Sunday, June 01, 2008

MSM offers excuses for how they got YFZ raid so wrong

Even if Judge Barbara Walther remains recalcitrant, many defenders of Texas' actions in the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup are jumping ship as it's become obvious the state's case is preparing to crash upon the rocks. Others are making excuses to explain why they were wrong.

To be sure, some are still defending the YFZ Raid, like Bill McKenzie at the Dallas News who inexplicably promotes false and dated statistics that CPS already admitted were incorrect weeks ago. He continues to claim we "know" girls under 16 were impregnated at the YFZ Ranch, when in fact all such claims have been debunked. No one but him (and, alas, readers who believe the Dallas News) think it's true. As I advised McKenzie in the comments:
The YFZ Ranch is only 4 years old. Claiming the Bishop's record shows a 27 year old got pregnant at age 14 (probably in Arizona, if accurate) does NOT demonstrate any underage girls got pregnant at the ranch. KBP's count is accurate - 5 alleged underage Moms were identified [by CPS] in court. That's it. The number was whittled down to two when one turned out not to be pregnant and two more turned out to be in their 20s.
We're still battling the effects of CPS' successful public relations campaign against FLDS group, including but not limited to their claims that:
  • 60% of teen girls were pregnant or mothers: To get that number, CPS included 26 adult women who denied they were minors and turned out to be telling the truth, but not until after the agency repeatedly called them liars in the press.
  • 10% of kids had broken bones in the past: It turned out they didn't really know how many had broken bones, and anyway 10% would be less than the average for kids in the outside world.
  • Male children were molested, although CPS never provided evidence in court for the assertion and dropped the allegation after it made media headlines.
And those are just the lowlights. This disinformation campaign is why I cannot agree with Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey who writes, "CPS should and will follow the law. But it's not as though they willfully broke it."

I think they did. I think they knew the whole ranch shouldn't be considered a single "household." I think they knew the group's religious beliefs didn't meet the legal definition of abuse. Certainly they knew claims that 60% of teen girls were mothers were false at the time they made them (the agency added the caveat two days after the headlines ran to say most of those girls claimed to be adults, which turned out to be correct).

If CPS was acting in good faith, why were we subjected to a constant stream of misinformation? That's the part I don't understand. Certainly that behavior significantly colored my own reaction to the raid and its aftermath; once I become convinced you didn't tell me the truth, I start to doublecheck your statements, and CPS' never held up under scrutiny. At the end of the day, the courts found the same thing.

Also in the Houston Chronicle today, reporter Janet Eliot offers up some revisionist history to develop the storyline that CPS was an innocent victim in this case as opposed to the lead victimizer. She blames the agency's "rigid professional compass," of all things, for the massive rights violation it has undertaken - not the phrase I'd have chosen.

Eliot quotes UT law prof Jack Sampson declaring, "one could, in retrospect, say it was too ham-handed. They should have been more nuanced." Speaking for myself, I was criticizing the raid for precisely these reasons from the get-go, so I see little merit in Sampson's claim that the flaws could only be observed "in retrospect." (E.g., on April 9 I suggested on Grits the raid "may be a setup job.") CPS was obviously overreaching at the time it undertook this endeavor, and this was discernible from publicly available information.

AP's Michelle Roberts has a similar retrospective today with the title, "Was polygamist raid doomed from the start?" She qutoes a DPS official declaring, "We had no choice but to treat those calls as credible. If we had not treated them as credible and something bad happened, people would be very upset." That's true, of course, but it sure doesn't explain why authorities waited five days to check out the story. What went on during those five days remains the murkiest and perhaps most probative remaining untold part of the narrative.

Eliot and Roberts' narratives, of course, not only exoneate CPS but the media who gave the agency a megaphone to promote its ill-fated PR campaign. "The initial cracks in the legal case came in late April," Eliot writes, "at the 14-day adversary hearing." But that's not correct. The raid was questionable and questioned from day one. In particular, the search warrant affidavit Judge Walther approved relied on her "ranch as one household" interpretation the appellate courts just shot down.

