The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
Oh that is awesome.rtschl wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 1:25 pm Mark Davis of 660 AM here in Dallas posted the following statement on Twitter from her attorney Warren Norred. Twitter is not letting me copy the link to Mark's feed (emphasis mine):
Atty #WarrenNorred on #HabeasCorpus writ that sprung #ShelleyLuther: "She's in contempt of a temporary restraining order. TRO generally has to have a bond. If you want to tell somebody they can't work you have to put up a bond for the amount of money that you are denying them."
#ShelleyLuther attorney #WarrenNorred on the #HabeasCorpus ruling that sprung her: Court failed to post a bond indemnifying her against lost income as a result of temporary restraining order. No bond, no TRO. No TRO, no contempt. Quotes to follow. #FreeShelleyLuther
Probably none of them have read (and understood) the book "Unintended Consequences."AndyC wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 2:16 pmThen any responses/consequences will be on their heads. This whole shebang has had a useful effect in flushing/spotlighting the would-be tyrants.Jusme wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 2:06 pm Left wing Governors, mayors, sheriffs, etc. have gotten a taste of autonomy, and will be loathe to cede that power.
Grayling813 wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 3:28 pmProbably none of them have read (and understood) the book "Unintended Consequences."AndyC wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 2:16 pmThen any responses/consequences will be on their heads. This whole shebang has had a useful effect in flushing/spotlighting the would-be tyrants.Jusme wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 2:06 pm Left wing Governors, mayors, sheriffs, etc. have gotten a taste of autonomy, and will be loathe to cede that power.
In addition, I would like to know if the contempt of court charge was because she refused to tell the court she was selfish and sorry for what she did.TreyHouston wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 8:07 pm Can someone explain this to me? From what I understand she was sent to jail for contempt of court. The judge did not rule on her case. The Texas Supreme Court stepped in and ordered an immediate release from jail pending acceptance of her case.
How can the Texas Supreme Court debate taking her case if the case hadn’t been ruled on. Can another court overrule a contempt of court? This is very confusing
I believe you are correct that it was Contempt of Court for Violating the Temporary Restraining Order. But per my post above from her attorney: Court failed to post a bond indemnifying her against lost income as a result of temporary restraining order. No bond, no TRO. No TRO, no contempt.TreyHouston wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 8:07 pm Can someone explain this to me? From what I understand she was sent to jail for contempt of court. The judge did not rule on her case. The Texas Supreme Court stepped in and ordered an immediate release from jail pending acceptance of her case.
How can the Texas Supreme Court debate taking her case if the case hadn’t been ruled on. Can another court overrule a contempt of court? This is very confusing
I believe the judge said he would waive the jail term if she apologized for being selfish and admit she was wrong. But I think the Contempt charge was for violating the Temporary Restraining Order.03Lightningrocks wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 8:10 pm
In addition, I would like to know if the contempt of court charge was because she refused to tell the court she was selfish and sorry for what she did.
Ahhh... OK. I was thinking if it was for refusing to kiss his royal highness behind it would be a real bad deal. Thanks for the info.rtschl wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 8:20 pmI believe the judge said he would waive the jail term if she apologized for being selfish and admit she was wrong. But I think the Contempt charge was for violating the Temporary Restraining Order.03Lightningrocks wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 8:10 pm
In addition, I would like to know if the contempt of court charge was because she refused to tell the court she was selfish and sorry for what she did.
I want to be fair, but I don't think your far off the mark there.03Lightningrocks wrote: Thu May 07, 2020 8:43 pm
Ahhh... OK. I was thinking if it was for refusing to kiss his royal highness behind it would be a real bad deal. Thanks for the info.