Posted on 06/24/2008 9:41:49 AM PDT by Alice in Wonderland
Good grief. So do the Southern Baptists and the Westboro Baptists. What is the point....
First question freely chosen by who?
It is my understanding the lawyer is neither in a prosecution or defense stance but working for what she sees as the best interest of the child.
Having said that with all the publicity I think both the judge and lawyer should step aside.
Not that they are bad people but the publicity has created such a fuss a new judge and lawyer would not have to deal with those pr problems.
Than maybe they could get closer to the truth of what is going on and who needs charged with what.
Where have I heard this before?
It's very difficult to disassociate Eric Rudoplh with the pro-life movement...
It's very difficult to disassociate David Duke with the Republican Party...
And so on, and so on...
I would gather many don’t take the flds group seriously either. I can’t agree with the way they are; doesn’t exempt them from constitutional rights though.
And watch the thread you are on get pulled for "childish behavior" when an LDS disruptor mounts personal attack after personal attack without getting booted, and see the same disruptor carrying the attacks into PM.
Post your own thread and see it segregated into the Smoky Back Room immediately because the subject doesn't suit the FR LDS, even when it's an article from the Salt Lake City Tribune and totally factual, due to "multiple abuse reports".
Start a daily FLDS thread with much factual information and valuable links in it and rather than the FLDS defenders posting their own links on it, they complain to the point that the Daily Thread is discontinued.
Yep, just LOTS of options there.
Some people need a new hobby perhaps?
The LDS church as a whole doesn’t run to the FLDS defense either, just a few characters. At that, as I stated earlier, the LDS church excommunicated the FLDS so it seems the LDS has made their official position clear about the FLDS cult.
The lawyer is appointed by the court. The lawyer as attorney ad litem has a duty to ascertain the wishes of the client and to give deference to those wishes AS LONG AS THOSE WISHES DO NO RUN COUNTER TO THE CHILD'S "BEST INTERESTS".
In this case, the attorney claims she had a friendly, productive relationship with the child until she came under the influence of Willie. The attorney further claims Willie demands that the lawyer advocate for the "lifestyle of the flds". The lawyer says she received information which she believes to be credible that the girl was 'spiritually married' to an older man at age 15. She sought a court order barring Willie from being in contact with the girl. That question, as well as whether the lawyer will be replaced, is to be taken up at a hearing scheduled to start in about 20 minutes.
As far as the judge being removed, she has not been shown to have the degree of bias which would support removal. Even though I agreed with the higher courts reversing the trial court's temporary order rulings, there is no reason to think she will be removed from the case. Judges get reversed quite often.
That is because the courts corrected them. They still have an argument to play later if they desire, but the court system did its job to reverse an idiotic decision by the lower court judge.
Funny, you've posted two Open Religion Forum threads with LDS in the title over the last week and they both are still there and not in the backroom...
A matter of degrees on a slippery slope, but for the purpose of this thread and simplicity, it will suffice.
However, there seems to be a concentration of the characters you mention here, and given the general view of both, you would have to understand one’s drawing of somewhat understandable conclusions.
Not that they are bad people but the publicity has created such a fuss a new judge and lawyer would not have to deal with those problems.
This is well-organized FLDS generated publicity in an effort to do just what you suggest, remove the attorney, who they formerly praised. They are the ones who released the girl's emails, letter to the court, etc.
Isn't that the truth. In any threads that have even the slightest things to do with Mormons, I see the same two or three coming over and over in attempts to make it into a fight, almost as though they want to somehow drive Mormons out. Some of those also seem to only spend time on Mormon related threads, never anywhere else. At the same time, the Mormon church defenders seem to be generally all over the place discussing lots of different topics. A lot of folks forget we are all on the same side here. Our Mormon FRiends are just as Conservative (if not more) than the rest of us, and frankly, they live their faith to a strength that should put most of us to shame.
Anything else is a leap, one which has been made here over and over again.
I will leave the details of my answer to another thread more conducive to such discussions, however I will say that though I share you POV of Ron Paul and his folks, I don't share your rosy view of the LDS now. Indeed there are some parallels...
The problems with changing lawyers include--
-You don't want to reward what amounts to misconduct by flds members.
-A newly appointed attorney would NOT be someone requested by Teresa, so who's to say the new attorney would have any better luck with this client.
- A new attorney would have to start from scratch.
I doubt Malonis is removed (but I guess it could happen), and I'd be willing to bet the TRO as to Willie will be extended.
It is unconstitutional to hold an adult as a minor that provided the requisite paperwork for instance. That hasn’t even been dealt with yet. They did that in several documented cases. Also, from a constitutional assessment the courts determined that they can not be treated as one entity but must be treated individually under the law. What parts of the constitution do you disagree with or what parts of being treated individually as required by Texas law (as determined by the appeals court and the Texas Supreme court) don’t you understand? The courts ruled on the basis of those two items, and the Texas statutes are clear on individual due process which did not happen in the initial hearing. Two upper courts determined that. All laws are looked at as written and then if the upper courts had upheld the unlawful ruling, then the flds folks would have had the opportunity to challenge the laws as constitutional or not. So far, the Texas law is constitutional but the court actions did not abide by the law in a constitutional manner.
This is pretty clear to me. From day one, many of us said you cannot treat all 400 plus cases as one case. You have a constitutional right to individual due process.
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.