- Fort Worth Star Telegram: Sect case hitting CPS employees in pocketbook
- Salt Lake Tribune: FLDS court fight heats up
- Salt Lake Tribune: Battle over FLDS kids gets rough
- Houston Chronicle: Lawyers cry foul in FLDS seizures
- By Common Consent: A brief apology for the LDS apologia regarding FLDS
- Beldar Blog: Beldar on Volokh on the Texas polygamy child custody case
- The Common Room: Updates and links
Sorry, this is off topic but I could not find link to email the site admin. You have a link to another blog called Common Sense which displays a large ad over top blog text which most would consider pornographic. I enjoy reading Grits and would hope you do not sponsor such activity. Just wanted to let you know and no reply is needed for this post.
ReplyDeletehttp://commonsensetx.com/
Libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy has some choice words for both CPS and FLDS.
ReplyDeleteTexas Supreme Court is Compromised...Read Why
ReplyDelete* * *
Composed of the Chief Justice and eight Justices, the Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters in the State of Texas. The justices are elected to six-year staggered terms.
The State of Texas/CPS has filed a writ of mandamus with the court. The writ asks the court to over-rule the 3rd District Court of Appeals–which ordered Judge Walthers to void her original order. Walthers’ order mandated state custody of 465 FLDS children.
Having lived in Texas provides personal insight into government actions. Suffice it to say, we chose to move from the TX because of rampant government corruption-of which most people there could care less about. Nonetheless, while we were there, we helped to recall the mayor of Wichita Falls (remember Bill Altman?). Citizens did not stop there. After 25 years, the duo of corruption–the city manager and his female side kick were driven out too (but, not without taking hundreds of thousands from the public cofers in separation packages). In addition, we helped expose a north Texas US Attorney General–he resigned. We helped expose the TX Youth Commission abuses–of which the corruption and sexual abuses are still rampant today. Just Google if you are interested. Finally, the town’s newspaper editor was turned out…just as we were on our way out of town. It was a grand day, seeing Wichita Falls in the rear view mirror.
Back to the court. I did some review of the Supreme Court’s web page.
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/
At first glance, it looks benign. Then, I noted on the court’s right hand side bar.
'Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth & Families'
Immediately, my heart sank just seeing this link. It stood alone–no other commissions were seen…not for juvenile, not for crimes…just this ‘Permanent’ CPS commission.
Read this ‘commission’s’ mission to the court:
DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE COURT’S PAGE:
''The Supreme Court of Texas
From Child Abuse & Neglect, to Safety, Permanency & Well-Being
“More than 20,000 Texas children are in foster care on any given day, and more than 6,000 children await adoption. No child enters or leaves foster care or the custody of the Department of Family and Protective Services without state judicial action. Courts play a pivotal role, with the Department, in protecting and serving this vulnerable and blameless population. For the Supreme Court and the judicial branch of Texas, achieving safety, permanency & well-being for these children is a moral, practical, legal, and financial imperative. The Children’s Commission was created to strengthen Texas courts to achieve safety, permanency, and well being for abused and neglected children, through judicial leadership and collaboration, and with the support of the federal Court Improvement Program.”
* * *
Allow me to translate: this Supreme Court ‘commissions’ role is to further the objectives of the wayward CPS and the cohort family courts.
Now ...let’s see who is on the commission: 17 members…some attorneys who created the dreadful family courts, some family court judges, family court lawyers (all feeding at the trough)… but guess who else:
* * *
Joyce James has been the Assistant Commissioner of Child Protective Services since 2004.
Kristi Jordan is the Governor’s Advisor for human services issues.
Carolyne Rodriguez opened the Austin field office for Casey Family Programs 20 years ago and became its first Division Director.
Judge Rucker was a longtime member of the Supreme Court Task Force on Foster Care, created in 1994.
Fairy Davenport Rutland is the Vice Chair of the State Bar Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. She has spent her entire 30-plus-years legal career working for the cause of child protection and advocacy.
Tina Amberboy was a solo practitioner representing children and parents involved with Child Protective Services.
Tiffany Roper came to the Supreme Court from the Center for Public Priorities where she was a child welfare policy analyst.
Teri Moran came to the Supreme Court from the Texas Center for the Judiciary where she helped manage the Court Improvement Program and Children’s Justice Act grants, and staffed the Supreme Court Task Force on Foster Care.
* * *
This document, from their page, entitled "Supreme Court Advisory" details how The Supreme Court has been helping the locals raid the FLDS families.
