tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post6212496264268435704..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Next steps, remaining questions in Great Eldorado Polygamist RoundupGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54808764635203697732008-05-31T13:02:00.000-05:002008-05-31T13:02:00.000-05:00FYIGrits has a new post up:"For the sake of accura...FYI<BR/><BR/>Grits has a new post up:<BR/><BR/><B>"For the sake of accuracy..."</B>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53425015247251780612008-05-31T11:10:00.000-05:002008-05-31T11:10:00.000-05:00More BS from Walthers. If the state and the parent...More BS from Walthers. If the state and the parents are in agreement, she should shut up and accept the deal, unless she thinks its in violation of the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-55761945250213618062008-05-31T11:04:00.000-05:002008-05-31T11:04:00.000-05:00This is a copy of my comment to TxBluesMan's post ...This is a copy of my comment to TxBluesMan's post of his interpretation of the return-the-children hearing that unraveled in Judge Walther's court on Friday, May 30.<BR/>http://coramnonjudice.blogspot.com/2008/05/judge-walther-walks-or-lawyer-tricks.html<BR/><BR/>I have now read additional and more-detailed accounts of what transpired in Judge Walther's Friday hearing. While the family lawyers did provoke Walther by objecting to her changes of the agreement for return of children, and further provoked her by reminding her of the higher court rulings, it looks nonetheless as though Walther modified the agreement too extensively and too unacceptably for the familys' representatives to just 'let it go'. So they challenged the Judge on it, and she then 'walked'.<BR/><BR/>The Judge, I would say, created the confrontational context, and once she did this, the lawyers were obliged to object. It smells like a set-up, and Walther was the cook.<BR/><BR/>I do not see the situation being accurately or adequately characterized as "they messed up", meaning the TRLA lawyers.<BR/><BR/>Speculatively, if the hangup that results from this unprofessional-seeming 'outburst' (with the whole nation & world watching, and Texas alreay on the hotseat)delays the return of the children by more than a very short time, Judge Walther could be facing additional challenges - but from the higher courts, again.<BR/><BR/>At this point in the case, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court having made clear the necessary corrective actions, and Judge Walther's appropriate role was to reverse her previous custody ruling. The time & context for additional negotiations and court-actions on her part, is after she backs up and corrects her previous mistake.<BR/><BR/>Strong-arming the mothers & their lawyers - which I think is a fair characterization of her most recent actions - appears distinctly inappropriate <I>as a prelude & prerequisite to following through on the order to return the childer</I>. <BR/><BR/>The time for initiating the 'offensive' Judge Walther launched on Friday, is <B>after</B> she has reversed her initial boo-boo and the kids are back home.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the Judge's actions on Friday strongly remind me of the original mistake she made - in handling the FLDS intervention in a mass-processing fashion, without child-by-child evidence. Specific items in Judge Walther's modifications to the agreement have the overt effect of continuing her previous error of applying remedies & requirements before legitimate evidence of justification has been found & presented.<BR/><BR/>I think the Judge blew it. Again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1382446190471563322008-05-31T10:43:00.000-05:002008-05-31T10:43:00.000-05:00Having read the order now, Walther doesn't invoke ...Having read the order now, Walther doesn't invoke or even mention section 105.001. Tx is exercising a little fascism though creative writing. Fiction.<BR/><BR/>kbp, the judge is trying to define the definition of household by using the nepotism statutes, possibly to the deflect suits.<BR/><BR/>From the order:<BR/><BR/>"For purposes of this ORDER, the term household means" any dwelling, building, trailer, or structure that is intended for or is actually used as a habitation that is occupied by individuals that are related to each other within the thrid degree of consanguinity or second degree of affinity, as determined under Chapter 573, Government Code;"<BR/><BR/>Definitions:<BR/><BR/>Consanguinity: Two persons are related to each other by consanguinity if one is a descendant of the other or if they share a common ancestor. An adopted child is treated as the natural child of the adoptive parent in this regard. The degree of relationship by consanguinity between a person and the person's descendant is determined by the number of generations that separate them. As the table illustrates, a parent and child are related in the first degree, a grandparent and a grandchild in the second degree, etc. If a person and the person's relative are related by consanguinity, but neither is descended from the other, the degree of relationship is determined by adding the number of generations between the person and the nearest common ancestor of the person and the person's relative; and the number of generations between the relative and the nearest common ancestor.