Posted on 06/02/2008 3:48:58 PM PDT by hocndoc
ELDORADO, Texas -- Hours after signing an order releasing FLDS children from state custody, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther arrived at the Schleicher County Courthouse in Eldorado to swear in a grand jury that may be considering indictments related to the polygamous sect.
By the end of the day, 18 indictments had been issued, although no details were immediately available. The number was more than the usual; it is more typical for five to 15 indictments to be returned, a court clerk said.
Walther arrived at at the Eldorado courthouse at 12:30 p.m., accompanied by two bailiffs and her court clerk. She left an hour later.
Allison Palmer, the deputy district attorney for Tom Green County who has been leading the office's investigation into the sect and appearing at related hearings, also was at the courthouse.
Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran was unavailable earlier in the day because he was meeting with the DA's office, a spokeswoman said.
In a story published Saturday by The Los Angeles Times, Doran indicated criminal charges were pending, while downplaying reports that FLDS members had requested voter registration forms and could influence county elections.
"Once we begin impaneling some grand juries and the criminal case comes to light, we'll see the tide turn once again," he said.
It could be days before the focus of any of Monday's indictments are known; the county's policy is not to release information about indictments until they are served.
News of the grand jury's meeting circulated among members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, creating concern about returning to their homes on the YFZ Ranch.
A raid of the ranch that began April 3 led to the removal of some 450 children, who were eventually placed in shelters throughout Texas. Walther signed an order on Monday morning that allowed them to be returned to their parents immediately.
Last week, Arizona and Texas authorities collected DNA samples from Warren S. Jeffs, the sect's leader. He is jailed in Kingman, Ariz., awaiting trial on charges related to marriages he conducted between underage girls and older men.
The search warrant said the evidence was needed as part of a new investigation of four spiritual marriages between Jeffs and girls who range in age from 12 to 15.
In Texas, the Attorney General's Office is awaiting results from 599 DNA samples collected six weeks ago, mostly from FLDS adults and children living at the YFZ Ranch, located just outside Eldorado.
Nice jump there Mr. Knievel...
I hope you are not a betting person. I actually happen to be a strong 2nd amendment "cold dead hands" type, so me thinks they will have a little effort draggin' me to a gulag.
I think we are a we bit away from all that kind of mess, the current state of affairs not with standing....
See you 'round the old bunker, keep an eye out for the black 'copters...
OK, you have babbled on and on without saying anything I can decipher. I can’t figure out what ,if anything you are trying to say. So, I guess your final sentence is a good place to start to try to understand what the heck it is you are trying to say.
“There is a middle ground between anarchy and tyranny, and the Founders left it up to us to stay there. “
What the heck does this mean? Please decipher.
If that needs deciphering for you, given the lead in posts, then I can’t help you.
“Schools: Local Control, But Little Local Money” was written in 1998. Here’s an update:
Until the year 2000, all of the children in Colorado City AZ attended public schools. But then the FLDS Prophet ordered the faithful to stop all contact with heathen and apostates — which meant anybody who is not FLDS. So about 650 children left the 950 student system. Even though all the church’s children left, the School Board has remained 100 percent FLDS. Remember this as you read.
Most of the remaining students were from polygamist families also, but they belonged to a smaller, dissenting group called the 2nd Warders — apostates, doomed to hellfire — who live three miles away.
This is a very poor school district, and the board never tried to build its own schools. Instead, they leased space in buildings owned by the FLDS church. After the edict in 2000, the district did not need as much space, so even though some leases were paid up for several years in advance, the board relinquished most of it. Now the church has that space for its own schools.
Every negotiation was a sweetheart deal which favored the FLDS church at the expense of the taxpayers.
Next, the school board pleaded poverty to the newly created Arizona School Facilities Board. The facilities in Colorado City were indeed bad, so in 2001 the state built them a new $6 million K-12 school, and the taxpayers paid for it.
At about the same time, Arizona launched a program to provide a financial cushion for schools in the event of a rapid decline in enrollment — something usually caused by a major employer shutting down. After the FLDS suddenly removed two-thirds of the students, the Colorado City district qualified. They have received about $1.5 million per year for the past three years under this ‘rapid decline’ program, and will for three more years — about $9 million total. So we paid again.
FLDS teachers were forbidden to teach the heathen and apostate kids, so most of them moved to the new church schools. Most other employees stayed, and the public school district remains the largest employer in the area. It still has 100 employees, for only 300 students now — an outrageously high 3 to 1 ratio.
Every student is now bussed to the new school from outlying areas. And guess what — all the school bus drivers are FLDS who kept their jobs and earn an average salary of $30,000. The teachers earn less than $20,000.
Starting with the Prophet’s edict in 2000, the FLDS have crafted a scheme that defrauds Arizona taxpayers on several levels, and it seems that nobody even realizes it. Or nobody cares. Within two years, accusations would be leveled that FLDS leaders abused the school district treasury to provide unneeded jobs, new vehicles, credit cards, school supplies and other perks to help FLDS church members support their huge polygamous families.
