tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post1964954006793366421..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Maybe FLDS just drew a really bad judge: Walther spitefully delays sending YFZ kids homeGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-59664455430816780692010-10-12T18:34:19.695-05:002010-10-12T18:34:19.695-05:00I believe the judge who is handling my case is als...I believe the judge who is handling my case is also using the same Walther techniques. We have an agreement signed by all of the parties involved. However the judge is refusing to sign the order for my children. I want to investigate and see how many other people have had similar experiences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76098242641187980312008-06-04T01:00:00.000-05:002008-06-04T01:00:00.000-05:00New petitionAbolish TX CPShttp://www.ipetitions.co...New petition<BR/>Abolish TX CPS<BR/>http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/voices/<BR/><BR/>some of the wording will be familiar. An attorney is checking it for accuracy.SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69512646759353884342008-06-03T23:20:00.000-05:002008-06-03T23:20:00.000-05:00".....the case is in Texas, where the law is spell...".....the case is in Texas, where the law is spelled out clearly & specifically. The 3rd Court of Appeals rapped the Judge on this very point, and the Supreme Court confirmed it."<BR/><BR/>My point is that I believe that Walther - and other TX legal minds - had good reasons to interpret code in the way they did. It IS a matter of interpretation, regardless of the fact that the 3COA and SCOT interpreted differently.<BR/><BR/>"... the State should have taken the Supremes' recommendation and simply tossed those obstructing justice in jail... "<BR/><BR/>I have read the SCOT decision. The wording may not be that of SCOT, but they provided that very blueprint for CPS regarding obstruction.<BR/><BR/>TBM provided the following link to someone who has the same reading of SCOT. <BR/>http://tinyurl.com/5ajvmdwomankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40999419661730761822008-06-03T23:03:00.000-05:002008-06-03T23:03:00.000-05:00You've completely missed my point, HeadZoo. Your p...You've completely missed my point, HeadZoo. Your point, above, was that the civil rights of children are bound to their parents. My point is that they can exist as quite an independent entity. <BR/><BR/>The ultimate meaning of dishonesty is to sling personal attacks, when intellectual discourse is beyond your abilities.womankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-44169160193832068072008-06-03T13:03:00.000-05:002008-06-03T13:03:00.000-05:00In other words, womankine, you know perfectly well...In other words, womankine, you know perfectly well that you cannot come up with any statement I have made to support your accusation that I believe that child abuse is a protected civil right, and so you prefer to fall back on a guilty until proven innocent approach, challenging me to prove that your fantasies are false.<BR/><BR/>No. <BR/><BR/>That's just not how it works. You made the accusation up out of whole cloth. Back it up or be known for what you are- dishonest or deluded.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66855160309278465552008-06-03T12:50:00.000-05:002008-06-03T12:50:00.000-05:00Womankine 08:55"Common practice, in some states an...Womankine 08:55<BR/><BR/><I>"Common practice, in some states and areas, can allow for translation of code..."</I><BR/><BR/>We are not addressing conditions in "some states", the case is in Texas, where the law is spelled out clearly & specifically. The 3rd Court of Appeals rapped the Judge on this very point, and the Supreme Court confirmed it.<BR/><BR/><I>"... the State should have taken the Supremes' recommendation and simply tossed those obstructing justice in jail... "</I><BR/><BR/>Other legitimate points & arguments you have are hobbled by tying them to irrational, baseless, and patently uneducated statements like this.<BR/><BR/>Leave the puffery & nonsense on the editing-room floor, and let your good points come through nice & clean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54622895112347819562008-06-03T12:40:00.000-05:002008-06-03T12:40:00.000-05:00The abuse that has been heaped on these children b...The abuse that has been heaped on these children by the courts and CPS was uncalled for. There may well be child sex abuse but it sure isn't confined to the ranch. Sexual abuse is never right but there are worse things and these kids have just experienced some of them.<BR/>These people live the same life every day. The lives of the children were not in danger, If sexual abuse is taking place it has been that way all along. These residents weren't going anywhere so waiting for proof and getting the right people would have saved so much agony.<BR/>I understand the desire to save kids from sexual abuse but not if they are to be subjected to something worse. When it comes to a child's virtue people lose all sense and think the end justifies the means. It doesn't.