Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Judge to CPS: Shut down investigation of YFZ family

Now that the Texas Supreme Court has sided with the YFZ Ranch parents, other judges are beginning to step up to the plate to rein in overreaching policies by Texas CPS. In one of the child custody cases resulting from the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup, a San Antonio District Judge:

issued the restraining order, which for now keeps Child Protective Services investigators from continuing their investigation.

“I am not going to allow CPS or any other agency to interfere with parents in this state,” the judge said.

According to the FLDS couple's attorney, "the state had already tried to move the case back to West Texas and was denied by the 4th Court in a May 22 ruling." Now the state is heading to the 4th Court of Appeals again to overturn the restraining order.

This could be the beginning of a chain of events that could actually shut down CPS' investigation into families where there's no allegation of abuse, whereas the Supreme Court's ruling merely sent the kids home but allowed the investigation to continue. Definitely one to watch.

MORE: From the Common Room.


Anonymous said...

I can't tell for sure whether the restraining order halts CPS investigation of all the FLDS, or pertains only to the family in this particular case. The quotes in the original article make it sound like all the CPS actions are shut down, but that seems not-right.

Still, like Grits says, this very well could be the beginning of the end of ... whatever Texas and CPS thought they were going to accomplish by hauling off all the FLDS kids.

One question that could affect the story going forward (whether it ends with CPS being told to stop) is the possibility of additional challenges by the FLDS. Could be, the end of CPS' case against the polygamists, may be just the beginning of a much longer & even bigger story.

I was amazed from early on, that Texas would be seemingly sticking their neck out so off-handedly, so far. What were they thinking?

But first things first - put CPS back to tending the many children who actually need them, and discredit the idea of using CPS to frog-march some weirdo-bunch to the State line.

Miscreant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Miscreant said...

While everyone was silent in the YFZ families' time of crisis, once the bandwagon is established by the Texas Supreme Court, everyone jumps aboard.

It seems history is doomed to repeat itself countless times when an ill-considered boondoggle is frowned upon only after faulty information is widely exposed. And of course, there was public information proving the nature of the faulty assumption which would be easily uncovered if people got off their collective duffs and had the wherewithal to dig a little.

Anonymous said...

i noticed this story
"Texas had secret plan to separate polygamist mothers, children"

" State officials, fearing a violent reaction from members of a West Texas polygamist sect, considered a secret plan to haul hundreds of children and their mothers to Midlothian to be separated, internal e-mails show. But a judge vetoed the plan.
The judge in charge of custody of the children eventually rejected the transfer. Instead, the separation occurred on April 14, without incident."

i might be reading too much into this/putting my own spin on it, but does that sound to any of you like pretty clear evidence that walthers' decision to keep the kids was made before the 14day hearings?

to me it sounds like before the hearings cps said "this is what we want to do" and walthers said "that won't work, you need a better plan"

Anonymous said...

Miscreant 09:41 said -

"... everyone was silent in the YFZ families' time of crisis... "

As a matter of simple fact, easily verified by stepping back before the Supreme Court decision, the GritsforBreakfast blog was standing up on behalf of the rights the FLDS share with all the rest of us, all along.

Miscreant, you are mistaken. GritsforBreakfast and other sources - easily found & followed - were on the right road, before the bandwagon came along.

"Everyone" in fact was not "silent".

kbp said...

That list of FLDS "thugs" was good for a laugh.

It was kind of like they'd include one guy for menacing stares and the next for avoiding eye contact.



Sheriff Doran has never really been in charge of much, IMO. They put him center stage like he's in charge of something, and he might actually believe he is, but he was only in charge of following directions on how to guide the troops.



Good point there.

I've said many times that walthers was in on this mess from the start, along with ADA Parker and various state agencies / departments such as the AG.

kbp said...

Maybe Miscreant meant most people and almost all of the media there. That's how I took it, and most know where I was from the start.

kbp said...

