Kurt Schulzke looks at Judge Conn's order

"(Judge Steven) Conn is a funny man." Indeed he is, and another good writer, just like Warren's attorney, Michael Piccarreta. I was going to blog on this today, and might still do so, but Kurt at "Contraries" beat me to it.

"Judge Conn’s order is a significant procedural victory for Jeffs and, possibly, FLDS defendants in Texas courts whose attorneys, I am told, are (or soon will be) sifting through 12 terabytes of discovery data provided by Texas prosecutors. This order, if carried out, will force the State of Arizona to explain why evidence seized by Texas authorities at YFZ should not be suppressed in Warren Jeffs’ upcoming trial. The fact that Arizona is fighting the suppression hearing suggests weakness in both Arizona and Texas cases against FLDS defendants."

Read it all. I'm not sure I can observe relevant things, that good a attorney like Kurt, cannot show you himself.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie Malonis as Circus Clown, the Truth IS stranger than fiction.

Satire can never live up to real life. Willie Jessop, under oath: "Ma'am, if anybody needs meds, it's you."

When asked by Natalie Malonis if he was on meds (which she wasted an incredible amount of time on), Willie says no, but can you blame him if he wants to know if she is? I'm just going to post the transcript found at the San Angelo Standard-Times. I seriously had to verify this before posting it. I thought it was a joke when I first read it. Satire.

An excerpt from the Monday deposition of FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop by attorney Natalie Malonis.

Jessop is represented by Houston attorney Kent Schaffer. Malonis confirmed the details of this conversation, taken from a rough draft of the transcript obtained by the Standard-Times.

Natalie Malonis: OK. Do you recognize the woman in the blue dress at this table?

Kent Schaffer: I will confer with my client regarding (whether) he should exercise his privilege in regard to that question.

(Discussion off the record.)

[...]

Willie Jessop: Yes, I do.

NM: OK. And how do you recognize her?

WJ: By her blue dress.

NM: How is it that your recognize her? Where do you know her from? Or is it your testimony that you recognize the blue dress?

WJ: What was your question, ma'am?

NM: How do you recognize the woman in the blue dress?

WJ: Same way I would recognize anyone.

[...]

NM: Can you answer the question, please?

WJ: I recognize the individual.

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question?

WJ: I answered your question.

NM: OK. How do you know the woman in the blue dress?

WJ: The question is vague. I don't know what individual you're looking at. I recognize you in a black dress. I recognize -

[...]

NM: The woman in the blue dress - there is only one woman in a blue dress at this table - how do you know her?

WJ: Are you asking if I know her name or what?

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Can you answer the question, please?

WJ: I asked for clarification.

NM: Mr. Jessop, how do you know the woman in the blue dress? There is no way to clarify that question. It's clear.

WJ: You asking if I know her name?

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question?

WJ: No.

NM: Then?

WJ: I've answered your question. You won't give me clarification.

[...]

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, do you have a problem understanding conversant English?

WJ: Well, maybe you could give me some clarification. How do you know Mr. Schaffer?

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, are you impaired mentally in any way today?

KS: I'm going to object to harassment of the witness.

NM: Can you answer the question? I can clarify that further. Have you taken any medications today?

WJ. No, I haven't taken medications.

NM: Okay. Is there a reason there was such a long pause to answer that question?

WJ: Just because of the harassment fact from yourself.

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Did you have trouble recalling whether or not you took medication today?

WJ. Ma'am, if anybody needs meds, it's you.

[...]

NM: OK. Have you had any other mind-altering substances either ingested or imbibed in any way that would affect your cognitive abilities?

WJ: This is harassment.

KS: Answer the question.

WJ: No, I'm not on any meds.

NM: OK. Do you have a problem with your memory?

WJ: Just harassment.

KS: Just answer the question.

WJ: No, I don't.

NM: OK. I'm going to ask you again: How do you know the woman in the blue dress?

WJ: Are you asking her name? What are you wanting to know about her? I recognize her because of the person, (the) same way I would recognize you.

NM: Objection: nonresponsive. OK. I'm going to take the nonresponsiveness as a refusal to answer and ask another question.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

New York Federal Reserve Makes GOOD Investment.

Don't let the screen door hit ya in the wallet? How will our new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner pay all those back taxes

The Politico - "Newly minted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s finances got a recent boost, thanks to a plump $435,000 severance payment from his old employer – the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In addition, Geithner last year earned $411,000 as president of the New York Fed and got another $50,000 to $100,000 for unused vacation and comp time, according to a mandatory financial disclosure statement released by the Office of Government Ethics."

Just see it as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York getting rid of a guy that can't manage money. Looked at that way, it's a great investment.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Would Sarah Palin have made this mistake?

ObaDude,

That's a Window. Hat tip to Brother Burge, whose take on this you simply have to see.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

"Fabulous Internet Riches" The Modern Pharisee Becomes a Professional Journalist !

Following a more sane path than brother Burge, I am beginning to realize the fabulous internet wealth available to me.

Yesterday, I hauled in a record $1.96 in earnings from advertisements placed on my blog. Month to date? $11.72.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

More Politics as usual, the question being: What is Politics as Usual?

The show must go on. You know, the show for us so we think something has changed, but nothing changes.

The Wall Street Journal - "Not a single Republican supported Mr. Obama's economic recovery package on the House floor Wednesday night. It passed 244-188, with 11 Democrats joining the Republicans.