By claiming no one could have known there were problems with the case, the media exonerates itself for not having done a better job reporting. Similar motives IMO explain why Casey and Eliot continue to hold open the possibility the original phone call from "Sarah" may not be fake. The Salt Lake Tribune figured out the hoax almost immediately (Brooke Adams first came across evidence of this on April 4) but Texas papers still maintain the fiction "Sara" might be real, probably because they'd otherwise be subject to legitimate criticism for not accurately reporting the story.

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

The so call parents are Brain Washed,now they can brain wash there kids.They have Mental problems.Its not over.

Fred said...

This is a three (at least) strikes and you're out case, Grits, and you called it right from the beginning. Like you and most others, I thought CPS has a home run and didn't question it at first. It was actually a foul ball and a strike.

There is a notable difference now on media biases and their long lasting impact on public (and potential juror) opinion. The damage is nationwide, instantly. But now we can search Google for comments and still find many relying on the deceptions by CPS as being in fact... FACT. Indeed, those who still blindly support the raid do so by citing those "facts." It is now much easier to find evidence of the damage done when the government manipulates the public like that though the media.

This is why I think the SCOTUS might want to revisit the government's use of trial by media. Not only does this manipulation taint trials, it taints public policy and the rational passing of law. Everything about it is suspect. The government can claim no compelling state interest in trial by media, and sure as hell can't claim one using rumor and false facts.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Strike Three IMO will be the original search warrant, Fred, which is based on Judge Walther's now-debunked "one household" theory - I don't think the Third Court of Appeals is gonna let them foul that pitch off.

Fred said...

Fair point, Grits. Maybe trying to redefine "household" under the nepotism statutes was strike 27. I lost count.

But to keep it more or less on topic, I think there are two larger-than-this-case issues here, at least, that are relatively ignored beyond due process issues: 1) trial by media, and 2) the dangers of state custody of children.

Anonymous said...

Media now 'excusing' CPS...or themselves?

Well now, no awake American who bothered to think about the gun-point FLDS raid, can even begin to understand how this happened in the USA.

Secondly,don't bother to try to make sense of the state's workers' and the media's decepion.

Just know that it is the culture in Texas--mean, liars, thieves, and whiskey.

Texas' acts too, are left-over confederate mindsets.

Of which, Texans never moved on.

Why...'you's a Yankee!' I've had it said to my face...when I answered their persistent query: "Ya'll ain't from here, are ya?

Or a more polite way to get at it was " Uh...where ya'll from?"

So sick down there--not even worth discussing the why of the state's lies... or the media's going along and helping.

Anonymous said...

Is anyone going to get the courts to stop the Laboratory from giving CPS the DNA results?

Once the cat is out of the bag, it'll be impossible to put it back in. I don't believe there will be any big news in the DNA results, I just think everyone will be better off is their DNA is not stored in every database known to man.

Ted Clayton said...

To restate the old Texas saw, "You live by the Press, you die by the Press". CPS tried to spin its case against the FLDS in the court of public opinion (using the MSM), and discovered there is a learned skill-set involved ... a talent for which they have shown only a crude grasp.

Paradoxically, their less-than-adroit propaganda strategy lowers the charges I am inclined to bring against CPS. By turning in a performance that a 'mere lone blogger' like GritsForBreakfast [not at all meaning to deprecate your excellent work, Scott!] could dismantle using nothing but publicly-available information, they end up looking closer to fools, than true villains.

I could be wrong, though, and continue to be alert to the possibility & scour the sources for indications that something more egregious is behind the FLDS raid debacle. If the charges really merit escalation, I hope to be among the first at the bar!