<BR/>If there is proof of wrong doing why weren't the men ordered off the ranch? I have a feeling that the men would have agreed to go if anyone had bothered to discuss it with them.<BR/>I certainly want children safe and sane, sensible solutions are needed in this country. But society is not concerned with dead children unless sex is involved. When that sort of high-profile case comes along people go nuts.<BR/>Until people stop equating sexual assault with death there will be no solutions. We are much closer to killing victims than helping them. We have already made laws that have the same sentence whether or not a child is killed so why not kill what may be the only witness? What kind of people would make and support such laws?SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-89365210902630483792008-06-03T12:19:00.001-05:002008-06-03T12:19:00.001-05:00Perhaps, instead of becoming frustrated and relyin...Perhaps, instead of becoming frustrated and relying on ad hominems and an obsession with interpretations of a photo, it would serve you better to concentrate on constructing a counter-argument.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could outline the ways that you support the civil rights of a child and what safeguards you propose to insure that no children are abused at the FLDS compound.womankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68857947638366506102008-06-03T12:19:00.000-05:002008-06-03T12:19:00.000-05:00Oops, I just realized the link to Grit's post with...Oops, I just realized the link to Grit's post with the photograph is wrong. It's <A HREF="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/whats-in-name-what-should-we-call.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>Brooke's blogpost where it, and womankine's assessment of the child as 'happy' is <A HREF="http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/04/who-is-she.htm" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>And the thread discussing how her legal guardian's account of Flora's upbringing differs from Flora's is <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23675089&postID=6465843471664222399" REL="nofollow">here</A>Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68830085490481356462008-06-03T12:06:00.000-05:002008-06-03T12:06:00.000-05:00I looked for your quotes about not seeing grief on...I looked for your quotes about not seeing grief on the face of the mothers, but couldn't find them. I am glad you reposted them. They are even worse, and more out of touch with reality than I remembered.<BR/><BR/><I>I stand by what I wrote, even though you, in all your "honesty", have chosen to edit, HeadZoo.(A little like calling Martha Jessop merely a guardian, without adding that she was related to the molester?)</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23675089&postID=6465843471664222399" REL="nofollow">speaking of editing</A>...<BR/><BR/>Martha Jessop says she was married to the man who raised Flora's father- who is the only person I know of charged with molesting Flora. Flora told her story of being molested to Martha, who took her to Martha's husband (Flora's 'grandpa') to tell the story, and Flora's father went to jail and Martha was appointed legal guardian of Flora.<BR/>You continue to misrepresent me, and you don't seem to have read the article on Flora very well, either.<BR/><BR/> Unless and until you come up with a single instance where I, or anybody else commenting here, has said anything that could be construed as "Freedom to abuse your child is a recognized civil right in this country" your dishonesty remains quite obvious.<BR/><BR/>I would also challenge anybody to look at the picture of the child on the bus and see just how 'happy' she looks, and ponder what it means that somebody who can see that child's face as happy might be in a position to make decisions about other people's children.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-55181317832157835352008-06-03T11:48:00.000-05:002008-06-03T11:48:00.000-05:00I stand by what I wrote, even though you, in all y...I stand by what I wrote, even though you, in all your "honesty", have chosen to edit, HeadZoo.(A little like calling Martha Jessop merely a guardian, without adding that she was related to the molester?)<BR/><BR/>My earlier posting may put it into context:<BR/><BR/>"This story begins with a description of "pain etched into the face" of an FLDS mother. One of my problems in closely following this story, is that I don't SEE pain at all in the overly detailed television coverage. I WANT to see pain. I EXPECT to see pain. I even try to impose the pain that I could imagine, if my own children were taken from me.<BR/><BR/>Instead, I see women who have been systematically so robbed of emotion, that most cannot even shed a real tear. We watch them attempting to give the camera what their lawyers have probably urged:grief. Indeed, I believe they WANT to FEEL grief. Instead, there are alligator tears and blank faces.