The solid Republican opposition, led by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), raises questions about whether the new era of bipartisanship that Mr. Obama promised during the campaign is truly within reach, or if Washington remains stuck in its acrimonious ways. Most immediately, the vote may mean that Democrats have to make more compromises in the Senate version of the recovery package, which is scheduled for a vote next week.

In the Senate, a vote that falls short of 60 senators supporting a bill allows the opposition to filibuster, or block passage through indefinite debate. But some Republicans are signaling privately that they are reluctant to filibuster the stimulus package, and Senate Democrats appear to be reaching out more aggressively to address GOP concerns on the bill."

Hope for change? Not on your life, it's all for show. All of these men in the above vote are already campaigning for re-election in 2010. The Senate? Now there's a different matter. Roughly one third of the Senate changes over every two years and it's easier to find allies for this whoring bill when the principle of forgetfulness reigns. The idealist says, "They (voters) will Remember!" and the realist whispers "no, they will forget...."

So the demonstrators in the House wave the flag and we are inspired, to wake up next week and find just enough Senate Republicans defected, voted for cloture (allowing the vote) and then slipped back to the ranks of the faithful for our next show by voting against the bill as it passes. Along with about 8 democrats or so who are up for reelection in contested states. They were after all, for the bill, before they were against it.

As a lobbyist in the Montana Legislature in the early 80's I watched a bill go down to victorious defeat. The "Game" went back and forth as one side maneuvered to get ahead of the other one. We had the votes, we had victory, but the key was getting the bill to the floor for that vote in an effective form. As the debate drew to a close, an amendment was placed in the bill in committee that stripped it of it's enforcement clause, rendering it graffiti, not law.

The amendment failed in an open vote as procedure dictated it needed a majority vote to be added. The gallery erupted in thunderous applause and the acting President of the Senate that day, inexplicably (?) a member of the minority opposition, banged his gavel, and declared order. He then stated that he did not have a vote as Senate President, unless there was a tie, and promptly voted to add the emasculating amendment. The bill became a platitude and I thought not of outrage but of how inevitable it all was.

Vote counting is done out of the hallways. Votes are known before bills come to the floor, there are rarely surprises. President Obama's stimulus bill will almost certainly pass and for the public record, we will have most Republicans lining up ineffectively against it. But they could have (provided it passes) prevented it from coming to a vote, and they won't.

In Montana, in the 80's, we thought our representatives were voting for our bill, but they were voting against it since they all conferred behind the scenes and agreed on the outcome.

In Washington, this year, much the same situation will play itself out as our votes are cynically pandered for and the Idealist, going down to defeat will shout "The VOTERS will REMEMBER!" and I will be right at their side saying, "no, they will forget."

Prove me happily wrong by holding your representatives accountable. Change will be turning out everyone who voted for cloture on the stimulus bill, out on their ears when they come up for reelection, IN THE PRIMARIES.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

FBI Dallas Caught in a Catch - 22

According to Mark D. White, Media Relations, FBI Dallas, he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. But for him to NOT comment, there has to be an investigation, but he can't tell me anything about an ongoing investigation, but for him to invoke that

there has to BE an investigation. You see how it goes?

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' Yossarian observed.

'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed."

Mark D. White, Media Relations, FBI Dallas deserves some sympathy, he has taken to screening my calls and is "very busy." Of course for him to invoke the "no comments with regard to ongoing investigations clause, there has to be and investigation." For him to say there is no investigation means that a FBI agent did something "under the table."

WHY is the FBI in Dallas afraid to answer the question of whether or not there was a case opened by an FBI office in Texas to ask an FBI Agent in Colorado Springs about Rozita Swinton?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Do I drive a Car? Merril invokes the fifth, citing the "Mann Act."

Hey, it's his right. Merril Jessop refuses to establish, himself, that he can drive a car. Why?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Jessop, a top leader of the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that runs the Schleicher County ranch, invoked the Fifth Amendment 267 times on questions as minor as whether he drives a car and as significant as whether his now-14-year-old daughter was involved in a sexual relationship with sect leader Warren Jeffs.

'Upon the advice of counsel, he's exerting his Fifth Amendment (rights),' Jessop's attorney, Amy Hennington, said early in the all-day Friday deposition. 'The basis is that there is potential state investigation still ongoing, as well as criminal investigations under the Mann Act out of the U.S. Attorney's office.'

The Mann Act prohibits the transportation of people across state lines for the purpose of sexual activity."

This sent Barbara Walther scrambling back to her office, to write an order. She will of course, find some justification for "compelling" Merril to testify. Thumbscrews anyone?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren is getting his evidence hearing.

"IT IS ORDERED denying the State's Request for Hearing and Oral Argument Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware."

Found here.

The state has filed a Request for Hearing and Oral Argument Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. The defendant has filed an opposition to Request for Hearing to Determine Whether Defendant is Entitled to an Evidentiary Hearing on Motion to Suppress. The latter pleading refers to, among other things, "the upcoming evidentiary hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress".

The Court continues to be perplexed as to what exactly is the intent of the Sate regarding the Texas search. Although the State has not formally committed itself in any binding manner to the proposition that it will not use any evidence obtained in the Texas search, that was certainly their position advanced orally at the last hearing on October 28, 2008, and in writing in their response to the defense motion to suppress. The Court does not know whether they have changed that position or whether they are concerned that they will have to answer a defense allegation that evidence they feel was obtained independently from the Texas search was actually obtained as a result of that search. The court is aware that the State's position may have been solidified in one way or another by discovery proceedings which have taken place since the last hearing. The Court also wonders whether the State's position depends on which prosecutor is filing a certain pleading, but that is probably none of the Court's business.