<BR/><BR/>Affinity: Two persons are related to each other by affinity if they are married to each other or the spouse of one of the persons is related by consanguinity to the other person. Termination of a marriage by divorce or the death of a spouse terminates relationships by affinity created by that marriage unless a child of that marriage is living, in which case the marriage is treated as continuing to exist. A husband and wife are related to each other in the first degree by affinity. For other relationships by affinity, the degree of relationship by affinity is the same as the one by consanguinity. For example, if A and B are related to each other in the second degree by consanguinity, A's spouse is related to B in the second degree by affinity.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.unt.edu/policy/UNT_Policy/volume1/1_2_6.html" REL="nofollow">Texas nepotism statutes</A> with a chart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-2132385634989887332008-05-31T10:27:00.000-05:002008-05-31T10:27:00.000-05:00okay....so I just readon Brooke's blog that the si...okay....so I just readon Brooke's blog that the signature(s) on the proposed order have to contain language laying out the specific expectations that each family will meet/abide by....and Walther is stipulating one set...and says she will not negotiate any others....and the atty's, including the State's Atty...have agreed to a different set.....<BR/>So Walther is presuming to know more about what is needed to assure safety than anyone else...including the SCOT and the third circuit?rericsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03640480060825781159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-61510717864363290932008-05-31T09:30:00.000-05:002008-05-31T09:30:00.000-05:00There are quite a few that have expressed their do...There are quite a few that have expressed their doubt a civil complaint - which a letter of notice for such has already been provided - could survive a motion for summary judgment. <BR/><BR/>The task of proving "malice" is not a simple one, but the initial warrant used in this raid was the result of a law passed to nail the FLDS. Working from out-of-state, I have 5 documents in which Hilderbran tells the world his intentions for passing the laws is the FLDS.<BR/><BR/>The complaint will be full of accusations much worse than those have written about, and that complaint is read as FACT when it faces summary judgment.<BR/><BR/>Even if the authorities succeed in finding a crime or two, that will not eliminate all the other families. Actions against any within households at the community do not effect the claims filed by families within other households.<BR/><BR/>If Walthers slips any in this "because I can" act, it only adds to the problems Texas could face.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39960192866446337912008-05-31T09:04:00.000-05:002008-05-31T09:04:00.000-05:00Ron in Houston, et all...So....again, not being th...Ron in Houston, et all...<BR/>So....again, not being the sharpest knife in the drawer. I'm still confused....<BR/>Walthers can issue temporary orders for all sorts of stuff, except taking physical custody, without showing evidence??????<BR/><BR/>So she can order TROs barring a parent from the residence, but not removal of the child????<BR/><BR/>But the issue of signatures is what I asked about earlier....was I correct in my understanding???<BR/>Wanting signed orders isn't asking the mothers to agree to anything, as is some readers/posters understanding...it is simply a pain-in-the-ass move on her part that is backed up by procedural rules....apparently rules that are often waived?????????rericsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03640480060825781159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63496776491124463282008-05-31T08:49:00.000-05:002008-05-31T08:49:00.000-05:00Tx, with all due respect, you seem to be full of i...Tx, with all due respect, you seem to be full of it again, and if this is what the court is trying to do, so is the court.