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/advisories/eldoradoadvisory041608.htm
The Vice Chair of this court's Commission, Judge Specia, was sent to San Angelo to facilitate the FLDS status hearings. He was over there facilitating a process wherein the retention of the children was based on a “cattle call” adversary hearing providing no meaningful opportunity for individual families to be heard. In other words, he is facilitating the very kind of flawed process the Commission is tasked to fix. The Supreme Court provided other FLDS 'services' too.
Therefore, The Texas Supreme Court, along with its “Permanent Judicial Committee for Children Youth and Families” has been ‘helping’ and coordinating the CPS and local Judges and attorney efforts from the outset of this military-style raid when the State of Texas took 465 children at gunpoint.
The Texas Supreme Court justices are challenged; thus, they should recuse themselves—or the FLDS attorneys should file to have them removed from the case altogether.
The State/CPS' appeal to the Supreme Court states at issue: "did the 3rd court of appeals err in its decision?"
In other words--if the TX Supreme Court upholds Austin's decision, then the Court is finding itself in error...as well.
Grits,
ReplyDeleteI read the Beldar Blog entry & comment-thread you linked to in this post, and thought it highlights a 'flight to objectivism' which I have noticed other 'interested professionals' resorting to.
The 'court of public opinion' is hardly inconsequential. I expect SCOTX has spent more of the weekend parsing its leanings than we will see documented in their decision.
I did not read Prof. Volokh's piece, but I agree on informal grounds that the mandamus issued on an unresolved case and its multiple references to 'sophomoric' mistakes - Judge Walther not only "lost" the game as Beldar puts it, but committed specified "errors" - indeed creates & testifies to the very "drama" that he asserts isn't there.
Re. anonymous' 'SCOTX compromised' reply: taking these quotes & interpretations at face value, then who's team is the 3rd court of appeals playing on?
ReplyDeleteIs the appeals court an exception to the general corruption of Texas' officialdom? Or would they more likely be as conflicted as the rest of their colleagues?
Whatever "services" SCOTX was providing to DPFS in Eldorado & YFZ ... maybe DPFS should ask for their money back, since obviously it hasn't saved them getting delicate items of their anatomy caught in the wringer.
Would the 3rd court perhaps play 'bad cop' so SCOTX can merely 'admit' or 'decline', rather than issue a negative call on DPFS/CPS themselves?
I sometimes like to think the unthinkable: what if the TXSC decided to call the parties in for their decision and announced that they wouldn't review the mandamus since it wasn't ripe but they would begin their other job: reviewing whether the lawyers in this case were ethical enough to practice law in Texas? And then told the attorneys for the DFPS and CPS to begin preparing their defense since they had engaged in obvious solicitation of perjury when Angie Voss claimed Pamela Nielson Jessop (aka Pamela Jeffs Jessop) who on the Bishop's record had been identified as at least 17 more than a year before was still not 18.
ReplyDeleteWhen that bishop's record was admitted, it shows that Angie was providing false testimony and the attorneys knew it. Unfortunately, Walthers was doing a horrendous job as judge and didn't pay attention to the written evidence. I wouldn't bet against anyone claiming that when the appeals court noticed that they had a cow and decided right there to find a way to void her decision.
Wanted: CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS with
ReplyDeletethe ability to unite, the passion to inspire and the determination to win.
Such people must exist. How do we find them?
LS
ReplyDeleteLook up TRLA! :)
********
This is not an everyday news source of mine, but it has an interesting quote.
McCown shows his colors
"Scott McCown, a retired district judge in Texas and director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, says he finds some aspects of the appeals court decision disturbing.
"There was no mention of what the standard of proof is," says Mr. McCown. "What the [district] court had to find was sufficient evidence to satisfy an ordinary person of prudence and caution that there was a danger to these children. The court of appeals treated this more like a final trial when this was a temporary order."
He is uneasy, too, over the appeals court's inattention to evidence of "spiritual marriages" and their effect on children, given that polygamy is illegal in Texas. "
Joseph and Lori Jessop talk to the media after getting to be with their children.
ReplyDeleteMore on the Jessop's & others from Brooke
ReplyDelete" The negotiations went on for more than five hours, Haas said, and involved representatives of the Texas Attorney General's Office. In the end, a written agreement was hammered out and approved by the judge - but a caseworker still refused to turn the couple's children over to them. The reasons shifted: a media gag order was needed; the temporary home had to pass inspection first; confusion over who agreed to the deal.