<BR/><BR/>To rob another human being of basic emotions, as a means to better control them, is one of the severest forms of abuse."womankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-91507757458818771302008-06-03T11:24:00.000-05:002008-06-03T11:24:00.000-05:00From your blog postings, I am not aware that you h...<I>From your blog postings, I am not aware that you have ever advocated for the civil rights of abused children, HeadZoo. Thus I feel I have not misrepresented your argument.</I><BR/><BR/>As it happens, kine, neither your self-assessed 'awareness' of my blog postings nor your feelings happen to reflect reality. Nothing I have written anywhere could be construed by an honest person as conveying the idea that 'freedom to abuse your child is a protected civil right in this country.'<BR/><BR/>You are dishonest.<BR/>You have also given ample evidence of your inability to assess reality.<BR/><BR/>For those who are not aware, this is womankine's assessment of that photograph of a woebegone little girl on a bus which <A HTTP://GRITSFORBREAKFAST.BLOGSPOT.COM/2008/04/WHATS-IN-NAME-WHAT-SHOULD-WE-CALL.HTML HREF="" REL="nofollow">Grits posted here</A>, linking to Brooke Adams' blog, where womankine wrote the following:<BR/><I>Please note that in this one the little girl appears happy.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps she's just been stripped of the ability to have emotions by abusers who accept nothing beyond the controlling state of Stepford "being sweet".<BR/><BR/>Or, perhaps she understands that she may have options in life besides being someone's personal sex slave and baby factory. And real choices as to what she thinks and believes.</I><BR/>She also complained that she saw no grief whatsoever on the faces of the mothers.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25621085543617103232008-06-03T10:22:00.000-05:002008-06-03T10:22:00.000-05:00Actually, it's not a strawman, it's complex questi...Actually, it's not a strawman, it's complex question. Stating that we don't have the "civil right" to abuse children as a rational for what CPS has done in this case is the equivalent of asking if they have stopped beating their wives.Hugh McBrydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16926516260588481185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-37255828748326676312008-06-03T10:12:00.000-05:002008-06-03T10:12:00.000-05:00From your blog postings, I am not aware that you h...From your blog postings, I am not aware that you have ever advocated for the civil rights of abused children, HeadZoo. Thus I feel I have not misrepresented your argument.<BR/><BR/>Let me make it clear that you did misrepresent my argument. I have never advocated for removing children from a home where there is not clear and imminent "evil". However, there is a lot of room for disagreement as to what constitutes same.womankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7230686706786312792008-06-03T08:57:00.000-05:002008-06-03T08:57:00.000-05:00"Freedom to abuse your child is not a recognized c..."Freedom to abuse your child is not a recognized civil right in this country."<BR/><BR/>This is a straw man, and you are quite intelligent enough to know it. It is a particularly despicable and dishonest straw man, and one entirely of your own creation. It has nothing to do with anything anybody in this comment thread has said.<BR/><BR/>The rest of your argument is of a piece with this sort of intellectual dishonesty.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-75270870131161262082008-06-03T08:55:00.000-05:002008-06-03T08:55:00.000-05:00I submit to the rulings by the Third and Supremes,...I submit to the rulings by the Third and Supremes, Ted Clayton.<BR/><BR/>And I have no doubt that there was a degree of "fast and loose" with the laws. However, I attribute that, at least in part, to the highly unusual nature of the polygamous compound, lack of precedent, the fact they still believed that they would find Sarah, and the fact that CPS seemed genuinely not able to sort through the very basic task of assigning children to parents. This, in turn, was caused by a concerted effort by the compound to thwart their efforts to do so.<BR/><BR/>It may not be as obvious as you think, regarding the "immediate danger" nature of harm. Common practice, in some states and areas, can allow for translation of code to allow for the immediate danger being emotional harm. In this case, that would have been the grooming of children for criminal activity.(statutory rape)<BR/><BR/>In hindsight, the State should have taken the Supremes' recommendation and simply tossed those obstructing justice in jail and then waited for DNA match-ups and examination of the bishops' records. Of course, the first action might also have necessitated children being taken into custody.womankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53941124103198450642008-06-03T08:35:00.000-05:002008-06-03T08:35:00.000-05:00What children deserve, first and foremost, is assu...What children deserve, first and foremost, is assurance of physical and mental safety and well-being, HeadZoo. That is the most basic of all civil rights. Freedom to abuse your child is not a recognized civil right in this country. I believe in the need for a CPS that can act immediately and directly. For those of us who see horrendous cases of child abuse; it is a necessity.