Want to know what a West Texas-style warrantless entry looks like when cameras are rolling? Click on the picture (right) to watch how a big, bold Texas mounty kept a straight face, last April, while telling an FLDS mother that she wasn’t entitled to see the warrant that he admits doesn’t cover her home. Imagine being one of the little children in this scene. Disgusting that the people of Texas countenance this sort of thuggery. It is a world away from that of Justice Potter Stewart.
Schulzke Brief- For the good of investors, FASB should withdraw its loss contingencies disclosure draft
- Citigroup bows out of Wachovia talks . . . finally
- Why is Judge Ramos pushing a Wachovia-Citigroup marriage?
- Wachovia responds: Citigroup violated confidentiality agreement
- Wachovia-Citigroup letter: Non-binding agreement to agree
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
Little Benny 08.22.08 at 1:49 pm
Absolutely sickening. It makes my blood boil. What kind of filth can keep a straight face while trampling over this constitutional right of an individual?
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 1:59 pm
Are you ignoring the fact that the officer advised that it was served on the person in charge of the ranch and that it was for the entire compound?
Kurt, your headline is misleading and inaccurate. I would expect this type of propaganda from Bill, but as an officer of the court, you know better.
rikitikitavi1 08.22.08 at 2:05 pm
TBM, now the state is arguing the opposite, that the Ranch is made up of separate residences & Barbara Jessop has no right to complain about “evidence” found in places other than her home. So which is it? All one residence (one warrant) or separate residences (multiple warrants)? The state can’t have its cake & eat it too.
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 2:11 pm
TBM –
At least I don’t hide behind a pseudonym. I put my reputation on the line with every word I write.
It was a warrantless entry. The officer who spoke to the mother seemed to know it — couldn’t quite get his mouth around that “we don’t have to show it to everybody” line. Right.
The ranch was no more a single residence than any apartment block in Houston. And we have the State of Texas admitting as much, repeatedly, since the 14-day hearing.
K
marttie 08.22.08 at 2:29 pm
I don’t think the mounty was really aware of how he was being used until he arrived at the ranch.
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 2:36 pm
Kurt,
I use a psuedonym for personal reasons. You chose not to, but that doesn’t negate my right to do so.
We disagree on whether the warrant validly covered the entire property, but we’ll find out on appeal.
This is the type of initial post that Anthony was referring to as a cheap shot - there was clearly a warrant that specifically covered the buildings on the ranch. It may be overbroad (I don’t think it is, but that issue is still open), but there was a warrant.
To say that there was not is disingenuous.
I still love your blog, and will continue to try and bring you back from the Dark Side….
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 2:36 pm
marttie –
Maybe. But how’s that any different from a German soldier who gets ordered to a railway station not knowing he’ll be responsible for making sure Jews get on the train?
K
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 2:44 pm
K,
So now we don’t need to show mens rea for the officers?
Gee, since they have the same rights as others that are accused, are you saying that we don’t need to prove that for the FLDS also?
TBM
marttie 08.22.08 at 3:25 pm
Kurt, not much but german soldiers couldn’t walk away. Could mounties?
kbp 08.22.08 at 3:47 pm
“…This is the type of initial post that Anthony was referring to as a cheap shot”
LOL!!!
Now TBM knows exactly what Anthony was thinking and is certain Anthony ignored or approved of half of the posts on his own blog going after people!
I guess he thinks any post that criticizes the people that make comments, versus the position they take in their comments, is NOT “cheap shots”.
Evidently in his own mind TBM is above that.
Kurt, you post such cheap shots!
kbp 08.22.08 at 3:55 pm
Speaking of THAT warrant…
Jeffs lawyer says he’ll challenge search in Texas
“Attorney Mike Piccarreta told a judge at a court hearing in Kingman that he will challenge the search because it was based on a call that Texas authorities should have known was a hoax.
“They proceeded to search the premises nevertheless,” Piccarreta said in an interview after the hearing. “And there are also a whole assortment of constitutional errors by the Texas authorities and we intend to raise each and every one of them.”
And my favorite part:
“I believe the search is illegal and unconstitutional, even by Texas standards.”
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 5:47 pm
“Even by Texas standards.” Yep. That says a lot. As the Stanford v. Texas case shows, Texas has a long history of playing fast and loose with civil rights. Must have something to do with that strong KKK ethic — especially strong right there in San Angelo, TX.