The MSM can obviously appeal that they were sucked by the unethical (if too-transparent) deceptions of the Texas CPS on this case, and as the lawyers & courts set things straight, they have dutifully reversed their coverage-style. A bit scurrilous, but it provides them 'plausibly deniability'.

kbp said...

rl said... in last post comments:
""Doran, who has been sheriff here for 12 years, downplayed that. "I'm not worried about it. The citizens have always stood behind me, and if the community feels this is an attempt to take over Schleicher County, I know they'll stand together. Once we begin impaneling some grand juries and the criminal case comes to light, we'll see the tide turn once again.""

from the houston chronicle, sheriff doran on possible criminal charges.. what do we think about this?"


I can't find this article. Certain it was the Chron? Can you post a link?

**************

Fred

We have a tough line to draw when deciding what will and will not be public information. Imagine if all documents in this case had been sealed!!!

I see a better cure in have stronger enforcement of ethics, for attorneys and judges both.


************

Grits
Thanks for not leaving me behind!

Sometimes I need help getting on the 'short bus'. It sucks when everybody just leaves me by myself!

I always have 10-20+ windows open and seldom take the time to refresh your blog before posting something i found on another window. Bad habit of just leaving it on the Comments page, used to private message boards I'm on often I guess. ;)

kbp said...

Fred

I'd like to add that I wish there were more investigative reports in the media.

I do not trust most that have sources in the governing authorities that spin their own narrative and miss reporting ALL the facts often.

subpatre said...

KPB - The quote's in Bustillo and Riccardi's article for the LA Times

Just one more chunk of evidence the raid (at least the personnel carrying it out) was prebiased.

George said...

kbp,

I'm not suggesting sealing any records and do not suggest unconstitutionally requiring the media be silent. I'm suggesting something more along the lines of "Sources close to the investigation, who want us to ignore presumed innocence say..." Or more seriously, "Sources close to the investigation but without the authority to find guilt say..."

Or the government officials, often in uniform, who go on Nancy Grace and help her try the case in the media. Things like that.

How it could be tailored to cases like this one is open to debate. But the dangers are clear. Maybe something like a universal gag order on the government in pending cases. Court documents might still be available. I'm talking about misuse of the media.

Ted Clayton said...

kbp 11:36 -

The ref you ask for to Doran's 'downplay' comments is on LA Times:

"FLDS raid appears to have backfired"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polygamist31-2008may31,0,2453789.story

Bubbi said...

Grits,
From day one I questioned this terror action. I posted on my blog in regards to the trampling of constitutional rights.

The broader implications if this was allowed to stand for anyone of faith.
I am a transplanted Texan with a friend that has worked with Walther and Voss in her capacity as an AODA counselor. We ended up in an argument.

No one cared, all they saw was weird people with a weird religion.

The MSN? I am so disgusted with them that I can not watch any of them. Fox included! People like O'Rielly calling the place a "sex slave compound" and just two days ago Geraldo was saying the SCOT got it wrong and continued on with the same error as to the number of girls.

I thank you for staying on this. I have lost readers due to my stance on this.

It amazes me that so called investigative reporters didn't investigate before they spouted off salacious comments via CPS.

Two years ago I did a series on FLDS and got close to a couple of people via e-mail regarding their beliefs.

kbp said...

Grits
I was ignoring what influenced your post!!

...while it looked me straight in the face!

Back to the 'short bus' for me!!

(hope I did not come across as being too harsh with McKenzie, but he looked totally lost in a second try at the same topic)

You have the professional experience that could tell us more about how many lazy reporters write to keep their "inside sources" happy.

Add a few agendas to the mix of reports, with metanarratives, and you have the YFZ Ranch media caseS!

mom2oneson said...

Would someone explan what "trial by media" means?

kbp said...

Subpatre, Ted Clayton
Thanks! :)

I save most all articles, and RL's quote of that one certainly made it look worthy of being saved.

It's a great tool to use for a Word Search when trying to find an older source. One I've shared openly.

kbp said...

mom2oneson said...
Would someone explan what "trial by media" means?