Most FLDS kids taken from compound aren't with parents yet

The article then starts out; "A week after 440 children from a polygamist sect were reunited with their parents...". Nothing in it on not being with parents.

Near the end it states:
"[Child Protective Services spokesman Patrick] Crimmins also said CPS will be evaluating information from DNA tests that are still being returned to a San Angelo court.

“When we get the results, we’re going to review them to see if they will help us in any ongoing abuse and neglect investigations,” Crimmins."

One has to wonder what happened to the need for that testing solely to identify parents because all the identifications may be forged.

SB said...

Wow, kpb. They don't wanna talk about the DNA tests. They are distancing themselves. Guess it came a thunderstorm on their parade.

Anonymous said...

I am thankful for every small step gained in this investigation. My hope is national sanity will return, that MSM will be rebuked for tabloid reporting, and that those in positions of authority will be removed and unable to put any more groups of parents through this type of abuse again.

However, I also realize that those 'in charge' are trying to save their public image by maligning others.

Perhaps someone can answer this question.

Why, when we accept just about any other kind of marital/committed relationship (same sex turns my stomach) as 'okay,' why is there so much hatred at the thought of polygamy?

I doubt I could live it, but we've allowed everything else, so what difference does it make if consenting adults want to engage in a polygamous relationship?

Aside from matter how much the officials declare this 'case' was about child always comes back to the polygamy issue.

And Mr. Lester - according to another article (I believe at SL Trib) - 449:32 was the opposed:for return of the children to the FLDS within the first 3 days.

You were not standing alone - others were opposed and still are, and that number is growing.

Anonymous said...


Can you provide a better link to the dallas news story you referred to? Or maybe a date of publication? The link does not work and I can't find the article on the web-site. Thanks

Anonymous said...

kbp have you done your math today?
"178 children are living in 33 households in the San Antonio area and 143 children are living in 30 households at the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado" that totals only 340 children, what happened to the other 100? I know they were all picked up, the FLDS said so, CPS agreed. I find it interesting that exactly 100 keeps coming short in the headcount provided by CPS. CPS=fuzzy math.

kbp said...

I wouldn't be too quick yet on ruling out what the DNA testing may show, but we should have heard of results by now.

They were to have had all results this past Friday, but I am not certain that the "all" included Warrens. His should be available, as most (if not all) prisoners have a copy of their DNA profile in a national data base.

I'm lost as to why a search warrant or any warrant would be needed, and then why a sample was taken. It's was sounding to me as if they were going through steps that should not be needed.

Even if for some unknown reason Warren's DNA profile was not in the system already, an auto-somal STR test of a mouth swab can be obtained in hours if there is a big rush. Any sample taken from him is not mixed with others, so it's a quicker test with a limit of markers to show. Many labs do that testing. Then it would take minutes to compare it to the one or even a few in question to see if he is excluded as a parent.

Maybe the state is holding back on releasing results yet in the hopes they'll be able to stack charges against multiple parties. If Warren could be charged for a crime the results of that testing prove, there could be charges against the parents of the "spiritual wife" involved, and maybe any other adults that lived within the same household".

Texas could be looking to wash some of the mud of it's face with lots of charges to tell us about.


Chai Tea
Don't hold your breath waiting to see any authorities or reporters to be held accountable for what they've done in this mess!



Link in Rl's comment

kbp said...


I'd noticed that count last night.

I saw it in said "Of the 440 children, 143 went to 30 households at the ranch, which is owned by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The largest number of children — 178 — have settled in 33 households in the San Antonio area.
The rest are scattered throughout the state"

I wondered how the "scattered" group hit "100" exact.

Anonymous said...

kbp, that link is not working.

kbp said...

A hat tip to RL !!!

After pointing out the ""Texas had secret plan..." to all of us, I grabbed the dates of emails and the chronological details of what took place, from the articles, and sent copies to a few I know, including Bill at "Free the FLDS Children".

