tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post5267135899725781004..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Rounding up news on the Great Eldorado Polygamist RoundupGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-17090620825113497792008-05-27T22:51:00.000-05:002008-05-27T22:51:00.000-05:00Otoh, Could it have been Dan Fisher?Headmistress,E...Otoh, Could it have been Dan Fisher?<BR/>Headmistress,<BR/>Even though Fisher has worked with the law I think referring to him as an informant would be a mistake on their part. <BR/>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.<BR/>I believe this is the only way it could have happened.SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31657801023450594132008-05-27T22:33:00.000-05:002008-05-27T22:33:00.000-05:00Doran,I read the opinion, I just disagree with you...Doran,<BR/><BR/>I read the opinion, I just disagree with you that it was the correct standard and ruling.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Damn - I wish I had thought of that angle. It would be a typical move by the SCOT....TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40716332370396389672008-05-27T22:01:00.000-05:002008-05-27T22:01:00.000-05:00Yeah, they will agree with the 3rd on the law, but...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8398467306022759732008-05-27T21:41:00.000-05:002008-05-27T21:41:00.000-05:00Doran"I fully expect the Supremes to partially uph...Doran<BR/><BR/><I>"I fully expect the Supremes to partially uphold the 3rd, but to stay the release of the kids. "</I><BR/><BR/>Is this what you meant to write?kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14098578338794531582008-05-27T18:24:00.000-05:002008-05-27T18:24:00.000-05:00Ron and Tx. Did you guys (?) even read the damn op...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?<BR/><BR/>In 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. <BR/><BR/>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.....<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66513318239786712662008-05-27T18:02:00.000-05:002008-05-27T18:02:00.000-05:00Of course you think McCown is right, bluesman! I'm...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?<BR/><BR/>You'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.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65775436159871612582008-05-27T17:43:00.000-05:002008-05-27T17:43:00.000-05:00tx, not if SCT finds it wasn't all one house. Then...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.<BR/><BR/>There 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-18269585267902624472008-05-27T17:06:00.000-05:002008-05-27T17:06:00.000-05:00Doran,McCown has it right.The 3rd Court of Appeals...Doran,<BR/><BR/>McCown has it right.<BR/><BR/>The 3rd Court of Appeals opinion reads like an interlocutory appeal, not a <I>mandamus</I> action.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I believe that the SCOT will reverse the 3rd Court.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-59435539002680702722008-05-27T16:49:00.000-05:002008-05-27T16:49:00.000-05:00Greg SaganThanks CKI'm not big on editorials, but ...<A HREF="http://www.amarillo.com/stories/052708/opi_10403770.shtml" REL="nofollow">Greg Sagan</A><BR/><BR/>Thanks CK<BR/><BR/>I'm not big on editorials, but it's good to read touch on <I>"what role the law can, should and will play in the defining and enforcing of family values"</I>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-57556226575939903902008-05-27T16:44:00.000-05:002008-05-27T16:44:00.000-05:00Sur-ReplyThe latest filed by TRLA<A HREF="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08039105.pdf" REL="nofollow">Sur-Reply</A><BR/><BR/>The latest filed by TRLAkbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68019197370424987652008-05-27T16:32:00.000-05:002008-05-27T16:32:00.000-05:00Charles Kiker here:I'd like to add a link but I'm ...Charles Kiker here:<BR/><BR/>I'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 5/27/2008Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76083208330615102762008-05-27T15:33:00.000-05:002008-05-27T15:33:00.000-05:00To: Lowery-Shirley"Surely some strong civil right...To: Lowery-Shirley<BR/><BR/>"Surely some strong civil rights leaders will emerge from this mess. I am watching for individuals who stand out above the rest."<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Where is Rev. Al...where is Jesse?<BR/><BR/>Where is Romney, McCain, Obama, or Hilliary? 3 being senators yet-running for pres., being silent, while a state takes 460 children at gunpoint.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I still can't believe this is happening in America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-48349491296965402502008-05-27T15:06:00.000-05:002008-05-27T15:06:00.000-05:00Perry's days as governor are limited. His list of ...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.<BR/>Surely some strong civil rights leaders will emerge from this mess. I am watching for individuals who stand out above the rest.SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24591501202074547022008-05-27T14:47:00.000-05:002008-05-27T14:47:00.000-05:00I do have to wonder if SCOT can somehow skate by u...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.<BR/><BR/>Maybe 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.<BR/><BR/>It's over my head!kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67296353074904663672008-05-27T14:34:00.000-05:002008-05-27T14:34:00.000-05:00Thanks RonIt's difficult to dispute the idea there...Thanks Ron<BR/><BR/>It's difficult to dispute the idea there was NOT evidence without having the transcripts and evidence entered for the hearing.<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/><I>"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?