The legal concern there is that the jury pool for a trial is influenced, having their minds made up before hearing the evidence allowed into a trial.

The public concern is that inaccurate information is used in the media to convict or exonerate a suspect (or suspects).

In this case, the media was convicting the child slave rapers from day one.

Any that are innocent are stuck often stuck forever with the media conviction, though they may have been innocent.

Open to added comments from others!

beowulf1723 said...

kbp said:

"We have a tough line to draw when deciding what will and will not be public information. Imagine if all documents in this case had been sealed!!!"

They weren't sealed because the state was expecting to find mass criminal activity.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

"Trial by media" means they don't have evidence to prove their case in court so they smear the opposition in the press.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

I also agree with beowolf the answer to this problem is MORE transparency and public records, not less. CPS engaged in a strategic manipulation of "facts" in the media that could only be countered with access to the full record, which frequently didn't come out until days or weeks after they'd made erroneous claims.

Fred said...

Well, I'm not so sure, Grits. The only reason it backfired on them is because they aren't any good at it, as someone previously pointed out. Had they been more cunning and less flagrant they could have accomplished the same goal without getting called on outright lies. Nancy Grace is usually a lot better at it but even she went over the line on this one.

Fred said...

And, after closer reading of your post, to add that the issue is their statements before there were court documents. It is their statements, not the court documents that should be limited because it is their statements not the court documents that are still cited in defense of the raid.

kbp said...

Church v, State

A few interesting notes on the matter. Doesn't take sides in this case, but still a good post.

kbp said...

Fred

We run into First Amendment Rights problems if we silence anyone.

The 2 things I feel may help is a press that would have to answer for it's lies to the market they serve, and stronger regulation of the ethics, especially those of the prosecutor's side.

But, we're often stuck with the fox watching the chicken coop!

The freedom of the press is the factor I'm disappointed in the most. Today's MSM seldom helps, not the way one should expect. That freedom is often slow to keep the corruption in check.

We're down to blogs now, and they are making a big difference. ;)

Certainly speeding up the change in the press, forcing them to work harder on the facts in their reporting, as many can now share the facts with each other throughout the world.

blog648 said...

I notice no one has addressed the very first commenter to this post, who claims that the parents are brainwashed. The problem with calling someone brainwashed is that it seems to logically follow people who are brainwashed shouldn't be allowed to do things that the rest of us see as our inalienable rights, such as have and voice an opinion, vote in elections, make personal life choices such as whom to marry, when to marry, and how many children to have. Apparently, if you're brainwashed, it's okay for the government to take your children away and put them up for adoption, hopefully by people who've been indoctrinated in a more acceptable social dogma.

Incidentally, here are some dictionary definitions of brainwashing and propaganda:

brainwashing
1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

propaganda
: the spreading of ideas or information to further or damage a cause; also
: ideas or allegations spread for such a purpose

To be honest, I believe there's been an inordinate amount of brainwashing and propaganda going on in the media since day one of this case.

Fortunately, some have resisted the brainwashing. My hat's off to Scot Henson, who among others, led the way.

Anonymous said...

----"kbp said...
rl said... in last post comments:
""Doran, who has been sheriff here for 12 years, downplayed that. "I'm not worried about it. The citizens have always stood behind me, and if the community feels this is an attempt to take over Schleicher County, I know they'll stand together. Once we begin impaneling some grand juries and the criminal case comes to light, we'll see the tide turn once again.""

from the houston chronicle, sheriff doran on possible criminal charges.. what do we think about this?"

I can't find this article. Certain it was the Chron? Can you post a link?
----------------




Kbp its from the LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polygamist31-2008may31,0,2453789.story

beowulf1723 said...

In re nice the church v. state article linked by kbp:

The non-establishing of religion part of the 1st Amendment means that there cannot be a national religion in the US similar to the Church of England position in Britain.