TBM — I think if you very carefully watch the video and listen to what’s being said, an objective jury could conclude that the police officer knew that his warrant was a sham — both lacking in PC and too broad in scope. He couldn’t even keep his terminology straight, alternating among “residence, compound and ranch.” And he was dealing with just a frightened woman sitting her home with her children. What a big, brave, macho guy that officer.
marttie — Damn right, those police officers could have and should have refused to carry out that warrant, just like Johnny Griffin refused to sign it. Every police officer in the United States swears an oath to defend the Constitution above all else. And these boys — too focused on their allegiance to fellow officers and Judge Walther — failed to keep the faith with the Constitution.
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 6:00 pm
TBM —
By the way, funny you should mention mens rea. My crim law prof in law school was Ellen Podgor. She was a serious socratic method teacher. Had everyone in the class represent a crim law term so that any time the term came up in class discussion, that student had to say the term. Mine was “mens rea.” Fond memories.
K
Hugh McBryde 08.22.08 at 6:50 pm
Face it folks. TBM is a sadist and is in law enforcement because he gets to see so many people chained and cuffed and forced to do things against their will.
He gets excited when he has an opportunity to see someone bow under the force of law, he gets angry when someone presumes to limit that power. It’s very consistent on his part, and frankly, it’s pretty sick.
duaneh1 08.22.08 at 7:17 pm
Kudos to this poor woman who had the prescience to point out that this was a “different residence” than the one it was originally served to. Then the trooper says “it deals with the entire compound”, how convenient.
April 38 08.23.08 at 6:14 pm
What a cruel farce. One would think THEY thought they were arresting mere buildings in the compound, not living, breathing, terrified children.
How can these “officers of the law” look themselves in the mirror without breaking it — or slitting their throats, for that matter.
Officers of the law? In this case, that should read “officers of the lawless.”
cheese 08.23.08 at 9:39 pm
Hugh, Blues isn’t in law enforcement he’s an attorney. He’s also a good reader! I just wish he had more of a love for the Constitution and religious freedom than he does. I wish he loved our ‘used to be’ Republican form of government instead of the so called ‘democracy’ that we have now where ‘religious freedom be damned’ the majority rules and they want all these little people gone!!
Chris 08.24.08 at 9:01 am
I don’t think it’s fair to call him sadist, even if all the things you said are true.
Chris 08.24.08 at 9:04 am
Cheese,
Could you please explain what a Republican form of government is? And the “so called democracy”?
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 10:55 am
Chris, first, nothing Hugh says is true, and he believes that there is nothing wrong with having ‘marital’ relations with a 12-year old.
Chris 08.24.08 at 11:02 am
Sorry I should have clarified that I didn’t think the thing he said were true.
Jeny 08.24.08 at 11:09 am
“TxBluesMan { 08.24.08 at 10:55 am } Chris, first, nothing Hugh says is true, and he believes that there is nothing wrong with having ‘marital’ relations with a 12-year old.”
Why are you a snarky ass when it comes to those you disagree with?
Just curious.
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 8:11 pm
Jeny,
Hugh believes a number of things that are demonstratively false. Both Ron and I have pointed out the errors of his legal analysis, for example in the area of standards of proof. We have provided the statutes and the case law to show the correct interpretation, but he continues to insist that the law is wrong.
Hugh has said numerous times that there is nothing wrong with marrying and consummating the marriage of a young girl that has had menses, including a 12-year old. Although he states that he would obey the civil law on this, the thought is disturbing.
He is, of course, free to believe anything he wants as long as he does not act on it, and I have no reason to believe that he has acted on it.
I disagree with many others, like Kurt, in a more civil manner. While we disagree, each can see the points of the other.
Some one told me 08.24.08 at 8:25 pm
One more tidbit. As you watch the video and see it pan wildly around, the camera person was trying to get a shot of the “Texas Cowboys” who were holding the unarmed Father of the home face down on the floor with M16 rifles pointed at his head in front of his little kids. She wasn’t able to get the shot and the “law enforcement” confiscated the camera, but not before this mother, like a magician, smoothly exchanged cards in the camera and slid the one with the data up her sleeve.
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 8:51 pm
Texasbluesman, You should not assume that Warren Jeffs consumated his relationship with Merriane Jessop. CPS knows that you and long with a lot of people would assume that marriage was followed by sex. I will point out that it would have been to the advantage of CPS to claim she had been raped and they did not say that. CPS conspired to with Judge Walther to fix the case by suspending the right of discovery. You claim that Hugh ignored abuse but the emotional abuse of Merriane Jessop has left you unmoved.
