Cost is NOT a factor, including your freedoms....

The Three Piggies and Warren

Does Government not care what rights or treasure of yours it takes to expand it's power? Does a former drill instructor make a really bad therapist?

The money, while it is probably a prodigous amount, is not important to the State of Texas.  Texas thinks it's probably some amount YOU would think is inappropriate, considering the lack of prosecutorial success (vs Warren) elsewhere.

How do we know it's too much?

They'd tell you if it was cheap.  (Either that, or they don't know, which ought to bother you as well.  Strickland says he doesn't know.)

It doesn't matter to Texas, they got their desired photo op. Not Warren as depicted in the last post, but Warren in prison sweats and prison orange with what looks like a bit of a 50+ five o'clock shadow, in irons, flanked by fat pigs dressed in their best.

Oh.

You think I meant something pejorative?

Those guys aren't a bit porky looking to you?

Considering Mr. Jeffs is more or less a cardiologists ideal by comparison, Texas did need to "weight" (sorry, no, not really) the photo op in their favor.  I've been driving through Texas a lot recently and they are the most cliché bound bureaucracy I know of. "Don't Mess with Texas" one Government billboard preaches, and yet another declares; "the Eyes of Texas are upon You."

So when it comes to whether or not Texas will spend infinite amounts of Tax Payer $$$ to get a picture of Warren looking his worst with a three overweight cowboy wannabes flanking him like he was going to shoot his way out of the "joint," or be rescued by "King Willie, the Thug," gangster style, they spare no expense.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said they flew Jeffs into San Angelo from Utah at 9 p.m. Tuesday night and then drove him to Big Lake.

'Attorney General Abbott and his office his prosecutors have been handling the prosecution of cases related to the YFZ ranch,' Strickland said, as he walked into the courtroom Wednesday morning. '... Today 7 of 12 men have been convicted of sexually assaulting children. This case stems from that action.'

When asked about costs related to trying Jeffs in Texas, Strickland said he doesn’t have specific numbers, but that cost is not a factor.

'What I do know is, Attorney General Abbott is committed to protecting children in this state,' Strickland said. 'You cant’ put a price tag on protecting children and because of that, this case will be handled with prosecutors (from) the AG’s (attorney general’s) office.' "

The great difficulty is that they are not just spending your tax dollars (and with the "co-mingling" of Federal and State money that is Revenue Sharing, yes, it's yours too), they're spending your freedom as well.

Texas wanted to make this "statement" as you see above, and Texas wanted their picture. Now they've got it. In the process they ran roughshod over Warren's right to a "speedy trial" (it doesn't matter if he didn't want it before, he wants it now) and they got to treat him like a fugitive. No one in Texas wanted a Dapper Warren Jeffs showing up in wing tips and business suit, with stylish coiffure, fatherly appearance, etc, walking through the front door and surrendering to authorities, they wanted to fly him out and drag him around much like Achilles is supposed to have done with Hector after defeating him in battle.

Well, there you go Texas. And America? There went your money, though granted, it was mostly Texas dollars (except they won't account for it), and there went your freedom, with Warren. You have to decide: Does the prosecution of a man for crimes Texas probably can't prove warrant the setting aside of the rights your founding fathers insisted on having for each citizen PRIOR to signing our Constitution in favor of the rights of the State to extradite?

I think you know my answer. What's yours?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Smaller and Smaller. The incredible shrinking list of possibly abused children.

We're rapidly approaching the point where even Texas it admits it was wrong twice as often as it was right.

The Deseret News - "Texas Child Protective Services filed to have another child from the Utah-based polygamous sect officially nonsuited, ending court jurisdiction over their case. Friday's filing brings the number of cases nonsuited to 287.

Approximately 439 children were taken into state custody during the April raid, when CPS caseworkers and law enforcement responded to the YFZ Ranch on a phone call alleging abuse. The children were returned to their families two months later, when two Texas courts ruled the state acted improperly and the children were not in any imminent danger."

6 more kids and it will be 293 nonsuited versus 146 still under the gun. 146 x 2 = 292. How low will it go and how soon? Fairly soon we will be able to see just how many candidates there were for the "kids with kids" lie and I don't think the picture will be pretty for Texas. We should be asking questions.

How many of the remaining 152 are girls? What is the age distribution? Do any of them have children? You can believe that if there are kids with kids (we know there are not) then they are all still under court supervision.

The number is beginning to become fairly manageable. If the distribution is normal, and not weighted towards boys or girls then we have about 76 girls left. If they are distributed normally by age then we have about a third of those in child bearing range. That's about 25.

Were ANY of these remaining, approximately 25 or less girls "seen" with kids or pregnant? I believe the answer is already "no" but it can now be asked of Texas in a "manageable" way.

Are there any 13 year old girls under court supervision? The answer will be "about" 5. Are any of them pregnant or were any of them pregnant and do they have children? The question repeats itself for 14, 15, 16 and 17.

More →

Sphere: Related Content