was less meat on the bone after I read the article than I gathered from the headlne. One of two scenarios holds: Either the girl has been influenced to cease cooperation with the ad litem, or the ad litem is crusading for relief that is not warranted by the facts.
If the girl is brought before the GJ, she is going to be asked about what went on at flds. If she can’t be located, then some fur is going to fly for sure and someone is going to the pokey for contempt of court.
I decided a while back that Nancy Grace wasn’t worth watching, so I don’t know who has or has not been on that show.
“I was only remarking on the way the article is written. “
You make an important point that some may have missed.
This particular article seems to be written to ‘slant’ the interpretation a reader gives it.
That’s why I went to search for other ‘versions’ of the same article. The one in CNN (OMG!) was organized better, stringing relevant info together instead of ‘hiding’ it later in the article. Plus they gave more info.
I couldn’t find the CNN article on that, so here’s a local newspaper article.
It seems to give more clarification.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5848504.html