Three of the original states, plus Utah, were founded by religious minorities trying to escape from persecution and finding a place to set up their own shop. In England, non-CoE Protestants (aka "Dissenters") didn't get full citizenship in England until 1804, and Catholics had to wait until 1827 (and there were still problems if you were Irish). I don't know when this was applied to Jews, but apparently Disraeli's conversion from Judaism to CoE was motivated by his interest in politics, which would indicate that there were still some problems for Jews in England as late as the 1870s.

Anonymous said...

My Eldorado whole article archives from 2004 here


http://www.myeldorado.net/YFZ%20Pages/YFZMenu.html

Fred said...

kbp, maybe you're right and maybe I'm arguing for something unconstitutional or for something that would do more harm than good.

But is Meisner "the press"? Is Voss? Is Crimmins?

Are you saying the only remedy available to FLDS members slandered/libeled is a suit after the fact and that will repair all harm? Even more alarming, are you saying the system is correcting itself through the blogs and that is good enough?

If the system gets away with it 1000 times it can stand getting caught 1 out of a 1000 and still come out on top.

kbp said...

Anon

Thanks!

That My Eldorado is an interesting list of old articles, but it's either pay $1.50 each or $27.00 subscription.

I do not think I want then that badly!

Anonymous said...

Kbp
I know..now.. about the newer ones Atthe bottom I got some open for free.

kbp said...

Fred

I am not 100% certain how it works in this civil case involving Family Codes.

Generally, the prosecutor is responsible for those on his/her side of the case, actually counsel on both sides up to a point.

Even in civil cases, if a jury is involved, all state rules (ethics, conduct...) I've seen restrict parties from influencing the jury pool. Still not sure in this child case. Was surprised so much was public here! Usually real strict on cases with children.

The slander/libel is an uphill battle. Toss something like "if" in the sentence and your SOL.

The blogs are one of the only things challenging the press to print facts. Few reporters are held responsible, career wise, for inaccurate reporting.

I write direct emails and post comments correcting them all the time in cases I follow. Most do not care, some do, the better ones are always interested in FACTS.

With the loss numbers papers are facing daily, i am hoping the market will force them into better reporting. I see the blogs helping.

Point blank: I do not have a cure. I have concerns about trying incorrect cures.

lowery.shirley said...

Comments 1 and 5 are a waste of space. This dude thinks Texas are one big household. If he wants to insult and show his ignorance he should take us one family at a time. A look at his family would probably show the source for his lack of manners. When you come into someone's home you don't s**t in their floor.

Anonymous said...

Is there a site anywhere that tracks those FLDS teenager with child statistics for this raid? The appeals courts mentioned five in their ruling too, but one was 16 and the other 4 were seventeen in their record. I'm confused, I know one of the 17yos was 14 and not pregnant but I didn't see a story that said that two of the not disputed ladies were adults. Also I thought the 16 yo was Sarah (aka Rozita Swinton), who was being added by CPS to pad the rolls.
But it is is actually only two, the FLDS have little to be ashamed of - it's within the quantization noise of being Texas average. Morever, I believe most FLDS would be ashamed if they thought their morals were only average.

Sheriff Doran should be worried that the FLDS don't start talking to the feds about prosecuting him, the crimes are enormous: some of those crimes could carry the death penalty if a child dies, even in an accident on the way back.

kbp said...

Hey Grits

Anon 5:29 just asked a question which reminded that the CPS, to the best of our knowledge, had listed a suit naming "Sarah" as a pregnant teen. The 2 is actually 1 now.


***

Anon 5:29

The site that had stats never seemed to be updated well and I quit following it. Unfortunately, most on that count is scattered in my notes. I go off memory on it usually.

Last count I recall was 1 pregnant under 17 YO (very sure she is 16). That 31 girls 14-17 they claimed were pregnant or with child transformed into a total of 5. 4 of them with child now.