It would appear that both parties are now acknowledging that the defense motion to suppress evidence seized in the Texas search will have to be ruled on. That motion raises several different issues, only one of which is the Franks v. Delaware issue. It is hard to imagine that the Court could rule on all those issues without having some sort of evidentiary hearing requiring the testimony of Texas law enforcement officers. Admittedly, some of the issues, such as whether there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, would require nothing more than an analysis of the four corners of the search warrant and the accompanying affidavit. However, it is unlikely that the Court could rule on an issue such as whether the officers exceeded the permissible scope of the search warrant without having evidence presented regarding the scope of their actual search.

The State's most recent pleading almost seems to suggest that the Court will eventually address the defense motion to suppress in a piecemeal fashion, having separate evidentiary hearings and/or oral argument on each distinct issue raised in the motion until all issues are resolved. That seems highly unlikely. Assuming that a hearing is going to be held on the defense motion, an assumption that now seems increasingly warranted by the tenor of the most recent pleadings, the Court's desire will be to have a single hearing at which either party may present any evidence it feels relevant to the issues raised in the defense motion. The Court sees little advantage in having out-of-state witnesses make multiple trips to Mohave County when one would be sufficient. Depending on the State's intent regarding evidence seized in the Texas search, and, of course, on the Court's ruling on the motion to suppress, some of those witnesses may have to be making multiple trips to Mohave County anyway.

The Defendant has the burden of proof under Franks v. Delaware. It will therefore be the Defendant's obligation, not the State's, to "subpoena several witnesses to travel from the State of Texas to testify". The Court sees no justification or necessity based either on the law of facts applicable to this case or on a desire to manage this case more efficiently in having a preliminary hearing at which counsel can argue the question of whether an evidentiary hearing on the Franks v. Delaware should be held.

IT IS ORDERED denying the State's Request for Hearing and Oral Argument Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware.

At the last hearing on October 28, 2008, the Court suggested the possibility of setting some sort of status hearing to make sure that this case remained on track toward an eventual resolution. The Court was assured that time that it was not necessary to do so and that counsel would keep this case moving forward. The Court has no reason to question that assessment and is aware of recent discovery that has been undertaken. The Court is concerned, however, that it appears likely that at some time in the future it is going to have to schedule a potentially complex evidentiary hearing to resolve Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in the Texas search. The Court is amenable to allowing counsel to investigate fully the applicable issues that will have to be addressed at that hearing and recognizes from experience that interviewing witnesses before an evidentiary hearing will enable that hearing to be limited to the issues relevant to the motion to suppress rather than being a pretrial interview which the Court is forced to preside over. The Court would like the parties to be thinking about the logistics of the anticipated evidentiary hearing sooner rather than later.

IT IS ORDERED directing counsel to advise the Court in writing, by stipulation if possible, by no later than February 27, 2009, how they wish to proceed on the Defendant's motion to suppress. The Court does not particularly care whether it is advised that counsel want to hold off on scheduling the hearing, that counsel want a hearing set, that counsel agree to which issues need to be addressed at a hearing, that counsel agree what witnesses will be testifying, that counsel agree how long the hearing will take or even that counsel agree to schedule the hearing on a certain date.

IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk to bring this file to the Court's attention by no later than March 4, 2009. (initialed)

The Court at that time will be inclined to adopt any stipulation reached by counsel, within reason. If no agreement has been reached, and the Court does not by any means rule out the likelihood that counsel will be unable to agree, it will be the Court's intent to set this matter for an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on the Defendant's motion to suppress. The Court will be inclined to schedule that hearing as it would a jury trial. In other words, the hearing would start on a Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. and proceed on a daily basis running 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. with an hour for lunch until the hearing was completed. The Court would clear its calendar to enable it to complete the hearing. If the hearing were unable to be completed in one week, it would resume the following Tuesday. In scheduling the hearing the Court would seek input from counsel as to a time that would be convenient to their schedules and would set the hearing far enough off to secure the attendance of any necessary witnesses."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Just A Reminder. It's FLORA DEPOSITION DAY!!

What would be better than Merril and Willie taking the fifth?

Flora taking the fifth. Oh please, please, please. It would be the equivalent of the Titantic striking an iceberg. If Flora takes the fifth for anything in regards to the raid at YFZ, then the State's case will start to crumble. It will be a gash to the hull to large for the ship to stay afloat, it will sink. Slowly, and in Arizona first, but it will sink.

Of course if she just answers questions possibly without a lawyer, that will be fun enough. Willie and Merril taking the fifth does not hurt their case, they're on defense. Flora taking the fifth means there is some unspoken truth underlying the circumstances surrounding the YFZ raid last April. It may insulate Ms. Jessop from harm, but it will severely damage the State's case.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I have to admit it's getting better, it's getting better, all the time.

Sometime today this blog will pass the visitor totals from last month.

Since November, The Modern Pharisee has been showing regular gains in readership. January will also mark the month that I will begin to measure results from Google Analytics data, as opposed to Blogflux. Blogflux, while consistent in it's data measurement technique has occasional outages and seemed to miss some data at the end of last month and the beginning of this one.

Right now by Blogflux measurements I have had 4844 visitors for January 2009. By Analytics standards there have been 6444. I continue to be amazed, and thank you for your support.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Does the press possess the courage to report the FLDS story?

Let me say first that without the reporting of the Salt Lake Tribune, the Deseret News, and to some extent (unconsciously) the San Angelo Standard-Times, the blogosphere around the FLDS controversy would be nowhere.