It took almost an hour and three trips back to see the judge before CPS released the children, Haas said, and the parents took them in their arms. "It was awfully nice," she said. "
I should point out a part of that last link.
ReplyDelete"The negotiations went on for more than five hours, Haas said, and involved representatives of the Texas Attorney General's Office."
That AG's office told us they have been helping from the start.
It's getting difficult to keep count of how many were involved. But I will say I believe I'm doing a better job of counting that the CPS did!
Some random thoughts-Texas Rangers assisted in the arrest of Rozita Swinton but charged her with nothing pertaining to Texas. Guess that would be an admission of a hoax.
ReplyDeleteRozita Swinton had knowledge of the workings of FLDS and it is looking like she was pointed in that direction. Flora Jessop would be my first pick.
Rosita Swinton seems to have disappeared. Flora Jessop has an underground railroad and helps people disappear.
Other news sources report that Flora Jessops and Ranger Long are longtime friends.Flora has been trying to shut down FLDS since 2004. Even though she has never been on the ranch all signs point to her being the informant. Her associates describe her as an alarmist who take police on wild goose chases.
There are those who would benefir it Rozita is gone for good. Maybe she is.
Anon 08:37,
ReplyDeleteNo question, most people would consider that pornographic. Strange, I've read that site before without that.
CPS service plans trouble?
ReplyDeleteMaybe combination of those one-sided family service plans and the Sept. goal, six months versus the standard twelve, are a plan for failure.
or... it was the investigation tool the state needed!
LS
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain Swinton could be sent to Texas for a crime she committed while in Colorado. Most likely would have to be some federal wire crime, if there is one that would cover it.
On the informant, I've read that it was a male, but nothing to confirm it. May just be BS fed to some lonely reporter!
RE: "Texas Supreme Court is Compromised...Read Why"
ReplyDeleteFollow up: NEED SOME FEEDBACK PLEASE...
I am the author and poster of the above comments--attempting to discuss the TX Supreme Court being conflicted--having its own, top-heavy CPS membered commission 'helping' on the FLDS cases from the get go.
I had not done so on any topic before, but I posted it on the lawyer Bill Dyer -"Beldar" blog, as well. He deleted it---threated to block my IP address--accusing me of being a 'Ron Paul supporter.' (Guess that is some sort of crime). As you all see--my article is not about Ron Paul, nor is there any mention of him...weird!
As you all can read too--there is nothing false in my comments--you can readily check the links I provided--there is no cussin'--what is the going on down there?
Can someone provide some feedback as to why this lawyer-Bill Dyer "Beldar" would want my expose' on the conflicted TX Supreme Court censored from his blog?
I am Geri Klein, from MA...and normally post on Grits as 'anonymous'--simply to avoid the tangling of passwords...etc.
For any that had missed this:
ReplyDeleteWhy those few children
were reunited with their families.
"When the news first broke last week it was unclear why a dozen of the 440 children had been singled out to be returned to their families. Now it appears these children were the ones specified in the motion that was filed in state district court in San Antonio, the same motion that the Third Court of Appeals used to rule that the seizure of the children was unjustified."
Geri Klein
ReplyDeleteMy first guess, and I did see your comment at Beldar, is it was OT and too lengthy.
I believe it would have stayed if you would put it up in smaller parts that are not so conclusive, more like a polite question formed that at least allows the reader to make their own conclusion.
I find myself toning down comments about facts to reduce that "crazy conspiracy theorist" appearance they develop into. I should work harder on that practice myself!
Besides, questions bait response.
I believe the mention that Doran's informant was a male is in the appeal for habeus corpus on behalf of the three fathers, so I'd assume that was something from the first hearing?
ReplyDeleteI'm predicting the Supreme will overturn the Third COA. McCowan has it right, they really applied the wrong standard for a mandamus of a temporary order.
ReplyDeleteArticle on CPS Reply to TLRA's Response
ReplyDeleteOverall, it reads like the CPS Reply is justifying holding the children by constantly telling that is the only way for a complete investigation. That "Arrest To Investigate" type of approach has been growing more popular over the years!
Of course there is no arrest here, just 460+/- children taken from their homes.
kpb...
ReplyDeleteInteresting...
OT? The topic was on Volokh's opinion on Austin's FLDS doings...however, that thread became intermingled with lots of other comments regarding various FLDS case issues--those were permitted even though 'OT.'
Yes, I did not leave the verifiable facts (links provided) open to a posed question...because, that gives others the opportunity to mislead other readers about it--as they 'answer' the question. I see you psychology behind your suggested approach, though.
