[updated] 'Feeding my kids is not selfish': Defiant Texas salon owner sentenced to seven days in jai

[musiclady]

Why?  He needed to vacate and expunge the penalty.

Yes!

[libertybele]

Sorry, but the judge never proved that the governor's order was actually lawful.

Just because a governor orders something does not mean it is within the law.

There is something called constitutional law and constitutional liberties.

The governor can overturn an execution, I would think that Abbott was in his rights and authority.

[LegalAmerican]

Now that same Supreme Court needs to look at removing the pugilist Judge.

I say look at ALL his other cases, to see his BIAS and un-American beliefs.  That is a COMMUNIST.

[LegalAmerican]

Sorry, but the judge never proved that the governor's order was actually lawful.

Just because a governor orders something does not mean it is within the law.

There is something called constitutional law and constitutional liberties.

Are you kidding?   You think this biased, bigoted judge is ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES?
Did you even read what you wrote?  What everyone is upset ABOUT?

Right, there is something like that and THIS WOMANS, RIGHTS & LIBERTY WERE TRAMPLED ON!   The judge has a personal ax  to grind, on white people.  ( or axe...)   

[Idiot]

Abbot has shown a willingness to vacate the jail, but the $7K fine stands. And, as @roamer_1 rightly points out, that should be lifted as well, and the Judge needs to be forced to apologize to her for his dressing her down and demanding she apologize for feeding her kids, and the families of her employees.  After that, the Judge needs to be sacked, by whatever means the State of TX does it.

My relative worked for the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct several years ago.  Even if a judge did something really horrible all they ever got was a slap on the wrist.  So don't expect anything to happen to this judge, unless of course they get voted out of office.  Considering the DFW area, not likely to happen.

[LegalAmerican]

The governor can overturn an execution, I would think that Abbott was in his rights and authority.

Right on!  Governor has higher authority than the bigoted judge.  He needs to be removed from his position. I bet we would find ALL kind of abuses by his 'authority'.  I can guarantee it.   How do I know?  LOOK AT THIS CASE. 

[Cyber Liberty]

So, it's up to Judge Moye when she is actually released, because the writ gives him until after the seven days are up.

Pretty slick!

[LegalAmerican]

The Judge Who Locked Up the Dallas Salon Owner Has a History of Violence

https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/michael-berry/content/2020-05-06-the-judge-who-locked-up-the-dallas-salon-owner-has-a-history-of-violence/?fbclid=IwAR0LfsfR_3L-hhie_rmNOBErRn8IRuLTytYxm5ahbmmQblgZDjmthm-gtxk

Good find. This judge is a BULLY!   
----------------------------------

Devin Akin

Replying to
She did the right thing and should be willing to do it again - as should we all. These orders are unconstitutional and a gross power overreach by leftist whackos.

[mountaineer]

Why?  He needed to vacate and expunge the penalty.

Did he have that statutory authority?

[Elderberry]

Dallas Salon Owner Who Was Jailed for Reopening Is Released

NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/dallas-salon-owner-shelley-luther.html

Hours after Mr. Abbott’s statement and the court’s ruling, Ms. Luther walked out of the Lew Sterrett Justice Center on Thursday afternoon to a crowd of supporters, who waved signs and chanted, “Shelley’s Free!”   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, I don't know that the judge has to "prove" anything.  But, see, this is what I mean. We are looking for "justice" against the judge, looking to force him to make it right and IMHO that's not going to happen.   This is why I say, let it go.  He will get his someday.

By the way, I've said the same thing about Hillary.  She will never formally answer for her misdeeds.  But in some way, I think she is paying for them and will pay for them in the future.  I believe something similar will happen to this judge.

A judge indeed must prove there is an existing law that he must refer to that covers the charge of the prosecutor.

Otherwise, he is declaring he is the authority no matter what.

[Lando Lincoln]

Did he have that statutory authority?

Truth is, I don't know. 

[sneakypete]

Guys, in a perfect world, the judge would vacate the sentence, apologize and what not, but in the real world I doubt any of these things will ever happen.  So I for one am going to be grateful Miss Luther can go home to her family, reopen her shop and hopefully, get back to some kind of normalcy and maybe put this all behind her. 

While I've seen a lot of people step up and do good in a crisis, there will always be those who won't.    This judge showed no mercy.  Technically, he might have been right for enforcing a governor's order, but like most judges, he had some leeway as to how to deal with Miss Luther's situation.  He chose to be a hard *bleep*.  Well, I happen to think somewhere along the line, his callousness will come back upon him.  Someday, he might be looking for forgiveness or leniency himself and he may not get it. 

So I say, let it go.

Mods:  Sorry if the above borders on religion, but I happen to think most people, regardless of faith (or of no faith) know what I'm talking about and have a similar viewpoint.    But I'll accept it you disagree and delete the above.

@Applewood

In complete agreement,and I am probably not the most religious person on this web site.

The time to quit fighting is when you have won the fight. Given the LtGov paid her fine and she ended up with a cool half-million in the bank and was set free,I'd have to say she,and the people of Texas are the clear winners here.

[Applewood]

@Applewood

In complete agreement,and I am probably not the most religious person on this web site.

The time to quit fighting is when you have won the fight. Given the LtGov paid her fine and she ended up with a cool half-million in the bank and was set free,I'd have to say she,and the people of Texas are the clear winners here.

Thanks @sneakypete   

[Cyber Liberty]

@Applewood

In complete agreement,and I am probably not the most religious person on this web site.

The time to quit fighting is when you have won the fight. Given the LtGov paid her fine and she ended up with a cool half-million in the bank and was set free,I'd have to say she,and the people of Texas are the clear winners here.

