Friday, July 25, 2008

Walther splits the FLDS custody cases. What does that say about the warrants?

It would seeem now all the cases are individual. Individual by mother, individual by child. They are grouped by mother. This is a concession that the "one household" theory is a bust. The San Angelo Standard-Times;

"(Judge Barbara) Walther split Case No. 2902 - which included more than 300 children - into 110 cases grouped by mother, and Case 2903, which included more than 30 children, into nine cases, also grouped by mother. They join 125 cases filed separately by the state's Child Protective Services agency, which removed nearly 440 children from the sect's Schleicher County compound in early April."


It's on a Friday afternoon, which means they don't want to talk about it. You dump something you want to hide on a Friday afternoon, or you dump a rumor you want to have maximum effect on a Friday afternoon. You also rule in an unfavorable way on a Friday afternoon so that it's two or three days before it's effect can be appealed.

I think this means the first warrant is swept aside completely. This also has implications for the second warrant, since the Texas Rangers were at the YFZ Ranch on the basis of the first warrant and searched the whole ranch as a single household. These are now all individual cases.

UPDATED THOUGHTS: This is also a prelude to dropping any claim to the vast majority of the children, which is the GOOD news. The BAD news is that we will soon see which children then intend to keep. In all honesty I think it's possible that there won't be any. One of these Friday afternoons, perhaps even this one, a good deal of them will be dropped. Maybe they don't want to give the parenting classes after all. I've alays had the distinct impression the parenting classes were just necessary window dressing. Drop these cases now, and you don't have to hold as many of them, it's a budget/enthusiasm thing.

We then move on to a criminal phase, and it's back to the warrants issue. I can't honestly see how Walther holds that together, or any subsequent judge does in a criminal proceeding. Up until now we've dealt with the rather liberal interpretations of law permitted in the supposedly "civil" action that custody is. Transferring the evidence of the raid to a criminal case is dicey.

Sphere: Related Content

5 comments:

adam said...

I've been saying all along the warrants were too broadly scoped. Too bad Walther can't go back and split the warrant into 119 different warrants, not that she'd have grounds to do that anyways.

leongoodman said...

So when do the people get their personal papers and possesions back? All these things were stolen by the state in the raid. I would be upset if someone came in and trashed my house and kept my stuff.
Can they go home now? I bet they miss the fresh raw milk, cheese and eggs.
It looks like it would be cheaper for everybody to just set up a double wide trailer at the ranch and just process everybody there. I would suspect it is just a rubber stamp operation for 90% from here on out.

Boise Leon said...

So when do the people get their personal papers and possesions back? All these things were stolen by the state in the raid. I would be upset if someone came in and trashed my house and kept my stuff.
Can they go home now? I bet they miss the fresh raw milk, cheese and eggs.
It looks like it would be cheaper for everybody to just set up a double wide trailer at the ranch and just process everybody there. I would suspect it is just a rubber stamp operation for 90% from here on out.

TxBluesMan said...

Adam,

The warrant was not too broad - see Coram Non Judice for the case law on this. You also need to be aware that the warrants don't have anything to do with the civil suit by CPS - they will be an issue in the criminal prosecutions, not the civil ones.

Leongoodman,

They'll get the papers back when they are no longer needed as evidence in the criminal cases - but both Utah and Arizona are seeking to take possession of the evidence when Texas is through with it.

Hugh said...

Blues,

It's simple, you can't keep digging forever. I've asked you on more than one occasion, with no real reply, what the second warrant was based on.

Supposedly it was based on seeing a crime or crimes in progress at YFZ, something we now know to be utterly untrue.

The indictments handed down this week have nothing whatsoever to do with ANYTHING that was seen at YFZ by Rangers on the premise.

The indictments have everything to do with running off with all the papers and records of the FLDS and combing through them until a POSSIBLE crime could be found.

That means that the warrant was for nothing. Law enforcement is not allowed to simply break into someone's home on faith, believing that if they can look at everything they own, they might find a crime.

Now, TELL ME, what crime did the troopers see while at YFZ?