Beldar (or anyone) still could provide an alternative view to refute--if they disagree with the verifiable FACTS ... why was that not done? What is strange---is I see near zero discussion of the facts I have put out. Why is that? What of the subject matter---isn't this a serious thing to anyone?
Yes, it somewhat long...I was laying out the verifiable facts...like showing the CPS officials on the Supreme Court's "Permanent" Child Commission--those member who 'helped' locals raid and conduct hearings on the FLDS from the outset. No 'conspiracy'--the data is there for anyone to see--right from the TX Supreme Court's web page.
Best bet is that lawyer Dyer/Beldar deleted it because... he must have an aversion to revealing the TX Supreme Court’s conflict with its “Permanent” child protection commission working the FLDS cases from the outset.
Well, he is a lawyer in TX...I guess he needs to keep getting his paycheck.
Thanks for feedback.
Klein
Re: Texas Supreme Court is compromised. Then add all this to the fact that 5 or the justices are Perry appointments, and two more were appointed to the judgeships that eventually catapulted them to SCOT by Perry and Bush. I would concur that the deck is a little stacked. Scares me.
ReplyDeleteTo Ron in Houston:
ReplyDeleteWill you expand a bit on why you agree with Judge McCowan? I've read the 3rd CA opinion twice, maybe three times, and it appears to me that as to male children and pre-pubescent female children -- both classes of children being the only children involved in the mandamus action -- there was NO evidence. It wasn't a matter of the 3rd Court disagreeing with the trial judge as to the weight of the evidence. As a matter of law, there was not any evidence at all to satisfy the requirements of the TFC. I will appreciate it if you will point out the flaw in the 3rd CA opinion. Thank you.
Ron in Houston, I interpreted the appeals court as reviewing de novo as a matter of law. If so, they should have said so explicitly. That may have been clear though in the original briefs.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I make to claim to being a lawyer.
Unfortunately, my previous link to the BeldarBlog is to the middle of it. It is important to not miss the beginning and its conclusions.
ReplyDelete"But I would have no trouble agreeing with the State here that it's contrary to the long-term best interests of the affected children to raise them in a tight, isolated culture whose entire premise is to evade state law, to secretly coerce pubescent minor girls into arranged marriages, and to indoctrinate both boys and girls into that culture. The State needs to prove that far more thoroughly, on a family by family and child by child basis."
No ACLU brief filed today?
ReplyDeleteThis Reply to the Response, by the CPS crew, reads like a circle jerk the way I see it.
ReplyDeleteThe oral would be:
Bench - "What is the reason you should keep the children for now?"
CPS - "To keep the children safe from the criminals."
Bench - "What evidence is there that they are criminals?"
CPS - "Their 'beliefs' and the parentage records should show us there are criminals."
Bench - "How can you prove that now?"
CPS - "By keeping the children for levarage to force the mothers to prove it."
Bench - "What is the reason you should keep the children for now?"
CPS - "To keep the children safe from the criminals."
Bench - "What evidence is there that they are criminals?"
I do need to keep in mind it is only addressing the immediate desire to keep the status as it is.
For those who are interested:
ReplyDeleteSince mandamus only lies where there is a clear abuse of discretion (with emphasis on clear), there would have to have been NO (meaning just about zero) evidence.
CPS had their expert testify at the show cause hearing about danger to the welfare which is some evidence that keeping the kids was necessary. Since there was some evidence then mandamus isn't a proper remedy.
Most of the time in mandamus actions the courts of appeals don't do evidence weighing. They look at whether the judge violated a clear duty under the law. Here they would have to find that there was no way that the trial court could have ruled the way it did. I don't think the Supreme Court will make that finding.
Louisa gets her children...
ReplyDeletefor now anyway,
I was disappointed we did not get to see how Walthers would rule in this suit to take temporary custody of the baby from the 22 YO mother.
"Rumors had swirled over the weekend about the busloads of witnesses DFPS might have been planning to bring to Tuesday's hearing.
"I heard from an ad litem there were as many as eight girls," [Dan's attorney] Matassarin said. "Someone else heard there were more than that."
She had filed a motion earlier Tuesday to postpone the hearing so she could discover more about new witnesses - but the issue became moot when attorneys instead went forward with out-of-court negotiations.
State attorneys did bring a stack of documents about 4 inches thick, which Matassarin said she has not been able to review."
For some reason(!), I expect any witnesses, if any came, and the paper work was more of the S.O.S.
