Wiener of the Week

The WotW for this week is none other than Judge Barbara Walther, the incompetent fascist judge who this past week decided that, notwithstanding the fact that the call to CPS that triggered the whole FLDS fiasco was a fraud, the children seized by the Texas Stoßtruppen should remain in state custody.

Understand, the alleged "marriages" of girls under the age of consent to old horny bastards, if true (it used to be in this country that you were presumed innocent until proven guilty, in case you've forgotten -- our government certainly has!), are worthy of maximum jail time for the horny old coots.

But...and this is of paramount importance...EVEN HORNY OLD PERVERTS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

But Ms. Walther (trust me, she wants to be called Ms.) is apparently of the opinion that Constitutional protections are null and void when it comes to "protecting the children". She has that certainty of correctness so common among liberals. She "knows" that crimes have been committed, and they were committed against, gasp, THE CHILDREN! So screw the rights of these weirdos. The children must be protected against the statutory rape that certainly awaits them back at the ranch! Never mind that, statistically speaking, the young women among the group (particularly those ages 12-15) have a greater chance of being raped, abused, even killed in foster care than they ever had at the ranch.

But that's neither here nor there; with liberals, it's always intentions that matter, results be damned.

Judge Barbara Walther, you are, most deservedly, the Wiener of the Week.

Attorney-Client Priviledge

I happen to be a fan of the "cops and lawyers" genre of TV action fare. Mrs. Vulture and I watch The Closer, Criminal Minds, Law & Order, and Law & Order SVU faithfully. So we're sort of "up on" the terminology. The term "attorney-client privilege" comes up all the time, particularly in the "Law & Order" shows. For the most part I'm comfortable with the concept inasmuch as it is there to protect a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. But when something like this comes up, I have to question the ludicrous lengths to which the legal profession can distort and misuse privilege.

An innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in January 1982.

"In fact," the document said, "another person was responsible."
___

They knew, because Andrew Wilson told them: He did it.

But that was the catch.

It seems that Andrew Wilson was their client.

So...........can someone please explain to me WHY this precludes them from going to a judge and telling him, "Your Honor, we have exculpatory evidence that we cannot reveal without violating attorney-client privilege -- but we know for a fact that Alton Logan is innocent"? I mean, SURELY there must be some kind of work-around for these kinds of situations, wouldn't you think? A man's life was RUINED because these literalists wouldn't act. He has been in prison for a crime he didn't commit for 26-EFFING-YEARS!

Did they, in fact, do the right thing in putting their client's interests ahead of those of an innocent man? Am I wrong? Because what they did seems wrong to me. Morally wrong. Ethically wrong. Common-sense wrong.