He posted on it and forwarded copied of my email to a few that might show an interest in this coincidence.

Thanks RL, read the post you started!


Anonymous said...

With less than half of the children at the YFZ Ranch, it will be far more difficult for CPS to "Paint them all with the same brush".

Also, the ranch operations including dairy and vegetable crops were shut down suddenly. It may take a while to get the place functioning again to the point it can support all of the children and I'd live anywhere at the moment as long as it wasn't Eldorado or San Angelo!

I expect residents of the YFZ Ranch may have friends and relatives that may also be practicing FLDS members that do not live in a "compound" and are willing to help them out.

kbp said...

Try this one Doran

I've been having problems at a few links to Dallas News, not sure what is creating them.

Anonymous said...

CPS sanangelo has more to say,

Anonymous said...

Did a FLDS "hit team" burn down Rick Perry's house?


kbp said...

Thanks TxMom

that you so kindly shared, I'll point to a few interesting things I noticed.

"...Because of the ongoing investigation - Supervisor Angie Voss could not comment on the specifics of the case, but she and other investigators say they still believe the original decision to remove the children from the YFZ ranch was the right one."

More media CYA efforts I see. Can't share details, but all we did is OK not that we know more, though there are no charges or any filings to seek custody of any of the children yet! If there is new information on dangers, where is the new effort to take temporary custody?

The article includes many mysterious "we have the facts" type hints, as they tell of the ongoing investigation. Then Angie Voss says:

"I wish I could testify now to what I know now, because so much more has come to light that has validated everything that we thought."

All she has to do, if they know of a child in danger, is file the papers and seek to have walthers hear details on a specific suit.

Then Angie looks to have opened the door to what we all suspect:

""We continue to find more information that makes us feel even more strongly about the cause and the initial call and the initial reasons that we went onto the ranch and we are still in here fighting."

1. They have a "cause" that seems to conflict with the reason they went to the YFZ Ranch;

2. That "initial reasons", as she words it, has ZERO to do with the "save Sarah" bullchit they've played to the media from day FIVE!

There NEVER was a "save Sarah" effort.

There never was an excuse for the FIVE DAY DELAY.

There never was a legal reason to take 450+ children into custody.

This is a DIRTY bunch, from the top down to the bottom.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I called Bill Hanna to ask about the story with the missing hundred children. He says he'd already asked them to correct the website- that the headline is wrong and that the 'remaining 19 children; is a typo and should have been 119 children.

kbp said...


I'd emailed Hanna, but it came back.

I then emailed Maclaggan, at the Statesman, to point out an error she made in an article that was almost identical (exceot the headline).

"I'm not sure whose error, yours or the AP, but this is in correct.

"Walther's order sending the children home came after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that CPS should not have seized the children from the polygamist sect's ranch in April."

The opinion of SCOT and the Appeals Court of the Third District were both about the complete absence of evidence needed for the 14 day adversary hearing determination for temporary custody, not the order that related to taking them into custody from the ranch"

At least Maclaggan credited the AP as a source. Hanna didn't do that, unless maybe he was the AP source.

Lazy reporting on both of their parts, like most all of the MSM does today.

kbp said...

For any that are following what RL shined some light on:

Official Texas CPS Website Announcement
(if it's still up, I saved it long ago)

...Monday, April 7
District Judge Barbara Walthers granted DFPS temporary legal custody of all 401 the children in the shelter in San Angelo, after it was concluded that some of these children had been sexually and physically abused and the rest are at risk of abuse if returned to their homes at this time.

The CPS says "...AFTER IT WAS CONCLUDED ... HAD BEEN SEXUALLY... ABUSED", on April 7th, TEN days prior to any hearings.

Add that to the mysterious FACTS about whether or not a decision had been made by walthers to KEEP the children PRIOR to the 14 day hearing.