Having said that, they've settled into a sort of sing song complacency that is infuriating. It is more than difficult as a blogger to be the source of real news in this story. I for instance, am in New England, Bill Medvecky is in Florida, Kurt Schulzke is in Georgia. We're not reporters, yet some of the key events are having original reporting done on them by the bloggers.

Contrast for instance this story, in the Deseret News about two hours ago.

"Only eight children remain under court oversight as the custody battle over the children from the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch withers away.

Texas Child Protective Services confirmed to the Deseret News on Tuesday that a total of 431 children have now been dropped from court jurisdiction in the ongoing child custody case. The children belong to three mothers, CPS officials said."

But this is old news since Free the FLDS Children reported this story 72 hours earlier. Perhaps with so few children left, and their release from oversight being so regular in the last four months we've become desensitized but this is big news. Five is one of the biggest number drops in the total recently. In addition, it represented almost 40% (38.4) of the remaining total. How long did it take for one (only one) member of the main stream media to report this story? THREE DAYS.

Since Bill was accurate in his reporting of this story it stands to reason his inside sources have him correctly reporting this one as well;

"After last evenings rant on a friends blog by Natalie, whereby she, as an Officer of the Court, named children involved in the CPS 'Investigation' and sent copies of the testimony of Merril Jessop to the blog to purposely inflame any possible Jury Pool against him, (Judge Walther) wasn’t too happy with her girl wonder and bitched her out loud enough to be heard in Peggy’s Office.

I’m sure (Barbara Walther) would have loved to, but neither Willie nor Merril are sitting in jail tonight for contempt of Court, but Natalie is going to have to go out tonight and buy a much larger pair of knee pads to keep barbie happy in the future."

If remotely true, this set of basic circumstances seems to suggest that Natalie Malonis is the active agent of Barbara Walther in the courtroom (news in and of itself) and confirms what a bad choice for stooge she is, and what a loose canon as well.

In addition, there is this bit of news over at Contraries, which if I understand it correctly, is what Bill refers to as "a friend's blog." An extensive section of transcript from the deposition in which Ms. Malonis, goes after the "Teresa Jeffs" child issue. Malonis as gone back and forth, but mostly towards the notion that she does think there is a child, until confronted pointedly, and then she says it's just a hypothetical that we could imagine to be true about other children.

All of this is news.

Then there is my own humble effort to expose a lie hidden in an affidavit to create the warrant to arrest Rozita Swinton, about which the Deseret News bravely says in the same article;

"Hundreds of children were taken into state custody in April when law enforcement and CPS caseworkers went to the YFZ Ranch outside Eldorado, Texas, to investigate a phone call of someone claiming to be a pregnant 16-year-old in an abusive, polygamous marriage. The call is believed to be a hoax, but authorities claimed to have found other signs of abuse on the ranch."

Oh puh-leeeeez. There are so many other ways to write that last paragraph that say so much more and still preserve the paper's position with regard to liability. They could for instance touch on the length of time it is taking to "investigate" charges against a woman who is known to own the phones from which those calls came. After all, it's in the affidavit.

Speaking of which, my own little contribution over the last week or so to the "reportage" on the story has been to reveal that the affidavit attached to the CSPD warrant of April 16th, 2008, is cleverly contructed to promote a falsehood which the press dutifully reports on as fact to this day. That falsehood is that Texas in the person of Ranger Brooks Long called CSPD and talked to Sean Mandel on Sunday, April 13th, 2008.

That is simply false.

Keeping in mind that the "raid" ended with evidence collection by the FBI (and maybe some more Texas activity) on Thursday, April the 10th, 2008, the date of April the 13th is a strange one, and not even a date substantiated by the players involved.

First of all, it's a Sunday. You don't have an Government job because you want to work weekends folks, so if you do work weekends, you don't buy troulbe on weekends. Nobody calls up from one FBI office or Police station to another on something that can wait, on a weekend.

Second, it was the FBI who contacted the FBI but the FBI agent who spoke to me personally whose story was corroborated by the CSPD Sgt. can't even tell me it DID happen on a Sunday. he "doesn't recall." "It could've been earlier" and he "doesn't recall" how he was contacted and "he didn't open a case" and I have since talked to the FBI in Dallas, and they won't comment on the fact that at one end or the other, the FBI was supposed to have opened a case, when one FBI agent requests information of another regarding a crime.

No case. No comment, and it would appear that Ranger Philip Kemp, at the very least was on record as having requested information of the FBI on the Rozita Swinton Phone Call Matter on Friday, the 11th.

I'm sorry, but this is big. You don't go through elaborate trails to hide nothing, yet it appears that this is what the FBI did.

Either Law Enforcement has either deliberately postponed looking into the Rozita Swinton matter until the raid was done, or they are covering up, in advance, the researching of where the phone calls came from. Why pray tell do you cover up carefully the investigation of something you don't know? Isn't one of the answers that you do know?

At this point Mark White of the Dallas FBI office won't even confirm to me if a case was opened to investigate the phone numbers. If Agent Steve A. Smith was lying to me (unlikely), a case should have been opened on one end or the other. The only reason Mark White won't tell me is that he either does not want to confirm the request made of Steve Smith, or he doesn't want to let us know that the FBI tried to investigate Rozita Swinton completely "off the record."

All of these things are news. The last one might even show that the FBI and Texas both knew that there was a Rozita Swinton, and that she was calling, during the raid. Maybe even right up to the point where Sheriff David Doran is standing at the gate to YFZ, wanting desperately to get in, and willing to say anything to do that.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Good Grief! This is Brainwashing?