<BR/><BR/>The FLDS compound represents an unusual situation because of the fact that it functions as a large commune, with polygamist, as opposed to single, families.<BR/><BR/>They further promoted the definition of their compound as one family by acting in unison to obstruct the CPS investigation. Even to the point of lying about who their children were.<BR/><BR/>There is still evidence that there is child sexual abuse occurring in the compound and that same child sexual abuse is supported and promoted and hidden by the adult members, as a group. Given that fact, it's understandable that there are those who believe that the lesser of the evils was to remove the children from their homes. <BR/><BR/>Civil rights and the FLDS demonstrates a case of polar opposites. It's a challenge for those of us who support civil rights or human rights to sort through the issues(and the law) regarding a totalitarian community that happens to use religion as justification for terrible human rights violations.<BR/><BR/>We're not just talking about impressing young girls into early plural marriage and motherhood. We're talking about young males disenfranchised and divested of their birthrights and cast out of the community; uneducated and unprepared for the real world. And males who are likewise cast out, with families "reassigned" to other men. Children and adults working in a near-slave capacity......<BR/><BR/>If we justify the denigration of civil rights by the belief that adults have made the choice to relinquish same, we still have to cope with the issue of whether or not children and young people can summarily be divested of their civil rights, through compulsion by the parents and authoritarian leaders.womankinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092014598370941136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-56060315087945670422008-06-03T04:51:00.000-05:002008-06-03T04:51:00.000-05:00Sign the petition to impeach Judge Barbara Walther...Sign the petition to impeach Judge Barbara Walther at http://www.gopetition.com/online/19682.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24507273556404709822008-06-02T22:06:00.000-05:002008-06-02T22:06:00.000-05:00I think the point is well-taken that Judge Walther...I think the point is well-taken that Judge Walther (rather than being evil personified) was more likely overwhelmed by the scope of the case and the intense national scrutiny. In my experience, the greater the pre-trial publicity and the more unusual the facts & circumstances of the case, the more likely it is that the judge will do something wrong and/or just plain ridiculous. Making a bad ruling does not make Walther a bad judge; storming out of the courtroom in a snit DOES, however.The Local Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16673363936902590966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-15994255783938018512008-06-02T14:49:00.000-05:002008-06-02T14:49:00.000-05:00Besides the action of CPS in wrongfully seizing th...Besides the action of CPS in wrongfully seizing those children,<BR/>under authority of that megalomaniac judge (I now feel a better term for her is, the" incubus"), this coerced agreement - as to conditions for their release - is absolutely ridiculous. I would<BR/>hope that such an agreement does not reflect the legal skills<BR/>of the attorneys for FLDS and the children...but,instead, was only signed because of the urgency to terminate the emotional and mental stress which those children have been enduring as captives of the state.<BR/><BR/>One would expect such agreement to be accepted only if<BR/>CPS had proven all of the vile accusations and speculations<BR/>they have used to justify their abuses of authority. But the<BR/>rulings by the higher courts, in effect, said such actions<BR/>by CPS ,together with the lack of a fair, impartial and con-<BR/>stitutional judicial process/proceeding, conducted by that<BR/>incubus, could not stand. In short, she was reversed.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, under that reality, how does she have any legal<BR/>standing to impose such harsh conditions and restrictions?<BR/>Indeed, such strictures are not even imposed upon a<BR/>career criminal let out of prison on parol....or a person on probation.<BR/><BR/>I can only hope those attorneys for FLDS and children<BR/>added in that agreement, "this agreement is signed under<BR/>protest and duress...and does not constitute any waiver of<BR/>defendants right to appeal this agreement, or take any other <BR/>legal actions which defendants may take in response to<BR/>those actions by officials of the state of Texas in wrongfully<BR/>entering the private property of FLDS without probably cause,<BR/>and in illegally seizing and holding the children of FLDS members against their will - and , in violation of the protect-<BR/>ions afforded to citizens by the US Constitution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-64509772467767243742008-06-02T14:30:00.000-05:002008-06-02T14:30:00.000-05:00headmistress, zookeeper,well said, i agree 100%headmistress, zookeeper,<BR/><BR/>well said, i agree 100%Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33244789965553699852008-06-02T12:26:00.000-05:002008-06-02T12:26:00.000-05:00have to say, that reading this blog, that's not th...