Anonymous said...

chai tea said:"Why, when we accept just about any other kind of marital/committed relationship (same sex turns my stomach) as 'okay,' why is there so much hatred at the thought of polygamy?"

Turns your stomach? Really!! I am gay, in a committed relationship, dedicated to my other half and Mormon. A Mormon that has a STRONG testimony of Mormon doctrine based on "thus saith the Lord" revelation without added doctrine from men. I am and always have been a strong supporter of plural marriage doctrine. Mormon doctrine dictates it, I believe it. From a civil approach of course I believe plural marriage should not be targeted and others should keep thier biggoted noses out of it. So please keep your biggoted comments to yourself. You are a contradiction and why would two individuals who love each other be "stomach turning" to you? Obviously your imagination is running wild and in the gutter as is the mind of many Genitles when they dwell on the reason plural marriage "the Principle" should not be allowed. Oh by the way I have done my part in a big way to support the rights of the FLDS and the fact that they need to be left alone and atrocities committed against them halted. I have donated time and Money behind the scenes. I am Mormon, I have a strong testimony of my Mormon faith and I am gay!!!!

choice2 said...

Sorry Mormn4life I can't help it.

I'm confused.
If you believe in plural life, shouldn't you (or you mate) have more wives. Then would you have to adopt 15+ children.

Anonymous said...

"And, by the way, you're just selfishly pushing 'polygamy rights' to get what YOU want which is 'gay marriage rights.'

If you thought that supporting us wouldn't help you, in your SELFISHNESS, you wouldn't give polygynists the time of day."

Hey lester,

You dont know me! In regards to supporting plural doctrine restored by the Prophet Joseph, that has nothing to do with "what you call gay marriage." Two different subjects. You have the same misconceptions that you accuse Gentiles of having. I have NO agenda in supporting Mormon doctrine. I did it when I was married and I do it now. Your comments are based on ignorance and taking certain passages of scripture, Not translated correctly and using it as the fundi-evangelicals do. I did not want to get into this in that regard and it was not my intention when posting. I was addressing hurtful ignorant comments by Chai.
Supporting us? Who are you? the FLDS -od? That is where my "UNSELFISHNESS" STANDS TALL against your ignorance. Inspite of ignorant thinking individuals my faith and belief in MORMON doctrine drives me to keep my faith inspite. I said nothing about scripture but since you brought it up I would say study it carefully Lester. Also Joseph said nothing about this subject in the context you subscribe to. Neither did the Savior. By the way my unselfish act had nothing to do with marriage of any kind.

Anonymous said...

choice 2 said:"I'm confused.
If you believe in plural life, shouldn't you (or you mate) have more wives. Then would you have to adopt 15+ children."

I do not get your point as plural marriage would not pertain to me. The revelation rec by the Prophet Joseph said nothing about same sex individuals. Mormon doctrine,revelation is not dead. There is "law of adoption" but in my opinion that is not in the same context as marriage between opposite sexes> again imo.

Oh by the way not that it is any of your business but I have several children and at this time that is cool. Oh I have a cat too and lookin to get a dog. Life is good? How about yours?

Anonymous said...

''... why would two individuals who love each other be "stomach turning" to you?''

Answer: sodomy.

Anonymous said...

Lester said:"sodomite community" out of sympathy for them.

Lester, Lester, Lester: "sodomite community?" I am assuming you are refering to me. The "Sodom Story" is NOT about homosexuality and if you study scripture you will understand that.It is not about
consensual homosexual relationships. Sodom is mentioned 48 times in the Bible and never in those 48 passages is homosexuality given as the cause of Heavenly Fathers judgement.As you judge think about that,and think about the true story of Sodom,Lester. Homosexual rape as heterosexual rape is a horrible sin. "Sodomy" in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless not about consensual relationships, Lester! The “sin of Sodom” per Genesis 19 has to do with using sexual cruelty and violence to oppress and demean outsiders. In another sense that seems like what some are accusing flds men of doing. I would think it could be spun in many ways. I choose not to. You and yours do as you please.
Now if you are flds I assume you follow Warren and possbily he gave his prophecys on the subject. If you consider him your prophet then I understand your ignorance. Dont trust man to much as Joseph and Brigham have stated. Hell split wide open. I think not!
Now this blog is not about this issue and I am done. Post what you choose

Anonymous said...