District School Supt. Alvin Barlow has been in his job longer than any other superintendent in the state, so he¹s knowledgeable. Incidentally, he also has four secretaries and four administrative aides. Barlow goes to state surplus property sales and gets school equipment and supplies on the cheap, then shares them with the FLDS church schools.
One of the perks of being a public school official in Colorado City is free transportation. The district owns 15 vehicles (mostly big SUVs, vans, and pickups) which are assigned to various administrators and principals who happen to be FLDS. They¹re supposedly for official business, but they get a lot of personal use with the district paying for fuel, maintenance, and insurance. Free use of a large vehicle is a great benefit for a polygamist family.
This little 300 student district also bought an airplane last year — a Cessna 210, for $220,000 — so the officials can get to meetings easier. Then they contracted with the son of the school board president to fly it for them.
Pot, kettle, black thing- re-read the post I was replying to.
Funny thing is I agree with much of what you just posted. The thing I have noticed on these threads is most of us agree more than we disagree. The problem seems to be the shreiking, accusatory posts that attempt to silence all discussion. When reasoned discussion is allowed the shreiking far out there posts really stand out for what they are.
I do not for the life of me understand the animosity on these threads. This is a free country and if I want to discuss legalities of the actions or some of the actions taken in this case why does it anger some so? I think we all need to keep an eye on our authorities- that doesn't mean we don't want them, need them, support them, or whatever. It means we are concerned that they do their job, and do it properly. It also means we would like to understand how and why they are doing what they are doing.
In case you haven't noticed, in this country we are not in the habit of rounding up hundreds of children. That action caught my eye simply because it is so unusual- in fact I have never even heard of such a thing happening before. I immediately wondered what circumstances would bring about such a thing- curiosity and my interest in legal matters made me want to discuss it. It has been very hard, because for some reason many here think if you question anything about this case you must support FLDS- or the actions they are accused of.
I do not see why on these threads we cannot discuss what we choose to about this case. From the beginning it has been the goal of some to silence others- why? Reasoned discussion and debate with others is a whole lot better way to find out why they think what they think- which usually leads to better understanding.
Anyone that hasn't come to these threads dripping venom for FLDS, and out for the all out desctruction of this group and everyone in it by any and all means possible- legal or not has been attacked. That is crazy.
Forgot to add this to my post:
After several investigations and a litany of complaints, on May 9, 2005 Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano quietly signed into law a bill that allowed state education officials to take over the Colorado City Unified School District from religious leaders.
First people want them to live more “normal” then shreek if they want to register to vote. Makes no sense to me.
You are so right. Both in your sarcasm and in the point that it does appear most of the authorities do seem to be doing their jobs now. Amazing this all couldn’t have been handled this way from the beginning instead of the dramatic round up.
Due to several hints dropped by media lately, I think some of the indictments center around Warren Jeffs. I think he will soon be facing new charges. If one or more men at that ranch are charged with “marrying” having sex or what have you with a minor I imagine he will be charged as an accomplice. There have also been hints dropped that evidence may show illegal relationships that Jeffs himself had that had not come to light before.
Interesting. Somebody else has posted that Texas changed its age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2005, I think.
There seems to be some evidence of the majority changing the rules in order to discourage the activities of the FLDS. Given how recently the age of consent might have been 14 in Texas, it's hard to get too excited about the impact of the recent change.
The shear magnitude of this operation is indeed what has made it remarkable. If it had been a single family, the CPS would be seen as operating with in the confines of their mandate.
Did CPS over react, that will be debated for years, and probably for no real reason since the likelihood of an duplicate occurrence is slim. This has not opened the pit to tyrannical hell, we leave that to Congress right now.
I am as conservative as anybody, and while I appreciate libertarian views, I am far from being a right wing extremist, I am not anti government, just though I am anti government stupidity. Like Regan said, libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism. But it is also not it's sum total, there are other consideration in a large society such as ours. We have to have some order of business.
From that one has to understand that the first order of business in Child Protection is, well, child protection. When there is any doubt in CPS operations, the call is always on the side of the child, then it is left to the lawyers and prosecutors and courts to wrangle the details. it does always work even in small individual cases. This one was a whopper.
We can all haggle the details now that we are past the initial point, but on that day, at that hour, given all the information at hand, including the doubts, the ball was called in favor of getting the children out of a suspicious situation and then sorting it out, just as CPS agencies do day in and day out.
The great irony is that there has not been a question of Constitutionality in the proceedings, just one of the magnitude of the threat via the stands of Texas CPS. The are people on both sides of the issue of all political stripes going back and forth over this in courts both legal and public opinion.
In the end it is a hell of a situation and both side bear responsibility, but above are we all bear responsibility to those least able to defend themselves.