The other half of the story of "Escape." Carolyn's Daughter "went kicking and screaming."(Photo by Trent Nelson, Salt Lake Tribune)

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Betty said traumatic years followed as she struggled to cope with mainstream society and fought with her mother.

Their arguments, she said, centered on her desire to live according to the sect's principles and her mother's determination to keep her from the faith, her father and her extended family.

'I was such a representation of everything she hated so much,' Betty said.

On July 2, 2007, Betty turned 18. Two days later she returned to the sect, celebrating what she now calls her own independence day."

As soon as she had the chance, Betty went back. Brainwashing or not, I know of no way to effectively deal with the upbringing of these people. As has been said before, who would decide what religion was a cult, and which one was over the edge and went too far?

And another thing. If they're happy, then should we interfere? Whatever issues Carolyn had, she resolved them by leaving as others have. Betty chose her father and her former life when she had the chance.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What Slish is this?

How cold is it? It's so COLD, they don't even have a word for it. (Picture from the "Gulf News").

"Snow covered the Jebel Jais area for only the second time in recorded history yesterday. So rare was the event that one lifelong resident said the local dialect had no word for it."

I just love this blog. It makes me smile every time I read it.

RAS AL KHAIMAH (United Arab Emirates) - "According to the RAK Government, temperatures on Jebel Jais dropped to -3°C on Friday night. On Saturday, the area had reached 1°C.

Major Saeed Rashid al Yamahi, a helicopter pilot and the manager of the Air Wing of RAK Police, said the snow covered an area of five kilometres and was 10cm deep.

'The sight up there this morning was totally unbelievable, with the snow-capped mountain and the entire area covered with fresh, dazzling white snow,' Major al Yamahi said.

'The snowfall started at 3pm Friday, and heavy snowing began at 8pm and continued till midnight, covering the entire area in a thick blanket of snow. Much of the snow was still there even when we flew back from the mountain this afternoon. It is still freezing cold up there and there are chances that it might snow again tonight.'

Aisha al Hebsy, a woman in her 50s who has lived in the mountains near Jebel Jais all her life, said snowfall in the area was so unheard of the local dialect does not even have a word for it. Hail is known as bared, which literally translates as cold. 'Twenty years ago we had lots of hail,' said Ms al Hebsy. 'Last night was like this. At four in the morning we came out and the ground was white.'

Jebel Jais was dusted in snow on Dec 28, 2004, the first snowfall in living memory for Ras al Khaimah residents."

Originally published in "The National." It's worth a peak since there is a slide show with the article.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Dude, Where are my Props?

A self appointed "expert" has compiled a list of the top 60 "Church Blogs."

And I'm not on it. Hmmmm. If you've got a list, why 60? That's because the next 40 would be laughably unknown, or too hot to handle, so offhand, I'm going to guess that it's because my "Church Blog" is too hot to handle.

TOP CHURCH BLOGS (as of January 17, 2009)