<BR/><BR/>§ 105.001. TEMPORARY ORDERS BEFORE FINAL ORDER. (a) In a suit, the court may make a temporary order, including the modification of a prior temporary order, for the safety and welfare of the child, including an order:<BR/> (1) for the temporary conservatorship of the child; <BR/> (2) for the temporary support of the child; <BR/> (3) restraining a party from disturbing the peace of the child or another party;<BR/> (4) prohibiting a person from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court; or<BR/> (5) for payment of reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. <BR/> (b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions under this section shall be granted without the necessity of an affidavit or verified pleading stating specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before notice can be served and a hearing can be held. Except as provided by Subsection (h), an order may not be rendered under Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (5) except after notice and a hearing. A temporary restraining order or temporary injunction granted under this section need not:<BR/> (1) define the injury or state why it is irreparable; <BR/> (2) state why the order was granted without notice; or <BR/> (3) include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief requested.<BR/> (c) Except on a verified pleading or an affidavit in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, an order may not <BR/>be rendered:<BR/> (1) attaching the body of the child; <BR/> (2) taking the child into the possession of the court or of a person designated by the court; or<BR/> (3) excluding a parent from possession of or access to a child. <BR/> (d) In a suit, the court may dispense with the necessity of a bond in connection with temporary orders on behalf of the child.<BR/> (e) Temporary orders rendered under this section are not subject to interlocutory appeal.<BR/> (f) The violation of a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or other temporary order rendered under this section is punishable by contempt and the order is subject to and enforceable under Chapter 157.<BR/> (g) The rebuttable presumptions established in favor of the application of the guidelines for a child support order and for the standard possession order under Chapters 153 and 154 apply to temporary orders. The presumptions do not limit the authority of the court to render other temporary orders.<BR/> (h) An order under Subsection (a)(1) may be rendered without notice and an adversary hearing if the order is an emergency order sought by a governmental entity under Chapter 262.<BR/><BR/>Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 575, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1390, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.<BR/><BR/>So, 1) there is still the presumption of parental right, 2) there is no emergency for these children as the higher courts found, so Subsection (a)(1) may NOT be rendered. 3) "Except as provided by Subsection (h), an order may not be rendered under Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (5) except after notice and a hearing."<BR/><BR/>If breaking the law is criminal, then so goes Walther.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66183965928107130432008-05-31T08:47:00.000-05:002008-05-31T08:47:00.000-05:00A common problem in family law appeals is that mos...A common problem in family law appeals is that most of the time you still end up back in front of the same judge.<BR/><BR/>Judges have different attitudes about being appealed with some not caring while others get highly annoyed that you appealed them.<BR/><BR/>The Supreme Court pretty much told Judge Walther she could make other orders short of emergency removal.<BR/><BR/>The FLDS just won a battle but they're a long way from winning the war.Ron in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496306119920809104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40424578661814144222008-05-31T08:11:00.000-05:002008-05-31T08:11:00.000-05:00Bluesman,I think there is some confusion about how...Bluesman,<BR/>I think there is some confusion about how an order is written....<BR/>In this case the 'order to vacate'...<BR/>Typically, the petitioner, in this case the mothers, through counsel, writes the order they want signed, and it is attached to the petition....<BR/>Apparently Texas has some caveat in their 'rules' or 'local rules', that can require that the actual petitioner and not counsel, sign the proposed order....<BR/>or sign a statement of veracity....whatever...<BR/>I think some folks here have the impression that the issuing judge actually writes the order, and not the petitioner...... and what you're saying is that based on local rules, each mother in the 3rd circuit case must present an individual, signed petition with a proposed order attached...<BR/>Am I getting it????? <BR/>This is where you are talking about 'letter of the law'????<BR/><BR/>What you're also saying is that Walthers can issue a TRO against each mother, or father, or both, without having to give justification, correct????<BR/>And if she does this, does it have to have an end date?<BR/>And why is 'mandamus' the only recourse? and, in the instant case anyway, wouldn't a higher court see it for what it is, a retaliatory measure?...so despite the rarity, wouldn't the inclination be to grant mandamus????...as was granted in the first appeal?????rericsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03640480060825781159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20103201906118145842008-05-31T07:48:00.000-05:002008-05-31T07:48:00.000-05:00txblues: You have officially jumped the shark.THe...txblues: You have officially jumped the shark.