Friday, March 13, 2009

Merrianne Jessop to be returned, UPDATED, Texas has no clothes.

How can Texas maintain they "saw abuse" at the ranch when they didn't given any names in the second warrant (update, specifically, the affidavit of Ruby Gutierrez) UPDATED, per the Salt Lake Tribune, the hearing to place Merrianne will come in May.
In a filing in a San Angelo, Texas, court, CPS lawyers are now seeking to have the girl removed from foster care and placed with a relative. In a filing obtained by the Deseret News on Thursday, CPS said that it still has a goal of reuniting the girl with her mother, Barbara Jessop, but asks to continue as temporary 'sole managing conservator of the child.'

CPS conducted a home study on the woman, 51, who is a second cousin once removed, and moved to Texas from Utah.

'She indicated that since she had provided placement for other children involved in the YFZ Ranch case and was able to cooperate with CPS, she felt that she would be able to assist in the care of (the girl),' CPS caseworker Ashley Kennedy wrote in a report filed with the court."
This is the state of Texas hanging on by it's fingernails. Clearly a good deal is going on behind the scenes that we don't see.

Getting back to that second warrant (affidavit of Ruby Gutierrez), empty of names. Teresa Steed was the only child that could have been listed as abused and listed in some way, in the warrant affidavit, that gave Texas continuing cause. I suspect strongly that the unsealing of the warrant affidavit is related to the release of Teresa. Imagine a conversation in which it is stated that Texas had no cause to have Ms. Steed under suit in the first place. Texas claims "She's PREGNANT, that's our CAUSE" and lawyers for Ms. Steed and the FLDS say "Show me where you saw that, if you have her under suit as a result of discovering her in the second search, then it was none of your business, if you have her identified in the second sealed warrant and it's affidavit, well, then, you got us."

Teresa Steed is not identified in any way shape or form in the second warrant affidavit, and for that matter, no one is. Some kid(s) (number and names unknown) are malnourished. Some kid(s) are poorly educated. Some kid(s) believe it's OK to marry young. Some kid(s) are pregnant.

No one is named. No one is described. There isn't even an attempt to do so.

What we have here is a failure to see anything, and being at YFZ for no reason. There is no Sarah. There is no Dale Barlow (at least in Texas), there is nothing seen at all while Texas wanders about YFZ looking for evidence. Texas panics further and starts busting down doors and breaking things and running off with computers, books, Bibles and Books of Mormon to save their butts.

At this point, if they can't find anything they are exposed. Well, now they are exposed.

Merrianne Jessop was not malnourished, pregnant or illiterate. She is either married in fact, or betrothed to Warren Jeffs and Warren was in jail, far from YFZ.

They have NOTHING.

There is a rumor that they are trying to place a child not legally a citizen of the country at the time of the raid, under suit. That would be the child Teresa Steed was pregnant with at the time of the raid. That's truly strange.

Unless there is a birth certificate somewhere (entirely possible) in the United States, it may very well be that Teresa Steed's child, is not even a citizen of this country. Or at least, that's possible.

Sphere: Related Content


Anonymous said...

From DN: "Her experience in the FLDS Church is not as enmeshed as most in that she married a man who was a convert, she has several family members who have left the church and six of her 11 children have left the church."

I hope the FLDS in general take offense at these words and use them in their general civil rights law suits to come. What Kennedy is clearly implying here is that full-fledged members of the FLDS church are not to be trusted with children. This is clear evidence of bias and class discrimination.

Anonymous said...

I think the affitdavits attached to the second warrant(?) have some names of children interviewed. But other than Sarah Jessop, no actual names appear in the warrant as you say. This shows two things: 1) they weren't confidant enough in the case workers' interviews to put the names of the discovered victims on the warrant; and 2) if they had put any of the actual children's names on the warrant, the warrant would then fall apart at the seams because the question will arise: "why if you have identified live victims, who have identified their nuclear families, did you not create warrants for those particular victim's families and their living quarters? Why do you need a blanket warrant covering possibly dozens of innocent families and individuals, when you have identified through investigation (presumably legally done, but we know otherwise) who the particular victims are?

The Pharisee said...

I would say that those affidavits need to be seen. Supposedly, and I may be confused here, Barbara Walther unsealed the warrant I refer to in this post, this month. If it was sealed, we hadn't seen it before. That unsealed affidavit of Ruby Gutierrez has no names in it, not even specific descriptions of the children supposedly involved.

They don't even bother to "tag and bag" them as it were. Namely, they could have photographed the children and given them a case number or some such documentary back up, but they don't. This means to me that they were not at all confident that they had found any specific instances of the abuse they allege.

It is instead a cover document, generalizing the various sins they expect to find in any large group of children, because statistically, when the number gets large enough, they always find some such abuse, in some quantity.

The Pharisee said...

Someone has quibbled correctly with the naming of Ruby's affidavit as the "warrant." However, the facts pointed to cannot be the cause of the continuing search IMHO because they involve things obtained in that continuing search.

To my knowledge, someone (I trust)correct me if I am wrong, Ruby swears her affidavit on the 5th, a Saturday, and the document that mentions names also has "strike throughs" for things like pubic hair and blood, things found as a result of the search.

I still maintain they had no specifics until they searched, the second time. Something that can be disproven by producing a document to the contrary.

I am and have always been an advocate on the FLDS side of the issue, and like a lawyer in the courtroom, I ask for proof to disprove what I assert.

So far, I haven't seen it.

Unlike a lawyer, I have no case to formally prove, and as a result can say, when confronted with the facts, "Oh, you're right, I'm wrong."

But I will have to have that explained to me as I have not yet had it explained to me.

Anonymous said...

This is what I was referring to above:

The Pharisee said...

Yeah, that's on my list of reading materials this weekend. I may have to take back part of what I said....

I scanned it, and one of the things in that document, if I recognize the URL you're referring to, is a crossed out reference to blood and pubic hair.

If that's the case, that cannot be the basis of a second warrant, because it's the result of that search.