Well, except for the part about her having a criminal record now.... Judge got what he wanted...he "dirtied her up a bit."  Judges and Cops just love to do that.

[sneakypete]

Well, except for the part about her having a criminal record now.... Judge got what he wanted...he "dirtied her up a bit."  Judges and Cops just love to do that.

@Cyber Liberty

How long do you think that is going to last when the Governor has already admitted he was wrong and the LTGov paid her fine and they ordered her released?

She will have a lawyer petition the court to remove the conviction,and it will quietly be done.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

How long do you think that is going to last when the Governor has already admitted he was wrong and the LTGov paid her fine and they ordered her released?

She will have a lawyer petition the court to remove the conviction,and it will quietly be done.

They can expunge all the want, and it will still cause her trouble because it will remain on her record.  Don't ask why I know that.

[Applewood]

They can expunge all the want, and it will still cause her trouble because it will remain on her record.  Don't ask why I know that.

I don't know about in Texas, but in PA "expunge" means the conviction is gone -- like it never happened.

Thing is, someone has to make sure the record is indeed wiped clean.  I know of a local case where a man's record was to have been expunged -- only about a year later, he applied for a job and was turned down because he had a felony conviction.  Huh?  Seems whoever was to eradicate the record did not and the conviction showed up on a background check.  The man sued and won a boatload of money in damages from the county.    From then on, certain safeguards were put in place to make sure it doesn't happen again.  As far as I know, it hasn't.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't know about in Texas, but in PA "expunge" means the conviction is gone -- like it never happened.

Thing is, someone has to make sure the record is indeed wiped clean.  I know of a local case where a man's record was to have been expunged -- only about a year later, he applied for a job and was turned down because he had a felony conviction.  Huh?  Seems whoever was to eradicate the record did not and the conviction showed up on a background check.  The man sued and won a boatload of money in damages from the county.    From then on, certain safeguards were put in place to make sure it doesn't happen again.  As far as I know, it hasn't.

Expunging the court record is one thing, and clearing the police records is quite another.  The Judge dirtied her, and that was his untouched victory.  She has a record, her fingerprints and likely DNA are not part of the Police database.  If she gets stopped for rolling a stop sign, the cop who stops her will be able to see it.  This is the shit rotten cops and Judges live for. 

A good days work, on the part of the crooked Judge.

[Smokin Joe]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but there are two other levels here which show lack of discretion, that being the arresting officers and the prosecution. There are other parts of the food chain hiding behind the arrogance of this judge.

[Cyber Liberty]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but there are two other levels here which show lack of discretion, that being the arresting officers and the prosecution. There are other parts of the food chain hiding behind the arrogance of this judge.

Absolutely correct, Joe.  It takes teamwork to be this bullet-headed.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A judge indeed must prove there is an existing law that he must refer to that covers the charge of the prosecutor.

Otherwise, he is declaring he is the authority no matter what.

A cursory Texas search brings up "Government Code, Title 4. Executive Branch, Subtitle B. Law Enforcement and Public Protection, Chapter 418. Emergency Management, Subchapter A. General Provisions."

Among other things, Sec. 418.002 says: "The purposes of this chapter are to: (1) reduce vulnerability of people and communities of this state to damage, injury, and loss of life and property resulting from natural or man-made catastrophes, riots, or hostile military or paramilitary action[.]"

Section 418.012 says, "Under this chapter, the governor may issue executive orders, proclamations, and regulations and amend or rescind them.  Executive orders, proclamations, and regulations have the force and effect of law."  In the context of executive orders, the law gives the governor the responsibility "for meeting the dangers to the state and people presented by disasters."

In our context, the governor's authority is based upon dangers presented by disasters and catastrophes.  The question of whether the state is currently experiencing a statewide disaster or catastrophe under Texas law is merely the threshold; the answer, even in the affirmative, doesn't resolve the question of whether the business lockdown order proclaimed by Greg Abbott is valid.

Interestingly, the Texas governor may "commandeer" private property, if necessary, to "cope with a disaster," but that power is subject to compensation of the citizens harmed.  A shutdown order is effectively the government commandeering the relevant businesses without just compensation.

It turns out that the Texas law specifically protects property rights and Second Amendment rights.  Section 418.003 prohibits the "seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition[.]"

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right and arguably an unalienable right.

The right to work to earn a livelihood is without question an unalienable right.  The government cannot take away that right.  Many in government want to take away the right to bear arms, but their efforts against the Second Amendment have led to conditions, not elimination.  Likewise, the government has no power to suspend or eliminate the right to earn a living.  With regard to the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment could, at least in theory, be abolished.  On the contrary, prior to lawfully suspending the right to produce income to survive, the government would have to first repeal the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/05/governor_greg_abbott_has_a_pen_a_phone_and_a_tank.html

[Smokin Joe]

Abolishing the Second Amendment would still not abolish the Right, only the enumeration thereof.

It is, and ever has been the natural Right of anyone to defend themselves, others, and even their property with the best means available, and when necessary, lethal force. Ultimately, the means employed to administer that force are merely a detail, but with the consideration that the application of force may be mandated by someone bearing arms of any nature, or simply by overwhelming physical power, the means to meaningfully resist should be denied to no one. Regardless of form, those tools of defense can and must be the best available in order for those with the greatest disparity in physical ability between themselves and the attacker to successfully defend themselves. 

Even without the protections of the Second Amendment, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would fall under the penumbra of the Ninth Amendment, to wit:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...as would the Right to work and feed one's self and family.