Anonymous said...

Is there any basis for Walthers to be held in contempt of court?

What would that mean for Walthers? A fine? Getting thrown in jail? What law enforcement agency would be required to execute this?

Anonymous said...

firstly it's the 2nd day of the month; and

eight-hundred-and-ninety-secondly...i have no point, i just wanted to see how stupid it looks to enumerate a paragraph for no apparent reason.

Anonymous said...

CPS violations are not limited to this case. I daresay that every case which CPS handles has at least one policy violation by the social worker.

And at least half of CPS caseshave enormous constitutional problems regarding due process.

Walther and the TEXAS cps have gotten away with running over people before; that is why they are so surprised they got caught this time.

Anonymous said...

Here's 2 videos of the same FLDS parents describing their set of "all boy" children, and then, lo and behold, talking about their little girl in a separate video segment.

Youtube video, at 5 minutes, 48 secs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwKbz_l3kTE

MSNBC video at 1 minute, 45 secs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
21134540/vp/24575095#24577612

These are the same parents first saying they don't need to answer a direct question about young girls being married because they have all boys, and then in another video, the mother worries about her little girl, and her photo is shown.

This is in line with what CPS and some judges have said all along, that this group lies and hides the truth and defers to their spokespeople to avoid answering any simple, yet seemingly impossible to answer questions.

There's no disputing what these videos are showing. Deliberate dishonesty and grabs at public sympathy based on lies. Are people going to continue believing these parents never intentionally misled investigators, judges, or the public?

Anonymous said...

Are people going to continue believing these parents never intentionally misled investigators, judges, or the public?

Lying to keep your own kids vs. Invading a town with snipers, kidnapping the children, lying to the public, lying to the judge, having such poor management skills that children are dehydrated and end up in the hospital all so that you can grab someone else's kids...Are you kidding me?

One of the more pathetic aspects of this is that CPS is so used to having their assertions believed based on their word alone they didn't bother to document evidence on the part of the parents and expect the public to rubber stamp their actions like the judges do.

WorthNoting said...

Hmmmmmm . . .

So NOW - ALL the parents - even those where there is NO EVIDENCE of abuse being committed by them - MUST take "parenting classes"?

WHAT EXACTLY is "taught" in these classes?

WHOSE "opinion" of "correct parenting" is being "presented" as being the "correct way?

Perhaps the state's? (The same state that refused to participate when it was "itself" being investigated for "severe child abuse".)

Or perhaps some national CPS "opinion" of what "proper parenting" entails. (The same CPS that has everyone who works with them sign "NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS" to prevent reports of abuse "committed by CPS" from being credibly documented. Odd,'cause if they REALLY cared about "child welfare" they'd WANT to KNOW of abuse committed by those in the employ of the state AS WELL AS others. Especially since THIS TYPE of "career" WILL ATTRACT those whose "true intentions" are far less than honorable.)

So - ALL the Parents - had to "sign-away" - Constitutional Rights and ACCEPT "being perceived by the state and others" as "probably guilty of something" - although EVIDENCE "showing this" "has yet" to be presented. . . in order to have their children returned??????????

Limits to "what government can do" to "address a problem" (or suspicions of problems) are in place for a reason.

The "once someone is accused" proceed from that point on "as if" "they are guilty" - that is now considered "just the way we do business" by the "child welfare industry" - is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

As has been pointed out, "what made this case different is the numbers".

This flaunting of Constitutional immunity - which excuses ALL ACTIONS of those employed by government - merely by uttering the phrase "best interests of the children" - is taking place daily in every state.

The "rights" of confessed criminals are fiercely protected - while the "rights" of both parents and children - the rights and sanctity of the family unit itself - are being dissolved.

"NO EVIDENCE" = "We don't need it" : Cause this is a "child welfare" case. ;>D

18 USC Sec. 1203
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 55 - KIDNAPPING

Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1203

STATUTE

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

Title 42 USC Section 1983
Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 : Section 1983

Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

Title 42 USC Section 1983 Information

Anonymous said...