Headmistress, there is a 2004 photo of sheriff Doran and Flora Jessop. I can find no hint of a trail to anyone else. Didn't we learn that the informant has never been on the ranch? If I am correct about that I have to wonder why anyone other than Flora would have even been considered. She has been so eager and connects with Swinton, Long and Doran. You suspected her a long time ago until paperwork stated the informant is male. It wouldn't be the only lie or attempt to mislead. If the informant were required to appear in court I fully expect we would see a "she".
ReplyDeleteThe informant has never been on the ranch and is a former FLDS member. I have assumed it was Flora, but the lawyers for the three fathers say it was a male. You may be right and this was just more obfuscation on the part of law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteOtoh, Could it have been Dan Fisher?
Ron, I thought they found there was no evidence for the individual individual families (or rather, each individual household, a distinction the court didn't make). The "expert" (who admitted he learned all he knew about FLDS from post-raid media accounts) presented no information about any of the specific women named in the TRLA filing. Wouldn't that qualify for mandamus action by the 3rd Court, especially since the hearings weren't particularized to the individual kids?
ReplyDeleteThanks Ron
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to dispute the idea there was NOT evidence without having the transcripts and evidence entered for the hearing.
I understand this is only just a small piece of the big puzzle here, and that you only gave it as an example, but the state's quack said:
"2:35 p.m. - An attorney speaking for lawyers representing the youngest children asks: Would it be worse for the well-being of the younger children to be returned to the FLDS sect home, or to be separated from their familiar environment?
To be taken from their environment would be worse, the psychiatrist says."
The 3rd's opinion covered more than just one single topic in the code (I believe the exact phrase could be subchapters showing the requirements of section 262.201). It will be interesting to see if the SCOT does rule the 3rd went too far and how they show that in every detail needed to completely void the result of the 3rd's opinion.
- Was the YFZ a single household?
From the 3rd's Opinion:
" The Department argues... the entire Yearning For Zion ranch community is a "household"....
"There is no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household..."
"The notion that the entire ranch community constitutes a "household" as contemplated by section 262.201... is contrary to the evidence. The Department's witnesses acknowledged that the ranch community was divided into separate family groups and separate households. While there was evidence that the living arrangements on the ranch are more communal than most typical neighborhoods, the evidence was not legally or factually sufficient to support a theory that the entire ranch community was a "household" under section 262.201."
If the SCOT can get past that, they may be able to give a general reason that shows Walthers could have found that;
•Interviews with investigators revealed a pattern of girls reporting that "there was no age too young for girls to be married";
•Twenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen;
•Five of the twenty females identified as having become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen are alleged to be minors, the other fifteen are now adults;
•Of the five minors who became pregnant, four are seventeen and one is sixteen, and all five are alleged to have become pregnant at the age of fifteen or sixteen;
•The Department's lead investigator was of the opinion that due to the "pervasive belief system" of the FLDS, the male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse;
•All 468 children were removed from the ranch under the theory that the ranch community was "essentially one household comprised of extended family subgroups" with a single, common belief system and there was reason to believe that a child had been sexually abused in the ranch "household"; and
•Department witnesses expressed the opinion that there is a "pervasive belief system" among the residents of the ranch that it is acceptable for girls to marry, engage in sex, and bear children as soon as they reach puberty, and that this "pervasive belief system" poses a danger to the children.
was reasonable enough as evidence that there was an imminent danger of physical harm or safety for ALL the children.
I do have to wonder if SCOT can somehow skate by using the CPS argument that only two of the 38+ mothers listed as Relators in the filing, Lori Jessop and Lucille Nielsen, are due the results of the 3rd's opinion.
ReplyDeleteMaybe put all others or use it as a technicality that puts ALL back to square one, while the CPS looks for that criminal in the single household.
It's over my head!
Perry's days as governor are limited. His list of friends and supporters will grow shorter. The TX Supreme Court will leave citizens with a bit of respect or a lot more suspicion toward government.
ReplyDeleteSurely some strong civil rights leaders will emerge from this mess. I am watching for individuals who stand out above the rest.
To: Lowery-Shirley
ReplyDelete"Surely some strong civil rights leaders will emerge from this mess. I am watching for individuals who stand out above the rest."
I've been looking...and waiting too...well, not really. Who is going to stand up for a white, lowly,'christian' group? Wrong color, and wrong faith.
Where is Rev. Al...where is Jesse?
Where is Romney, McCain, Obama, or Hilliary? 3 being senators yet-running for pres., being silent, while a state takes 460 children at gunpoint.