1. Tim Challies [Rank 4.83]
AR 151,747 ___ BS 582 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 3,604 ___ TA 1,109 ___ TIL 5,179
2. Between Two Worlds / Justin Taylor [Rank 7.33]
AR 152,069 ___ BS 228 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 2,437 ___ TA 1,335 ___ TIL 8,684
3. Stuff Christians Like / Jon Acuff [Rank 9.33]
AR 283,778 ___ BS 526 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 3,596 ___ TA 1,024 ___ TIL 7,130
4. Out of Ur [Rank 9.83]
AR 12,169 ___ BS 338 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 1,132 ___ TA 546 ___ TIL 2,621
5. The Resurgence / Mark Driscoll [Rank 11.00]
AR 178,120 ___ BS 126 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 2,237 ___ TA 1,176 ___ TIL 5,784
6. GetReligion [Rank 11.67]
AR 125,516 ___ BS 274 ___ GP 6 ___ GRS 906 ___ TA 684 ___ TIL 2,566
7. Swerve / Craig Groeschel & Bobby Gruenewald [Rank 11.83]
AR 93,973 ___ BS 333 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 593 ___ TA 641 ___ TIL 3,098
8. Pyromaniacs / Phil Johnson [Rank 12.00]
AR 324,560 ___ BS 288 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 1,164 ___ TA 615 ___ TIL 3,905
9. Ragamuffin Soul / Carlos Whittaker [Rank 12.67]
AR 309,252 ___ BS 280 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 2,040 ___ TA 953 ___ TIL 5,939
10. The Evangelical Outpost / Joe Carter [Rank 15.50]
AR 340,360 ___ BS 238 ___ GP 6 ___ GRS 1,213 ___ TA 335 ___ TIL 2,989
11. Church Marketing Sucks / Brad Abare & Kevin Hendricks [Rank 16.33]
AR 239,868 ___ BS 160 ___ GP 6 ___ GRS 1,819 ___ TA 436 ___ TIL 2,240
12. Internet Monk / Michael Spencer [Rank 16.33]
AR 297,600 ___ BS 205 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 523 ___ TA 622 ___ TIL 5,749
13. Desiring God / John Piper [Rank 16.50]
AR 43,865 ___ BS 389 ___ GP 3 ___ GRS 3,664 ___ TA 1,153 ___ TIL 4,935
14. Perry Noble [Rank 17.33]
AR 556,912 ___ BS 277 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 1,847 ___ TA 690 ___ TIL 3,422
15. Tall Skinny Kiwi / Andrew Jones [Rank 17.50]
AR 589,474 ___ BS 360 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 996 ___ TA 509 ___ TIL 2,302
16. Monday Morning Insight / Todd Rhoades [Rank 21.33]
AR 240,792 ___ BS 453 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 922 ___ TA 283 ___ TIL 1,607
17. Church Relevance / Kent Shaffer [Rank 23.33]
AR 369,485 ___ BS 134 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 1,576 ___ TA 252 ___ TIL 1,152
18. FlowerDust / Anne Jackson [Rank 23.50]
AR 410,152 ___ BS 115 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 430 ___ TA 529 ___ TIL 2,273
19. Leading Smart / Tim Stevens [Rank 25.00]
AR 775,255 ___ BS 346 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 951 ___ TA 446 ___ TIL 1,881
20. Steven Furtick [Rank 26.00]
AR 738,114 ___ BS 344 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 533 ___ TA 529 ___ TIL 2,184
21. Emergent Village [Rank 26.17]
AR 564,952 ___ BS 121 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 402 ___ TA 492 ___ TIL 2,271
22. Vintage Faith / Dan Kimball [Rank 26.50]
AR 1,177,968 ___ BS 255 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 1,032 ___ TA 356 ___ TIL 1,431
23. Adrian Warnock [Rank 27.00]
AR 541,574 ___ BS 131 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 800 ___ TA 229 ___ TIL 1,669
24. Dr. Albert Mohler [Rank 27.00]
AR 137,288 ___ BS 47 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 3,589 ___ TA 254 ___ TIL 608
25. Without Wax / Pete Wilson [Rank 27.17]
AR 525,866 ___ BS 90 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 585 ___ TA 640 ___ TIL 2,293
26. 22 Words / Abraham Piper [Rank 27.67]
AR 509,277 ___ BS 118 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 1,066 ___ TA 347 ___ TIL 1,652
27. Reformissionary / Steve McCoy [Rank 28.33]
AR 797,465 ___ BS 191 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 805 ___ TA 239 ___ TIL 1,396
28. THEOOZE / Spencer Burke [Rank 29.00]
AR 353,519 ___ BS 161 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 281 ___ TA 289 ___ TIL 1,093
29. Jesus Creed / Scot McKnight [Rank 31.50]
AR 3,810 ___ BS 80 ___ GP 6 ___ GRS 250 ___ TA 223 ___ TIL 670
30. Ed Stetzer [Rank 32.67]
AR 50,826 ___ BS 180 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 968 ___ TA 0 ___ TIL 2,269
31. Think Christian [Rank 32.83]
AR 500,482 ___ BS 48 ___ GP 6 ___ GRS 1,677 ___ TA 146 ___ TIL 759
32. Mark D. Roberts [Rank 36.33]
AR 380,577 ___ BS 74 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 343 ___ TA 152 ___ TIL 716
33. Brian McLaren [Rank 37.50]
AR 642,094 ___ BS 364 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 347 ___ TA No Data ___ TIL 1,693
34. Tony Morgan [Rank 37.50]
AR 410,780 ___ BS 107 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 12 ___ TA 471 ___ TIL 2,672
35. Worship Matters / Bob Kauflin [Rank 37.50]
AR 774,336 ___ BS 72 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 558 ___ TA 324 ___ TIL 1,110
36. Eugene Cho [Rank 37.67]
AR 454,657 ___ BS 54 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 361 ___ TA 239 ___ TIL 1,330
37. 9Marks / Mark Dever [Rank 37.83]
AR 444,224 ___ BS 155 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 35 ___ TA 300 ___ TIL 1,834
38. Ben Arment [Rank 37.83]
AR 2,053,728 ___ BS 212 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 555 ___ TA 218 ___ TIL 1,543
39. Evotional / Mark Batterson [Rank 37.83]
AR 808,885 ___ BS 285 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 1,114 ___ TA No Data ___ TIL 2,241
40. Relevant Magazine Blog / Cameron Strang [Rank 37.83]
AR 174,788 ___ BS 16 ___ GP 6 ___ GRS 1,749 ___ TA 112 ___ TIL 273
41. JollyBlogger / David Wayne [Rank 38.50]
AR 891,681 ___ BS 186 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 397 ___ TA 192 ___ TIL 728
42. Scott Hodge [Rank 38.67]
AR 2,652,840 ___ BS 277 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 582 ___ TA 181 ___ TIL 1,142
43. Dave Ferguson [Rank 40.83]
AR 1,527,926 ___ BS 180 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 410 ___ TA 177 ___ TIL 755
44. Pomomusings / Adam Walker Cleaveland [Rank 42.33]
AR 299,619 ___ BS 64 ___ GP 3 ___ GRS 222 ___ TA 341 ___ TIL 2,235
45. Pure Church / Thabiti Anyabwile [Rank 42.50]
AR 1,863,579 ___ BS 71 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 673 ___ TA 203 ___ TIL 1,176
46. Gary Lamb [Rank 46.50]
AR 8,447,548 ___ BS 161 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 373 ___ TA 165 ___ TIL 1,144
47. Ed Young [Rank 46.67]
AR 1,085,380 ___ BS 72 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 512 ___ TA 143 ___ TIL 522
48. Catablog / Jesse Phillips & LV Hanson [Rank 47.00]
AR 397,649 ___ BS 30 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 300 ___ TA 133 ___ TIL 406
49. Don Miller [Rank 47.00]
AR 726,122 ___ BS 115 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 1,032 ___ TA No Data ___ TIL 662
50. Bill Kinnon [Rank 47.33]
AR 1,834,496 ___ BS 75 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 150 ___ TA 165 ___ TIL 1,651
51. DJ Chuang [Rank 47.33]
AR 589,848 ___ BS 56 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 149 ___ TA 102 ___ TIL 379
52. Mark Beeson [Rank 47.33]
AR 1,463,284 ___ BS 90 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 335 ___ TA 114 ___ TIL 687
53. More Than Dodgeball / Joshua Griffin [Rank 47.33]
AR 995,899 ___ BS 46 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 274 ___ TA 181 ___ TIL 713
54. Church Communications Pro / Cory Miller & James Dalman [Rank 47.67]
AR 221,952 ___ BS 127 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 80 ___ TA 53 ___ TIL 326
55. Kem Meyer [Rank 47.83]
AR 1,150,435 ___ BS 251 ___ GP 3 ___ GRS 658 ___ TA 174 ___ TIL 571
56. Drew Goodmanson [Rank 50.67]
AR 556,756 ___ BS 56 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 183 ___ TA 58 ___ TIL 503
57. The Digital Sanctuary / Cynthia Ware [Rank 51.33]
AR 867,429 ___ BS 71 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 347 ___ TA 90 ___ TIL 246
58. Collide Magazine Blog / Scott McClellan [Rank 52.17]
AR 589,172 ___ BS 98 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 104 ___ TA 88 ___ TIL 218
59. Mark Waltz [Rank 55.00]
AR 3,976,063 ___ BS 95 ___ GP 4 ___ GRS 263 ___ TA 67 ___ TIL 612
60. Reformation 21 [Rank 56.17]
AR 5,850,759 ___ BS 14 ___ GP 5 ___ GRS 724 ___ TA No Data ___ TIL 2,260

