Some new developments....
First here is a description of a term that appears in the linked article...
Suspending Discovery :
Suspends everything. Stops the process. Covers up the State’s lack of evidence to support probable cause.
and here is the article -
FLDS order: Judge Walther in Texas CPS con game with Charles Childressby Kurt Schulzke
Tonight, Judge Barbara Walther and U. of Texas law prof Charles Childress cackle quietly, together, in her chambers, while big media applaud Walther’s order severing the case of 330 FLDS children into mother-based groups. Meanwhile, other attorneys on the case stare in disbelief at yet another constitutional and ethical violation by Judge Walther and Texas CPS.
It is good that Judge Walther has finally accepted — at least superficially — that individual FLDS families are entitled to separate consideration. However, this order and the process that produced it carry distinctly bad news for the FLDS or for other Americans who believe in due process and the rule of law. Some of the bad news is this:
“Discovery” refers to the process whereby the FLDS parents and children get access to whatever evidence the State may have to justify the continuing presence of CPS in the lives of FLDS families. Ever since the State stole personal records and gather DNA samples back in April, it has refused to share that information with attorneys representing FLDS parents and children. Staying discovery allows the State to continue to stall and pretend is has evidence justifying the State’s refusal to allow the FLDS to return to their homes in Eldorado, Texas.
The worst news is that the entire, unconstitutional case against the 330 children in the order (yes, it is against the children) should have been dismissed, period, and was not. CPS or the Texas Rangers should be required to open new cases, one-by-one on the basis of individualized probable cause which, for most of these people, does not exist.
Why FLDS attorneys did not insist that Walthers hold a hearing on a motion to dismiss is itself worthy of some investigative reporting. I think a game theory dynamic has set in, in which individual attorneys are in a dysfunctional equilibrium, thinking they are best right where they are when, in fact, they are not. I don’t want to call it a prisoner’s dilemma, because unlike the classic prisoner’s dilemma, few or none of the FLDS hostages (they’re still hostages) have likely committed any crime. But equilibrium has set in, preventing individual FLDS attorneys from objecting to Walther’s crimes against the Constitution.
This is a perfect illustration of Justice Harriett O’Neill’s collaborative, therapeutic justice* approach to CPS cases: CPS and the courts working together in blatant disregard of essential constitutional checks and balances. Judge Walther secretly signed the severance order on Thursday, July 24 — while Harry “Wormtongue” Reid distracted the FLDS in Washington — and held it back until just after noon on Friday.
It came as a complete surprise to the AALs representing the FLDS kids. One remarked, off the record, “I bet the press release failed to mention the suspension of discovery or that this was all ex parte with no notice to any of the attorneys.”
Ex parte, for non-lawyers, means in essence, “talking to only one side of the case.” Judges are not supposed to do it. Fundamental to our Constitution is the idea that all parties to a case must be given the right to be there, participating when any other party communicates with the judge. The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(B)(8), flatly prohibits ex parte communications (see below).
Only Texas CPS knew that Charles G. Childress (one of Harriet O’Neill’s fixers) had delivered a motion to sever the cases and stay discovery. As with Harry Reid, in Washington, no one but the anti-FLDS Texas CPS had any opportunity to be heard on the merits of the CPS motion. Her Honor just signed the order, kids, parents, Constitution and statutes be damned. Her first love is Texas CPS. The order and her excuse for “process” prove it. (Childress, by the way, having trained the AALs against whom he will now litigate, has taken over as lead Texas CPS counsel on the FLDS case.)
The order means that hundreds of children, mothers and fathers will remain in limbo — unable to disprove their guilt (that’s how things work in a CPS case, not just in Texas) — for as long as Judge Walther wants them to be there.
Not for the last time, let me say: Every father and mother in America should be afraid, very afraid. This could just as easily happen to you. And no one would hear you scream because you would be all alone.
If you’re interested in know how Judge Walther is supposed to behave, take a close look at the following excerpts from the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, with special attention to Canon 3(B), Section 8:
Texas Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 3(B)
(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
(6) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
(7) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status against parties, witnesses, counsel or others.This requirement does not preclude legitimate advocacy when any of these factors is an issue in the proceeding.
(8) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties between the judge and a party, an attorney, a guardian or attorney ad litem, an alternative dispute resolution neutral, or any other court appointee concerning the merits of a pending or impending judicial proceeding. A judge shall require compliance with this subsection by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control.
http://iperceive.net/flds-order-judge-walther-in-texas-cps-con-game-with-charles-childress/