One last point of agreement I have with you. You are right, we need to let it rest solely on legal merits. In that regard there are still points of disagreement. Did CPS act correctly or not. Very knowledgeable people have shown a wide variety of opinions on this. I can easily see how this action could be an indicator of government abuse. If it was happening daily as a matter of course I would agree myself. The uniqueness of the case IMHO has to allow some latitude on both sides. This is the stuff case law is made off. As you know, most of our law come from prior actions and precedent. This one is already making the jurisprudence rounds as we speak. I expect some changes in the law to be forth coming, again more than likely favoring neither side, but something down the middle.
Do you believe that children should be able to enter into and commit themselves to life-time contracts? Do you believe that parents should have no control over them or that parents should have complete control, even to binding them to marriage in their early teens?
At what age do you see this happening, 5, 10, 15 years old?
How far would your license for children or for their parents go? Do *you* have no limits?
it doesn't always work in, even individual cases, this one was a whopper...
Trigger finger was a bit enter button happy...
Strawman bullcrap. I’m not wasting my time.
You know DAMN WELL that is not the central issue, nor does it have a damn thing to do with my position or the point I made.
Yes, initially charged individually.
Yes, a likely individual trial if they can each individually afford a decent attorney. Otherwise, your "individual" assessment maystop there. The prosecution can actually choose to process 1 to 2 dozen at a time if it's the same crime. It's happened & many court precedents exist.
Why is it that you seem to believe that this group needs special treatment...
I don't. Whenever mass arrests have occurred for the same crime, the prosecution tends to look to processing folks as smaller groups.
On the CPS side, it's no different than law enforcement pulling over a bus of 50 passengers if a shot was fired from its midst. You can have 49 innocent passengers & 1 guilty one & all are detained if they can't readily identify the shooter. If folks choose to travel in a bus instead of a car, unfortunately they may get temporarily lumped in with the guilty.
Or if you're a "legal" Mexican-American citizen not carrying your ID & you're in a van of illegals heading off to a job site & you're involved in a road rage highway incident, don't be surprised if you're hauled off with the illegals until you can be properly identified.
We really do have a system in place to deal with this just fine- we don't need to reinvent the justice system to be able to handle whatever crimes they may have committed. I am not being flip here- I really don't understand what your point is, would you please explain?
First of all, most of the initial "group" actions that folks have railed about has been the actions of the CPS. (And may I remind you that the CPS does not = our "justice system"...go take a primer in what our "criminal justice system" is).
People have constantly confused the "go-on-the-offense team" (prosecutors, law enforcement investigators) with the "prevent defense" folks (CPS). Those are two separate entities. The CPS isn't designed to make in-depth investigations; that's the formerly mentioned folks. The CPS, while being a part of the complaint process, doesn't bring charges; that's the formerly mentioned folks.
Detectives of gang-based juvenile crime deal with group-based criminal activity all the time. (Why is that so beyond folks' thinking?) Go ahead. Go talk to them. They'll sit down with you (on their calendar).
Detectives can tell they know exactly which gangs are producing which types of crimes in their cities. The difficulty is not usually identifying the gangs behind the behavior, but which thugs are carrying it out and amassing enough individual evidence or caught-in-the-act arrest processes.
So, what? (You wanna tell these detectives to stop approaching crime then on a group basis? Really?)
Now, let's apply a hypothetical parallel situation to law enforcement/CPS entities, shall we?
Let's say instead of a...
...compound, we have a live-in clubhouse out in the desert.
...cult, we have a gang.
...statutory rape allegations, we have gang rape allegations.
If a female goes into a broader community & lures somebody into a gang clubhouse situation to set up a rape, that's criminal behavior. That's a conspiracy. If people in that gang don't participate in a rape, but they cover it up, that's also part of a cover-up conspiracy. If a victimized girl or woman remains in that situation, that is an active threat which can't wait on a multi-week or multi-month investigation from law enforcement officials.
I think the weight rests upon others to explain how this situation is distinct from gang activity that involves aiding and abetting before & after the fact.
“The great irony is that there has not been a question of Constitutionality in the proceedings, just one of the magnitude of the threat via the stands of Texas CPS. The are people on both sides of the issue of all political stripes going back and forth over this in courts both legal and public opinion.”
I have seen lots of arguments on this board about the constitutional issues with taking adults into custody.
And this morning, it turns out that one woman is actually 37, and will turn 38 tomorrow. She was held as one of the “underage mothers.”
Again we have to take a snap shot of what occurred that day, not what happens with ever increasing hindsight. It is easy to be an after the fact expert. That day will be the point of study for the legal experts. That debate is far from over, as is this case. Indeed both sides may well be doing the back stroke...
"Do you know how old I am?" Sarah said Monday. "I'm 37 years old tomorrow! I kind of thought, well, as much as I don't like what you are doing, that is one of the nicest compliments. I had to either laugh or cry, and so I laughed."
There is mention of a 27 now 28 year old as well. Could be the same person given the quality of reporting on this case. As I understand it once the age was verified she was allowed to leave.
Again, it is a question of what was happening on that day, not after the fact.
You are correct, in that the reporting has been wildly inaccurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.