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Discovering Oil in Isreal

First of all, a hat tip to "The Barking Moonbat." This is just too cosmic comic. From World Net Daily

;

"Noble Energy, a New York Stock Exchange-listed company, has discovered an estimated more than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in three high-quality reservoirs drilled in the company's Tamar No. 1 well in the Mediterranean Sea, about 56 miles off the Israeli northern port of Haifa.

Noble Energy drilled the Tamar No. 1 well to a depth of about three miles, beneath 5,500 feet of water.

The find is significant for those who believe the Bible indicates Israel is sitting on a massive oil reserve that would reshape the geopolitical structure of the Middle East.

The find also lends support to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil that holds oil is created naturally within the mantle of the earth, not by biological origins."

This is a Funny God I serve. Two birds with one stone and that being only the two I saw? On one level you can't stop the side splitting chuckles that come from Israel finding a new petroleum reserve and tipping the balance even further in favor of supply in the Middle East. A richer Israel? A poorer Iran? I can wake up every day and laugh about that one.

At the same time proving an "abiotic theory of the origin of oil" would send me to bed every day chuckling. Time and time the Bible has proved to be a great archeological tome. Looking as closely as possible to where it seems to say "dig" generally yields positive results. If the Bible says it's there, and we look, we eventually find. The Bible says the earth is a young woman, not an old one. Maybe she's still cranking out oil as a geological byproduct, and not baren after all.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why it's a Helmet, not a Foil Hat. Conspiracy Theorists VS Obama Birth Certificate Inquirers

"Those trying to vet Obama even post inaugural are not trying to prove a theory, here is why." Michael Bresciani continues...

Renew America - "Most of those filing law suits to subpoena Obama's documents are lawyers, politicians and military people none who have ever been known to be conspiracy theorists on any subject. The attempt to put them in the same class with those who chase UFO sightings or those who are still looking for the Holy Grail is demeaning and ridiculous.

Questions about the body of Hitler, the whereabouts of Osama and how many shooters were on the grassy knowle and other conspiracy questions all have one thing in common; they are speculative and nearly un-answerable. Bringing a birth certificate or school records up out of a vault does not require a bit of speculation. All that's needed is a subpoena not a theory. Producing a document is in no way comparable to proving a theory."

And so we cut the Gordian knot. If you want to know who the whacked out conspiracy theorists are on the right, bring out the birth certificate. Frankly, the "natural born citizen" rule really wasn't meant to keep an Obama out of the White House. Barack Obama had no control over the place of his birth, had no control over where his parents took him, and could just as easily be the very same man he is today, whether he was a natural born citizen, or not. But he simply must be a natural born citizen.

It's not an arbitrary rule, it's a rule that says we have plenty of good candidates for chief executive and no one man is indispensable, so to bar the office from a foreign despot's hands, let our President be a Natural Born Citizen. For this rule to be effective, it must be enforced. For it to be enforced, some sort of "vetting" process must take place. Effectively there is no stop sign if no one pays any attention to it, and the rule is not consistently enforced. Barack Obama knows this, such theory is fundamental to anti descrimination and civil rights laws.

If Space Aliens swooped down and took me away to their mother ship, and on the way to replacing me in society, I saw them plant a forged Obama Birth Certificate, it is impossible to prove this. This is the stuff of nuttery. Even if true a rational man would eschew belief in such things, unless it happened to him, and even then most rational men would question their sanity. It is fact only to me, and I'm not really sure of me in such a case. It's worse than theory to everyone else.

If Obama's birth certificate is forged and so cunningly as to be believed then the Republic is saved, because we asked, and we required an answer. In doing so we prove that no man is above the law, but subject to it. This is a nation of laws after all. We do indeed bow to Obama within the limits of the power of his office, but Obama must bow to the law.