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 10:30 pm
Thomas,
I don’t assume that Jeffs sexually assaulted M. Jessop. I’m saying it doesn’t matter - whether the illegal marriage was consummated or not does not affect the status of the marriage. In Texas, there is no requirement for consummation to complete the marriage contract.
Either way, her mother encouraged M. to commit delinquent conduct (felony), and could not be trusted to protect her. I am extremely sorry for M. - it is terrible that her parents would take actions that cause this to happen to her.
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 11:15 pm
Im saying that it does matter. There’s no sex and there’s no abuse.
TxBluesMan 08.25.08 at 9:57 am
Thomas,
Texas doesn’t agree, and their opinion is the one that counts…
Just wondering 08.25.08 at 12:59 pm
So, If no sex then an allegation of a religious ceremony constitutes abuse in Texas?
TxBluesMan 08.25.08 at 1:24 pm
Just wondering,
Would you consider it abusive if a mother encourages her child to commit a burglary? Or another felony?
Just wondering 08.25.08 at 2:24 pm
I would, but that is beside the point. If no sexual abuse is committed, is religion not protected by the constitution in Texas? I asked if a religious ceremony is considered abusive in Texas. I understand some people completely submerse children in water as a religious rite. Is that not protected by the constitution?
Just wondering 08.25.08 at 2:31 pm
Do you consider it abusive for a mother to encourage her child to participate in that?
Thomas Forguson 08.25.08 at 2:54 pm
Txbluesman you are evading the point. CPS and their favorite judge said nothing about Merriane Jessop being raped. If there’s no sex, there’s no abuse.
TxBluesMan 08.26.08 at 11:42 am
Thomas,
Fortunately, the State of Texas disagrees. Your opinion, while interesting, doesn’t matter.
Joey 08.26.08 at 1:19 pm
Funny how the judge and CPS can say she’s in danger, without specifying *what kind* of danger.
R 08.26.08 at 2:35 pm
It’s interesting how TBM, who loves to repeatedly declare how little he cares about what people outside Texas think, spends so much time on blogs by people from Georgia, Montana, and elsewhere in the country. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Just wondering 08.26.08 at 2:49 pm
So, TBM What you are trying to say is “Yes, in Texas a religious ceremony does constitute abuse.” and as you say “fortunately” you also believe religion should not be protected.
TxBluesMan 08.26.08 at 8:20 pm
Wondering,
It doesn’t matter if it is a religious ceremony or a so-called civil ceremony by one of the Republic of Texas nuts. It’s still illegal, and either case should be prosecuted.
TxBluesMan 08.26.08 at 8:21 pm
Joey,
You might try to read what the law says - oh, wait - you haven’t been very successful in that regard, have you?
Thomas Forguson 08.26.08 at 8:44 pm
Txbluesman that child was emotionally abused by the inhumane caseworkers who demonstrated a total lack of compassion for her. That is not fortunate. She is all alone without any family, firends or members of her religion neerby. That is not fortunate. No matter how outrageous the conduct of the authorities, you always find a way to condone it. That is not fortunate. My opinions do matter. The good people of this country are with me. That is fortunate.
Just wondering 08.26.08 at 9:22 pm
The constitution specifically states that ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..” Notice the little word “an” it does not say “the”. Is not a religious ceremony an establishment of religion? Yet TBM states that “It doesn’t matter if it is a religious ceremony … It’s still illegal, and … should be prosecuted.” Did I miss something or is Texas not part of the Union?
-Just wondering-
Just wondering 08.26.08 at 9:27 pm
I believe that any rational being would have to admit a parent has the constitutional right to encourage her child to participate in a religious ceremony. M’s mother committed no abuse. M’s captivity is illegal.
Joey 08.26.08 at 9:55 pm
TBM has just informed me that all it takes TERMINATE someone’s PARENTAL RIGHTS in Texas is Clear and Convincing evidence. Geeze. Great. That passes muster in Walther’s court. Never mind of what. Clear and Convincing (nothing near beyond a reasonable doubt) evidence that Merrianne will be abused? Was abused? How abused? Did I just wake up in the Twilight Zone? They don’t need a reason to take your kids, as long as you’ve had a bad rap in the media (or from your ex or the neighbor), you’re guilty. I just can’t believe how easy it is to lose your kids these days. Maybe people don’t treasure them enough, and that’s why they let CPS get away with the equivalent of murder.
I’ll tell you who treasures their kids though, deeply religious, ultra sheltered groups like the FLDS. Their kids are all they have, their only joy in life. The pain must be unbearable.