Lester said: "You would lose that debate."

Based on "the gospel according to Bro Lester" I surely would. Keep on preachin brother!!!!

In Mormonism,

Anonymous said...

I guess txbluesman can't type with his tail between his legs like that.

Kathy G said...

Looks like the blog's been kidnapped again.

choice2 said...


Thank you for your answer.

I'm not Mormon or gay.

My understanding of Mormon beliefs on plural marriage and the spiritual benefit thereof didn't jive with being gay to me.

I didn't say or even imply that you were not happy.

I thought you might take offense, so I apologized ahead of time.

How do we know if we don't ask?

You were able to present your position, which is a benefit of the boards.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the blog's been kidnapped again.


I should apologize for my part in that as it should not happen. I do not want to re-open but explain. I love this blog and find it refreshing from a legal stand point and for other reasons. When I read chai tea comments I had to respond. I feel when we read those types of comments we need to respond. To be placed with comments on this blog seemed very out of place. Whether it is the "n" word,cracker,homo,whitey,spic,jap,plyg,sodomite,retarded or any other comment based on erroneous stereotypes of biggoted views they seem to not fit in on this blog. Thus I responded and felt it needed to be addressed. Lester might very well believe I am going to split hell wide open or that I am a sodomite that is his reality not mine nor do I believe that my father in Heaven sees me that way. I donated money sent emails,etc to try and do what I could for the flds. I could not accept what was being done to them. To see these little children seperated from thier moms and dads and the in justice in that upset me as a father,a Mormon and an American. I guess some of them might see me as a sodomite but I have no control over that. I have friends that are plural marriage, Mormon doctrine believers and they are fine with me. My challenge is trying to forgive the gentiles that have done this,the judge and the people behind what has happened. Even the baptists. That is my challenge and I am working on that. So once again sorry for my part in this

SB said...

Warren Jeffs attorney has filed something to try and keep evidence from Texas being used against him. It sounds as though there is something to hide.

Anonymous said...

johnlester: If I say he can't post with his tail between his legs (because he has been 100% wrong on how this thing would turn out), that means he is not posting because he can't show his face with any credibility.

If you took my post as literally as you take the bible, you would have seen that.

Anonymous said...

Willie Jessops had a meeting with a representative of the Utah AG's office.

In what may be a historic turning point, an FLDS church spokesman spent four hours Thursday with representatives of the Utah Attorney General's Office - a meeting both sides described as a small, first step toward more open communication.

Willie Jessop, spokesman for the polygamous sect, met with Kirk Torgensen, chief deputy, and several other staff members.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who traveled to Nevada on Wednesday to discuss the FLDS and other polygamy issues with counterparts from three states, did not attend the gathering. Jessop said he hopes for a future meeting with him.

"We've always seen him quick to the table when it's against the FLDS," Jessop said, who requested the meeting. "So our question is, what will Mark Shurtleff do?"

It was the first formal conversation between a representative of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Attorney General's Office since Warren S. Jeffs took over as leader of the church in 2002.

"We hope this meeting will begin to open doors," Jessop said, who came alone because of "uncertainty about how we'd be treated."

Anonymous said...

johnlester, I think you're giving yourself too much credit.

I'm talking about him because he's a tool, and was completely wrong.

Although txblues was a tool, he was more literate than Doran could ever hope to be.

I love internet outings. No matter what, there's no way to prove to you that you're wrong, and all it does is take away from discussing the issues.

But I'm just Governor Rick Perry, so what do I know.

kbp said...