<I>have to say, that reading this blog, that's not the focus of either the blog owner nor the folks who post here. You're interested in parental rights.</I><BR/><BR/>Rather, I'm interested in Civil Rights, and in most cases parental rights do, in fact, coincide with childrens' safety and wellbeing. Children are not well served when the state can remove them from their families without solid evidence.<BR/>Children have a right to live in their homes, with their parents, without fear of some state agent with an agenda that may or may not be theirs can come and force them out at gunpoint.<BR/>Removing children from their homes is never 'erring on the side of the child.' It is always deliberately choosing a known and certain trauma over a possible one. <BR/>There has to be a very high probability of certain and immediate evil if they are left in their homes before the State removal of those children becomes the *lesser* of those two evils.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19452198069830209132008-06-02T12:16:00.000-05:002008-06-02T12:16:00.000-05:00Womankine 09:52 -"You're interested in parental ri...Womankine 09:52 -<BR/><BR/>"You're interested in parental rights." [rather than err on behalf of childrens' well-being]<BR/><BR/>In my case, Womankine, I am less pro-parent, than alert to/worried about what I consider excessive government, 'running over people'. It's only coincidental that it's a group of parents that are being ran over.<BR/><BR/>Others here are also motivated by government-excess issues, but you will find those who are responding as parents.<BR/><BR/>My objections to Judge Walther's actions is specific, as was the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin, and the Supreme Court of Texas. Specifically, to remove children abruptly on an emergency basis (which is what took place) the law stipulates that there must be real "evidence" that there is an "immediate" threat of actual harm to the children. Judge Walther erred in not requiring legally-admissable evidence that bad things were going to happen to those kids right away. Lacking this evidence, the law states that children must be left in place with the parents, while the authorities go about working with the family situation.<BR/><BR/>While there are those who are most concerned that parents/families were disrupted without due process (the actual complaint/conclusion of both the 3CoA and SCOT), my main concern is that the State & Court felt at liberty to 'run fast & loose' with their own clearly extra-legal ideas/interpretations, even though those notions were in direct contradiction & violation of the baldy-obvious laws that pertained in the given situation. <BR/><BR/>I agree with you, that Judge Walther is not a "bad judge", expecially not merely on the basis of the present case. Practically all judges are occasionally reversed on appeal. They are all human, and we don't stipulate that they be eliminated if evidence of error or imperfection comes to light. In this case, Walther made certain errors (and may be inclined to repeat them..) - not just 'in my opinion', but as determined by law & the higher courts. She also appears to now be quite 'hacked off' about being corrected (and critcized) ... which may be a more serious issue than the mere fact of her initial judicial & legal errors.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad to see your thoughtful participation on the blog!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39186802123936484492008-06-02T12:15:00.000-05:002008-06-02T12:15:00.000-05:00anonymous 09:36 -In my message of 02:44, I cleanly...anonymous 09:36 -<BR/><BR/>In my message of 02:44, I cleanly set aside a paragraph to identify my leanings. I said:<BR/><BR/>"Fundamentally, agencies like CPS are extra-Constitutional. <B>I personally object, formally & consistently, to their existence</B>. They amount to a Fourth Branch of Government." [emph. added]<BR/><BR/>I had been invited to participate in organized opposition to CPS, and I declined, saying that I am not an anti-CPS <B>activist</B>. That is perhaps where you perceived me to be contradicting myself. [I am also a country boy with an honest antipathy for cities, but I do not mount campaigns against them.]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-56238383661509342462008-06-02T10:02:00.000-05:002008-06-02T10:02:00.000-05:00Judge Walther has apparently signed the release or...Judge Walther has apparently signed the release order, see <A HREF="http://coramnonjudice.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Coram Non Judice</A> for more info.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.com