<BR/><BR/>THey didn't want to piss off the judge, the judge is bitter ecause her ignorance has been proven in front of the entire country. She has no right to force the families to sign anything now, and she's getting called on it. It's only going to get worse for her.<BR/><BR/>She's been reported to the Commision on Judicial Conduct already. She'll be lucky to be able to preside over traffic tickets in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-84356944870562764302008-05-31T06:16:00.000-05:002008-05-31T06:16:00.000-05:00Anonymous @ 2:30AMIf only that were true. Unfortun...Anonymous @ 2:30AM<BR/><BR/>If only that were true. Unfortunately this is a CPS case. Walthers can do pretty much what she wants. If you need proof, just look at what she has done already. :(<BR/><BR/>Regardless of which side you are on, pray for those kids. They need it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-39560080048988591792008-05-31T02:30:00.000-05:002008-05-31T02:30:00.000-05:00TX Bluesman:I simply do not believe you.No judge c...TX Bluesman:<BR/><BR/>I simply do not believe you.<BR/><BR/>No judge can issue such sweeping orders on hundreds of families...and do cookie cutter---once again--essentially taking away constitutional rights i the process. WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.<BR/><BR/>If nothing else, the 3rd told her she could NOT treat all 465 as one household! <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>What you say, simply is false.<BR/><BR/>People..don't believe this guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25578408949734518122008-05-31T01:48:00.000-05:002008-05-31T01:48:00.000-05:00kbp, Nope.Texas is a little unique. The mandamus ...kbp, <BR/><BR/>Nope.<BR/><BR/>Texas is a little unique. The <I>mandamus</I> is typically conditional here - if the trial court doesn't withdraw or vacate the order in question, then <I>mandamus</I> will issue, otherwise it won't. If she vacates the order, there is no need for any additional paperwork or orders or approval from the 3COA.<BR/><BR/>Since the TRLA hasn't yet presented Walther with a properly signed order for her to vacate her original order, she's not yet (technically) in violation of the 3COA's opinion.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54639728833704973272008-05-31T00:58:00.000-05:002008-05-31T00:58:00.000-05:00TBMWouldn't the 3rd, after opposing counsel had ap...TBM<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't the 3rd, after opposing counsel had approved, have to give it their stamp of approval so that the signatures would not have been a wasted effort?kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83152936184495925972008-05-31T00:55:00.000-05:002008-05-31T00:55:00.000-05:00THREE CHEERS for walthers, a legend in her own tim...<B>THREE CHEERS</B> for walthers, a legend in her own time!<BR/><BR/>Made the top LEFT column, first story you see, in the <A HREF="http://www.drudgereport.com/" REL="nofollow">DRUDE REPORT!</A><BR/><BR/>No upper case for this noun!<BR/><BR/>"walthers" = One who holds children hostage, often only to prove a frivolous point!kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-4431678249492827352008-05-31T00:51:00.000-05:002008-05-31T00:51:00.000-05:00kbp,The draft order to vacate the ERO.kbp,<BR/><BR/>The draft order to vacate the ERO.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77344994056200970162008-05-31T00:50:00.000-05:002008-05-31T00:50:00.000-05:00fred,Unlike an emergency removal order, which spec...fred,<BR/><BR/>Unlike an emergency removal order, which specifically requires a hearing and that certain evidence be present, there are no such requirements for a temporary order under Sec. 105.001(b) - note that except in TROs involving custody, there is not even a hearing requirement.<BR/><BR/>Since the judge isn't required to explain the reason for the TRO, the justification for it, etc, how do you appeal it (especially since the law states that a TRO is not subject to an interlocutory appeal). <BR/><BR/><I>Mandamus</I> would be an option, only it doesn't work very often in those cases.<BR/><BR/>It's hard to abuse judicial discretion when the law says you can issue whatever orders you want...TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-4146888868489171942008-05-31T00:39:00.000-05:002008-05-31T00:39:00.000-05:00tbm"If the attorneys were doing their job properly...tbm<BR/><BR/><I>"If the attorneys were doing their job properly, they would have already had the order prepared and signed by their clients."</I><BR/><BR/>What order?kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65643738361113311212008-05-31T00:21:00.000-05:002008-05-31T00:21:00.000-05:00kbp, I merely thought that you were sharing it ove...kbp, I merely thought that you were sharing it over a wider audience, which I was also trying to do - I certainly was not offended or displeased... ;)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Melanie,<BR/><BR/>Judge Walther is the one that is responsible for the FLDS children now, they are in her jurisdiction and will remain so until the case is resolved. She is the one present in the courtroom that can judge the demeanor, the obstructions by the FLDS wives, etc.