Straight from the horse's mouth... the CPS web site!
"Eldorado Update: June 12, 2008

"The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) has received partial DNA results from the maternity and paternity testing ordered by Judge Walther. The results are being reviewed and analyzed to determine if the DNA results can help investigators in the multiple investigations determine if abuse occurred."

I have a copy of walthers' temporary custody order (sorry, can't share it). In it there are numerous orders still in effect. The only one not in effect is that CPS is "conservator" having actual custody. In part is states:

"4. Conservatorship

4.3. The finds that, due to uncertainty as to the identity of the parents of the children the subject of this suit [I guess all 440+!], the Court, by separate order, has ordered parentage testing. The court further finds that no Respondent alleged parent should be appointed as a possessory conservator of the child at this time pending completion and REVIEW of the results of such aprentage testing by the Court."

So, we have an Order still put in place under the shield of 'NO PARENTS get their children UNTIL walthers reviews testing to prove they are the parents', while now ALL children are with their parents and CPS is telling us the new story on reasons for that DNA testing. Can anyone spell RE-WRITE?

There is ABSOLUTELY no question why the DNA testing was ordered in the first place.

This was a plan from prior to DAY FIVE, when the 'save Sarah' raid began, using the SW obtained from the SECOND judge they begged to get it.


Original Reason 1 - Ordered to determine the parentage that may take POSSESSION of the child.

Revised Reason 2 - Ordered to help investigate for abuse (crimes!).

That should help any see the absence of "good faith" by the Court (walthers) for the order in the first place.

Anonymous said...

---"lowery.shirley said...
Warren Jeffs attorney has filed something to try and keep evidence from Texas being used against him. It sounds as though there is something to hide.
6/12/2008 09:24:00 PM"--

Lowery, where is there a report of this filing?
I have been questioning on my own blog why this hasn't been done already . .

And No, it doesn't mean there is "something to hide".

It means the documents and property seized were taken illegally by the state, and the state has no right to look at it. Every item that filled over 1,000 boxes should be returned to its rightful owners.

I don't see any reason to wait and see if the information gleaned from these papers will be used as a basis for criminal proceedings.

TxBluesMan said...


The restraining order only affects the CPS investigation of the Jessop family in the instant case.

I also wouldn't count on this being the end - Judge Tanner overstepped. There has been no transfer of jurisdiction from Judge Walther's court, and her court retains jurisdiction, see In the Interest of J.M.C., 109 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2003) no pet. and In the Interest of B.T., 154 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2004) no pet. Indeed, the SCOT infers that Judge Walther retains jurisdiction, stating:

"While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department's motion for emergency relief. The court of appeals' decision does not conclude the SAPCR proceedings." See In Re Texas DFPS, 51 Tex. Sup. J. 967 (Tex. 2008). The restraining order will be vacated by the 4COA.


Not hardly - if you had kept up with my blog, you would have seen that I've been traveling.

Also, someone (don't remember where, and don't care to spend time looking it up) indicated that this (Tanner) was another appellate smack down of Walther. Obviously that is not correct, both are District Court judges and neither has authority of the other.

SB said...

I was just doing a google search on Warren Jeffs. That information came up along with his recent sentencing information. If there were any discussions about this I missed them.

kbp said...


This is one of the various orders, according to the most recent order that released the children, that walthers left standing:

"4. Conservatorship

4.3. The Court finds that, due to uncertainty as to the identity of the parents of the children the subject of this suit, the Court, by separate order, has ordered parentage testing. The court further finds that no Respondent alleged parent should be appointed as a possessory conservator of the child at this time pending completion and REVIEW of the results of such aprentage testing by the Court."

That "separate order" is evidently just one later on in the same documents that mentions a multitude of "Required Information, including "genetic testing".

She looks to have tied her testing results to a specific objective, based on a ruling that was ruled out. It might be quite a task to keep from having that information suppressed in an unrelated criminal charges[s].