Does anyone realize that had one mom or dad lifted a finger, to rescue their child, the State of TX would have shot them down in cold blood. Did everyone forget the swat sharp shooters positioned in the rocks.
I still can't believe this is happening in America.
Charles Kiker here:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add a link but I'm really kind of a Luddite and haven't figured out how I can be in two places at once on this thing. But go to amarillo.com and look up Greg Sagan's op. ed. piece for 5/27/2008
Sur-Reply
ReplyDeleteThe latest filed by TRLA
Greg Sagan
ReplyDeleteThanks CK
I'm not big on editorials, but it's good to read touch on "what role the law can, should and will play in the defining and enforcing of family values"
Doran,
ReplyDeleteMcCown has it right.
The 3rd Court of Appeals opinion reads like an interlocutory appeal, not a mandamus action.
There was evidence that was put in the record (testimony by Voss, etc) that indicated that the other children were at risk. Voss' testimony was clearly allowable as an opinion under Rule 404 and 406, TRE. As such, the weight of the evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge.
I believe that the SCOT will reverse the 3rd Court.
tx, not if SCT finds it wasn't all one house. Then, like the 3rd Court, it would have to rule CPS has to find evidence on each child in a different house than where there was any evidence.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt CPS broke the laws of Texas and the 3rd ruled as a matter of law. Maybe CPS has some evidence now, but it didn't seem to then. Not pertaining to each house and any child in each house.
Of course you think McCown is right, bluesman! I'm shocked! OTOH, you and McCown both predicted with equal certitude that the 3rd Court would rule differently, that the whole ranch would be considered one "household," that criminal charges would be filed, and many other prognostications that have turned out to be wrong. What should we make of that?
ReplyDeleteYou've never admitted that the failure to give individual hearings was a fatal and fundamental flaw in Judge Walther's approach to these cases, but that's what's getting her rulings in trouble. Why you think the SCOT will overrule the conservative wing of the 3rd Court is beyond me.
Ron and Tx. Did you guys (?) even read the damn opinion? NO EVIDENCE. If there is no evidence to support a judgment, it gets reversed. That is established law and procedur. What is your problem with that?
ReplyDeleteIn the late 70s or early 80s I represented a young man charged with felony theft from a grocery store where he worked. The Judge, in a TBC, found him guilty. We appealed to the 3rd CA on no evidence and insufficient evidence grounds. My brief did what I assume the TRGLA brief did in this case, and what the 3rd did in its Opinion: I set out the evidence which "supported" the guilty judgment and the evidence which worked against it.
The 3rd not only reversed the judgment of guilty, they also rendered a judgment of not guilty, on the grounds that a rational trier of fact could not have found the defendant guilty. Talk about a scolding of the trial judge.....
That is what intermediate appeals courts do, they look at the record to determine if there is any evidence to support the judgment. Here, the 3rd could not find it in the record.
The SCOT may reverse, but if they do it will be on matters outside the record. I hope they write opinions, whatever they do. If they sustain, they need to let the people of Texas know what the law is and that they, the Supremes, will uphold that law. And let the chips fall, etc.... If they reverse, then they need to find some good reason for reversing for matters not on the record. I can hardly wait to see an opinion which tries to justify such a decision. The only decision of this potential nature which comes to mind is Bush v. Gore.
I fully expect the Supremes to partially uphold the 3rd, but to stay the release of the kids. That is the theory CPS is pimping in its latest filing with the Supreme Court.
Doran
ReplyDelete"I fully expect the Supremes to partially uphold the 3rd, but to stay the release of the kids. "
Is this what you meant to write?
Yeah, they will agree with the 3rd on the law, but not the remedy. The State will "convince" the Supremes to stay the writ of mandamus, so the parents can't flee the State with the kids and thereby divest the State of jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteDoran,
ReplyDeleteI read the opinion, I just disagree with you that it was the correct standard and ruling.
After reflecting on your last post, you may very well be correct on how the SCOT will rule. Affirm in part, but stay the mandamus.
Damn - I wish I had thought of that angle. It would be a typical move by the SCOT....
Otoh, Could it have been Dan Fisher?
ReplyDeleteHeadmistress,
Even though Fisher has worked with the law I think referring to him as an informant would be a mistake on their part.
Fisher doesn't have the destruction of this compound eating at his gut the way Flora does. Fisher is open while Flora still has secrets. Flora is the one who was there and trying to get the compound shut down in 2004. She didn't give up. Instead she became friends with Long and Doran. Years of plotting and planning finally paid off.
I believe this is the only way it could have happened.