Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Other side effects of Teresa Jeffs' release. She WAS a HOSTAGE.

There probably won't be any challenge to the use of the 5th amendment or forced testimony on the part of Merril or Willie Jessop.
In addition, it shows clearly that she WAS a hostage. Once her useful value was used up, she was released, and her "captor" or "kidnapper" (Malonis)as it were, was left standing high and dry without so much as even a "thank you."

Walther knows she's gotten all she will get is the way I read it. She was never concerned for Teresa Jeffs safety or well being, Teresa Jeffs was currency, a bargaining chip.

Looked at that way, all the other remaining suits involve bargaining power as well. They will be released when their value goes to zero, not because of any threat to them. Texas never cared about the children, they only saw the children as a means to an end. They really did kidnap the children.


Sphere: Related Content

6 comments:

ztgstmv said...

The children were treated with anything but compassion. There are photos of CPS workers yelling at the kids on the truthwillprevail site. Natalie admits to "speaking harshly" at Teresa (which we know was really yelling at her); and Kurt Schulzke and TBM put their support behind this unprofessional and uncompassionate behavior.

The children and some adults from YFZ were absolutely prisoners of war and were treated as such.

And if Merrianne ends up staying years in foster care, she might end up a streetwalker like all the other girls turned-into-hos who get processed in the scam on taxpayers, called Child Protective Services.

TxBluesMan said...

And I stand by my position that sometimes you need to speak harshly to a client, in the client's own best interests.

There is nothing unprofessional nor uncompassionate in that, to the contrary, it can be both the most professional and compassionate act possible.

The Pharisee said...

I agree completely Blues, however that's not what was done here. She was cast aside like Tamar, after Amnon was done with her.

cheese said...

Yes, blues you stand behind that and it shows what a saprophytic and eukaryotic filamentous organism you are! I'm not justifying yelling at any child whatsoever. I think it's out of order but what do I know about raising children? So tell me, you think it's ok for CPS to take a parent's child because the parent yelled at the child, but it's ok for 'them' to yell at the child because it's 'in the childs best interest'? You're nothing but a fraud, Blues!

David Friedman said...

"And I stand by my position that sometimes you need to speak harshly to a client, in the client's own best interests."

Usually a lawyer's client is someone who has chosen to employ that lawyer. In this case the "client" is someone who was compelled by the state to be "represented" by that lawyer. That's a very large difference, and makes the use of the term "client" in this context at best misleading.

Carol said...

YAY Cheese!