Just for humor, she scratched out Placement Restrictions from what is identified as an "April 9, 2008...Placement Order" and then a "April 12 Modified Placement Order", which would have came after the April 11 separation of the children from mothers! I am not aware of any such orders ever being rendered in the court. She had them ready for placement in areas "outside of the Courts judicial district" before that 14 day hearing.

Maybe she had that Temporary Custody order ready lonnnnng before the 14 day hearing also. This could get very, very interesting.

Anonymous said...

''... why would two individuals who love each other be "stomach turning" to you?''

Answer: sodomy.

Dude--not the biblical debate on it; rather, the act.


SB said...

Willlie Jessop's is cool. It's a shame nobody wanted to talk to him 30 million dollars earlier. And just look where this has led.

Anonymous said...

Blues: I was the one saying you probably weren't Doran.

Direct your attention to the other guy, please.

On a side note, just because you put something on your blog does not make it true, any more than your ramblings on this one have been accurate. That being said, I don't give a damn who you are, or are not.

Anonymous said...

"Dude--not the biblical debate on it; rather, the act."

Sounds like you are dwelling a little to much on that. Hmmm! that is telling in it self. Very strange comment DUDE!

Sorta like the folks that dwell on the intimate details in regards to plural marriage. I find the dwelling on such things by someone, especially on the internet just not something I want to be involved in.

SB said...

johnlester, You seem to have gotten in the last word so can the bs stop now?

If anyone is interested my last post contained a link to IL residents fighting back due to the FLDS case. A ruling from the US Supreme Court on how CPS does business seems to be on the horizon. Maybe we will find out if CPS will be held to the same Constitutional standards and any decision will affect all states.

SB said...

Yes?? And the subject matter of this thread is what?? And the owner of this blog is who?? Are you inviting everyone to leave who does not agree with this off-topic discussion?
No, you aren't the one who started it but you are the one who has beat it to death.
Of course I will be glad to leave. Discussion of the FLDS situation brought me here and there are other blogs where that is actually being done. Your very first post didn't sit well with me and additional postings have further diminished that first bad impression. I'm out of here.

Anonymous said...

Grits, didn't you limit Lester to three posts per day?

Anonymous said...

1."You'd think that, this being a Texas criminal law blog, you'd be concerned about cops in West Texas causing a resurgence in the Ku Klux Klan in America"

2."I said from the beginning to all the people VIOLENTLY opposing me on the SLC Tribune boards that they would eventually AGREE with me and, today, as evidenced by the Trib's thumbs up and thumbs down sentiment ratings, they obviously do."
3."I was one of those 449 that left those messages and Perry's "bitch at me from afar answering machine"
5.""Your sin, more than the sodomy act itself, is SELFISHNESS"
6."And, by the way, you're just selfishly pushing 'polygamy rights' to get what YOU want which is 'gay marriage rights."
7.having you begging for mercy or stamping off in frustration in less than one day.
Possibly less than one hour."
8."Rage, but why are you talking about him? He's not even postinh here right now. Are you trying to preempt him from returning?
Or do you miss him and you're trying to goad him into returning?"
9."I am going to reform your apostate church, however, that in its apostasy is producing the likes of you and every other sexual deviancy and whoredom known to man."
10."Unless you're claiming he's the anonymous posters.
PS Are you saying that I scared him off the other day? Probably so..."
11."Yeah, let's drop this abomination of a discussion of abominable subjects such as sodomy and sodomites"
12."lowery, get Hooked on Phonics."
13."If you don't like it, there's the door.In other words...
GFY, precious."
14."So if you can't READ, again, I suggest you get OFF THE INTERNET ENTIRELY for it is designed only fo those with REMEDIAL READING COMPREHENSION."
15."Now, Doran, I know for a fact that you're over on my board under the handle"Geez, what a SLIMEBALL.
I won't kick you off my board. I respect the right of an asshole to express him or herself now matter how sneaky and underhanded."
16."Man, it takes all kinds...don't you have anything better to do with your life?"
17.Or are you mormon4life as I speculated with one of my 3 FACT managers, yesterday, when you came on on at basically the precise same time that I invited you to debate the issue of sodomy/sodomites over on my board."