<BR/><BR/>She must not have thought that restrictions were enough to protect the children, so she insisted on additional requirements. That's within her discretion as outlined by the SCOT opinion.<BR/><BR/>The TRLA attorneys had a choice. Agree to the restrictions, or come back with a properly formated order to vacate the emergency removal order.<BR/><BR/>If the attorneys were doing their job properly, they would have already had the order prepared and signed by their clients.<BR/><BR/>In any event, as the SCOT noted, Judge Walther has the right to set restrictions under FC 105.001. This statute allows her to set a temporary restraining order and states:<BR/><BR/>"A temporary restraining order or temporary injunction granted under this section need not:<BR/> (1) define the injury or state why it is irreparable; <BR/> (2) state why the order was granted without notice; or <BR/> (3) include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief requested."<BR/><BR/>Both case law and the statute clearly notes that the TRO is not subject to appeal.<BR/><BR/>It shouldn't take long to xerox several hundred TROs and fill in the blanks...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anon 11:50,<BR/><BR/>They have a right to a jury trial in Texas - when it gets to the point of termination of parental rights. Until then, they just get a judge. It's a shame that the Federal Courts have approved of this. Kinda shoots your whole argument down...TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82143918209427104512008-05-30T23:58:00.000-05:002008-05-30T23:58:00.000-05:00BTW, don't "individual Sec 105.001(b) TROs " have ...BTW, don't "individual Sec 105.001(b) TROs " have to be based on evidence relevant to each child? Isn't that the whole point of the 3rd's opinion? Is she going to sign new blanket TROs based on the same lack of evidence? How can she sign any TROs without individual hearings? Isn't she slapping the 3rd and the TXSC in the face?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-18849899024252351452008-05-30T23:50:00.000-05:002008-05-30T23:50:00.000-05:00Once again tx explains to us what justice and the ...Once again tx explains to us what justice and the rule of law is in the government's eyes. Is there any precedent at all for house arrest in child custody cases? Maybe the FLDS lawyers should explore the 7th Amendment. This may be a good case to get civil law constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment.<BR/><BR/>I think maybe Walther is trying to mitigate possible civil suits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33973191814786861932008-05-30T22:57:00.000-05:002008-05-30T22:57:00.000-05:00TBMFYI, I repeated my comment here to share it. T...TBM<BR/><BR/>FYI, I repeated my comment here to share it. The ID'ing that it was at your site was to show it was a repeat posting.<BR/><BR/>No other reason, and thanks for updating me on your response here.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82103074421285688282008-05-30T22:52:00.000-05:002008-05-30T22:52:00.000-05:00Walthers really answers to none in this situation....Walthers really answers to none in this situation.<BR/><BR/>I do not like judges being elected, it's a waste of expense in 99% of the elections.<BR/><BR/>She'll be the Mike Nifong of Texas, as in "nifonged".<BR/><BR/>Next thing you know, "walthers" is a noun, and it won't be a good one!<BR/><BR/>It is an absolute certainty she'll be discussed in future law classes - what NOT to do.<BR/><BR/>Should leave quite a legacy for her family to live with for maybe decades.<BR/><BR/>The last laugh will not come from her.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31560318611645579892008-05-30T22:51:00.000-05:002008-05-30T22:51:00.000-05:00"Since the TRLA isn't playing nice, and insists on..."Since the TRLA isn't playing nice, and insists on Walther going by the letter of the law, she's doing the same to them."<BR/><BR/>Objecting to onerous additions to a (fairly) reasonable agreement is "not playing nice"? That's their job, to protect their clients from undue harm, punishments, restrictions, etc. <BR/><BR/>And can you explain to me how she's holding them to the letter of the law by insisting the 38 named mothers sign off of this order? Where does it say that the mothers have to agree to anything? I do understand that the SC ruling gave her latitude to impose some restrictions, is that what you mean - that if she's imposing restrictions, they're going to have to sign off on them? And that if TRLA had "played nice" and not objected, she was just going to waive the mothers having to sign off?Melaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17835000810958783854noreply@blogger.com