<BR/><BR/>To be taken from their environment would be worse, the psychiatrist says."</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>- Was the YFZ a single household?<BR/><BR/>From the 3rd's Opinion:<BR/><BR/><I>" The Department argues... the entire Yearning For Zion ranch community is a "household".... <BR/><BR/>"There is no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household..." <BR/><BR/>"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."</I><BR/><BR/>If the SCOT can get past that, they may be able to give a general reason that shows Walthers could have found that;<I> <BR/><BR/>•Interviews with investigators revealed a pattern of girls reporting that "there was no age too young for girls to be married";<BR/><BR/>•Twenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen;<BR/><BR/>•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;<BR/><BR/>•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; <BR/><BR/>•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;<BR/><BR/>•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<BR/><BR/>•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.</I><BR/>was reasonable enough as evidence that there was an imminent danger of physical harm or safety for ALL the children.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-77565494692966001412008-05-27T14:31:00.001-05:002008-05-27T14:31:00.001-05:00Ron, I thought they found there was no evidence fo...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?Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54540625709220943702008-05-27T14:31:00.000-05:002008-05-27T14:31:00.000-05:00The informant has never been on the ranch and is a...The 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.<BR/><BR/>Otoh, Could it have been Dan Fisher?Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19724582846032287072008-05-27T14:04:00.000-05:002008-05-27T14:04:00.000-05:00Headmistress, there is a 2004 photo of sheriff Dor...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".SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-60841604415578183472008-05-27T13:51:00.000-05:002008-05-27T13:51:00.000-05:00Louisa gets her children...for now anyway,I was di...<A HREF="http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9392810" REL="nofollow">Louisa gets her children...</A><BR/>for now anyway,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><I>"Rumors had swirled over the weekend about the busloads of witnesses DFPS might have been planning to bring to Tuesday's hearing. <BR/> "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." <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/> State attorneys did bring a stack of documents about 4 inches thick, which Matassarin said she has not been able to review."</I><BR/><BR/>For some reason(!), I expect any witnesses, if any came, and the paper work was more of the S.O.S.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33169858164497968432008-05-27T13:42:00.000-05:002008-05-27T13:42:00.000-05:00For those who are interested:Since mandamus only l...For those who are interested:<BR/><BR/>Since 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Ron in Houstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02496306119920809104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-28174521836599625732008-05-27T12:58:00.000-05:002008-05-27T12:58:00.000-05:00This Reply to the Response, by the CPS crew, read...This <A HREF="http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08039104.pdf" REL="nofollow">Reply to the Response</A>, by the CPS crew, reads like a circle jerk the way I see it. <BR/><BR/>The oral would be:<BR/><BR/><B>Bench</B> - <I>"What is the reason you should keep the children for now?"</I><BR/><BR/><B>CPS</B> - <I>"To keep the children safe from the criminals."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Bench</B> - <I>"What evidence is there that they are criminals?"</I><BR/><BR/><B>CPS</B> - <I>"Their 'beliefs' and the parentage records should show us there are criminals."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Bench</B> - <I>"How can you prove that now?"</I><BR/><BR/><B>CPS</B> - <I>"By keeping the children for levarage to force the mothers to prove it."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Bench</B> - <I>"What is the reason you should keep the children for now?"</I><BR/><BR/><B>CPS</B> - <I>"To keep the children safe from the criminals."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Bench</B> - <I>"What evidence is there that they are criminals?"</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I do need to keep in mind it is only addressing the immediate desire to keep the status as it is.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-70900173880921410572008-05-27T12:16:00.000-05:002008-05-27T12:16:00.000-05:00No ACLU brief filed today?No ACLU brief filed today?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-28627046480883739952008-05-27T12:13:00.000-05:002008-05-27T12:13:00.000-05:00Unfortunately, my previous link to the BeldarBlog ...Unfortunately, my previous link to the BeldarBlog is to the middle of it. It is important to not miss the beginning and its conclusions.<BR/><BR/>"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."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22130615486754404022008-05-27T12:06:00.000-05:002008-05-27T12:06:00.000-05:00Ron in Houston, I interpreted the appeals court as...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.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I make to claim to being a lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-34514747110033223842008-05-27T12:03:00.000-05:002008-05-27T12:03:00.000-05:00To Ron in Houston:Will you expand a bit on why you...To Ron in Houston:<BR/><BR/>Will 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com