*Lying to keep your own kids vs. Invading a town with snipers, kidnapping the children, lying to the public, lying to the judge, having such poor management skills that children are dehydrated and end up in the hospital all so that you can grab someone else's kids...Are you kidding me?*

You didn't watch the videos, did you?

Acerbic said...

Screw the videos, tx.

We know CPS has been lying all along without looking at any stinking youtube videos.

Anonymous said...

She's on the bottle.You people are funny.Loser's but funny!

Ted Clayton said...

The pair of YouTube videos being blogged-up show an apparent contradiction made by one FLDS couple - Rulan and Lorrene.

According to descriptions of the first video (I have not viewed them 'cause I'm on dial-up), it is Rulan and Lorrene speaking of their children (all boys), while in the second video Lorrene is said to be speaking of her daughter, Natalie.

Gasp! What is it - all boys, or all boys 'n a girl!?

It is obviously possible (logically speaking) that Natalie is not Rulan's daughter, and therefore not included in the discussion of "their" children.

So, what we may have here might show one (1) FLDS couple lying. Then again, it may show a man and a woman talking about the kids they had together (who were all boys), and then on a separate occasion the woman is shown in another video, speaking about a daughter who may not be part of the family she raised in with the man in first video.

In any event, the whole YouTube FLDS expose shows at most 2 people who might be lying. And on that evidence, some think that they have caught the whole FLDS outfit lying like rugs.

... With 'thinkers' like that, who needs buffoons?

TxBluesMan said...

More breaking news - an AAL has requested an emergency stay of the release order as pertains to one child-wife-mother, and a Grand Jury has apparently been empaneled by Judge Walther.

More at Coram Non Judice.

TxBluesMan said...

The attorney at litem is apparently trying to ensure that her client is protected from an alleged sexual abuser, presumably the 'spiritual' husband of the child...

Anonymous said...

*In any event, the whole YouTube FLDS expose shows at most 2 people who might be lying. And on that evidence, some think that they have caught the whole FLDS outfit lying like rugs.*

What do you have to gain by ignoring documented evidence that's in front of your face showing that some FLDS parents lie about their family members?

Ted Clayton said...

Anonymous 07:30 -

Yeah, the "Last man standing will be a female" quip is a nifty witticism ... if unprofound.

And yes, the Aunt Jemima crack would get a swift backhand up alongside the head, at our dinnertable.

Conspiracy theory blather? Where ya'll been since April 3?

And finally - what you're really fretting about - the laughable YouTube expose. Oh, yeah, real expose here.

One FLDS couple ... may be caught saying first one thing, then another ... but in all likelyhood, simply 'caught' saying two different things, about two different things, at two different times.

And Anonymous wants us to have an "Ah-ha!" moment - "See, them FLDS are liars!" "That's what the YouTube videos prove!"

Sure they do, Anonymous, sure they do.

TxBluesMan said...

The judge just stayed the release order as regards to the one child, more at my website.

JohnLester said...

Wow, bluesy. That's your 1 pregnant teenager upon which this ENTIRE CHILD KIDNAPPING FIASCO was based.

And she's over 16.

Bet she does't even want the ad litem to be doing this for her.

And it only cost SO FAR $10 million dollars.

Wow, you Texans are SO brlliant.

Not.

PS Everybody knows that you're just a cop, not an attorney. Having been thoroughly discredited, and afraid to even put your own identity up on your website, one would have thought you had the sense to skulk away by now, especially considering how you have been absolutely wrong on absolute everything on this case.

CaptainAhab said...

Judge Walther should be impeached. You can sign a petition to impeach her at http://www.gopetition.com/online/19682.html

rage said...

Hey--I just received word that txbluesman is the one who influenced Rozita to call and report the FLDS!

More on my website