Dude, if you're the gay Mormon4life, and if you want to "get" at it, be a MAN, put up debating dukes, you're on my board, and let's go


"This condition manifests itself as an unwarranted tendency to interpret the actions of other people as deliberately threatening or demeaning. People with a paranoid personality disorder are suspicious of other people, and they are usually unable to acknowledge their own negative feelings towards others."

No I am not dorann,shirely,fred,oppie taylor or lassie!

What a great case study for a psych class> Is there a doctor in the house?

Grits, I love your blog but this guy is scary. Keep standin up for the rights of others. We need more people like you in this country. I hope all keep the plight of the FLDS alive. These things seem to lose interest to some and I hope that does not happen. Some take on a cause just to hear themselves and satisfy low self esteem. I do not feel that most here fall into that minority though. Thanks again!

Dale said...

A gay stalker huh? Man this is a crazy crazy world. LOL

Dale said...

A gay stalker!!! LOL

Anonymous said...

Since homosexuals are 'born' wanting to do sodomy--that being their distinction...why wouldn't any thinking person consider the act.

Or, are thinking people just supposed to think sodomy (the act) is wonderful too.

Gross, is definitely an understatement.

Anonymous said...

Since homosexuals are 'born' wanting to do sodomy--that being their distinction...why wouldn't any thinking person consider the act.

Or, are thinking people just supposed to think sodomy (the act) is wonderful too.

Gross, is definitely an understatement.

Anonymous said...

Good god johnlester, you are an effing idiot.

kbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kbp said...

cost Texas $14 million+

I'd guess most saw this, but I wanted to add that it was reported the state will be paying for foster care quite a bit longer. It seems there were long term contracts provided that the state will not be able to cancel.

kbp said...

Media campaign continues

This is a total whitewash of the authorities actions by the local paper.

kbp said...

Was DNA testing still needed?

6/2/08 Statement on Reunification Plan
CPS will verify the completion of the three forms as well as verify the parent’s identity and parentage of the child using photo ID, records, and/or staff visual confirmation. After the parent’s identity is verified, the parent will receive the child’s medical records, and the facility will retrieve the child and his/her belongings. Per the court order, before the parent and child depart, CPS will take a photograph of them and clearly identify everyone in the picture.

If there are questions and uncertainty in the verification process, CPS will refer to case documentation and consult with our attorneys. DFPS must confirm the parents’ or caregivers’ identity before any children can be released.

Looks like there was no need for genetic testing (DNA) after June 2nd, or DFPS failed to "verify... parentage of [ALL] the child[ren]" before they released them. There is no order for testing in a criminal investigation other than the SW for the sample taken from Warren Jeffs.

Anonymous said...

In April, lawyer Gerald Goldstein filed against the raid warrants in the 51st District court. Is that still ongoing, or what?

The last thing I can find is a news report around the 24th of April.

kbp said...

Goldstein filed a request for a hearing, on behalf of the FLDS church, to challenge the search warrants. walthers has a boatload of motions she never addressed in any way that I know of.

Absent a motion[s] becoming a reason to appeal her rulings or file a civil complaint, I'm uncertain of any thing that will result from her ignoring all of those motions.

I suppose it's possible that ignoring one or more of those motions or pleadings filed could lead to a complaint walthers will face at the Commission on Judicial Conduct or Texas State Bar (hope, hope, hope...!).

Of course the local cheerleading "staff" (chickens won't put their name[s] on the editorial!) at the GoSanAngelo paper still appear to be behind walthers 99% or more, as they tell their audience: "She made a few mistakes but handled it professionally for the most part, given the enormity of the situation."