The conspiracy theorists? You'll know them the minute the genuine article is brought out to inspect. If there is no valid certificate, then the nutters on the left will be clearly revealed. So will their demagogues who seek power through their delusion. If there is one, even if at judgment day God reveals to us it was a cunning forgery, the law has none the less been followed and again, the Republic saved. The nuts on the right will fight on because no amount of persuasion will ever change their mind, they have blind faith, they leap without looking.

As for me? Just show it to me. Trust, but verify. Show me the money. Cut through the crap. I have to have a passport, he has to have a birth certificate. Let's see it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

So, How do you compel Merril Jessop to testify against himself? I thought Obama had ended torture.

I wouldn't say I'm a great legal mind, but this is not a tough concept

. For eight hours, Merril Jessop apparently DIDN'T testify leaving the Future Supreme Court of the United States Justice Natalie Malonis no choice but to "COMPEL TESTIMONY."

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Attorneys for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints elder and his alleged teenage daughter-in-law will argue in court Monday over whether Jessop should be able to plead Fifth Amendment protection to a series of questions regarding the polygamous sect's financial structure.

'There are quite a few (answers) that are in controversy,' said Natalie Malonis, the Denton attorney representing a 17-year-old daughter of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs. 'He answered some of it. I hope that on Monday when we have our hearing, (the judge) will compel answers.'

51st District Judge Barbara Walther set the hearing, Malonis said, after compelling testimony in a 30-minute telephone proceeding on some efforts by Jessop to plead the Fifth, which protects witnesses from being forced to give answers under oath that could incriminate them."

Frankly, only Merril Jessop and his attorneys, bound by attorney-client privilege are the judges of what it is that might incriminate him. Only a truly special set of circumstances along with expansive knowledge missing a few minor details could possibly render another the judge of what might incriminate. Merril Jessop is NOT on trial, and as a result has every right to avoid saying things that might put him on trial.

Beyond threatening him with blackmail, such as the imprisonment of his children through child custody, there's not much they can do. Would Barbara Walther order him to testify or face contempt charges? How would Merril respond? I hardly think he is afraid of spending time in jail. Perhaps there are grounds for compelling testimony, but there are no racks, no iron maidens available to persuade him and Obama is closing Guantanamo.

If anything proves the puppet status of Natalie Malonis as the courtroom agent of Judge Walther, this episode is all the circumstantial evidence that we need. In 6 months Ms. Malonis' client is an adult. Teresa Jeffs need for Ms. Malonis' services is academic. Frankly the only reason that she can't apply for emancipation right now is that she has a guardian supplying a voice for her and a judge that would never listen to her own.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Flora to be Deposed Wednesday (01/28)

Here's the link.

No notice is mailed to Flora's attorney, making me think that it's possible that Flora still does not have an attorney. I've updated the title to erase the error of "Tuesday," and replace it with "Wednesday."

"The Court having received a letter from defense counsel indicating that the depostion previously ordered will have to be rescheduled, a copy of the letter being indicated as having been provided to the State, and the Court assuming that the State has no oposition to the new date in the proposed Order,

The Court signs the Deposition Order rescheduling the deposition of Flora Jessop for January 28, 2009, at 9:00 a.m."

That's Wednesday, next week. As an interesting footnote, Bill Medvecky is reporting Merril Jessop took the fifth today.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

We Can't Tell You That, Oh No, No Can Do! Talking to Mark White of the FBI in Dallas about the YFZ raid.

I spoke with Mark White, Media Relations, FBI Dallas.

As expected, Mark appealed to the "ongoing investigation" to explain why it was that he wouldn't give out information as to who spoke with FBI Agent Steve A. Smith from the Texas end, namely, the FBI office in San Angelo. I was able to extract the following commitment from Mark though. Since Agent Smith (I get this funny Men In Black thought every time I say that) said that there was no case opened on his end at the FBI office in Colorado Springs, that there would be a case opened on the Texas side, Agent White will check and see if there was a case opened on the Texas side. If there was not, I imagine this represents a violation of some procedure, if not some sort of law or administrative rule.

I will again ask him the question of WHICH agent opened the case, and if he declines because of the "ongoing investigation" I will be asking him how many agents handled the case, WHEN it was opened, and which agency caused there to be a case opened in the first place. This will be to nail down whether or not Texas opened the case with the FBI.

Potential answers will be as follows of this sort. "Only agent X handled the request that came from the Texas Rangers," or "Local Law Enforcement (that would be Sheriff Doran) made the request." There could be multiple agents. There could be no request from the outside.

A potential answer would be that the request came during or near the beginning of the raid. That would be earth shaking. At least I think so.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Other end of the Old Boy FLDS - Rozita Swinton Network?

Apparently, it is a Ranger Philip Kemp

with the Texas Rangers, who contacts the FBI on the 11th of April, 2008. I will research this more. It means the chain is now:

1. Texas Ranger Philip Kemp
2. (Unknown FBI agent working out of San Angelo)
3. Agent Steve A. Smith - FBI Colorado Springs Office
4. Lt. Sean Mandel (then a Sgt on detached duty from CSPD to the FBI)
5. Sgt. Hugh Velasquez CSPD
6. Detective Terry Thrumston CSPD

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brokeback Gay Marriage Bill in Wyoming

It may surprise you to know, that I don't think the Bible's focus, is on the family, so when Christian groups run around lauding the merits of Religion with respect to the family like Pinhead James Dobson does

, I'm not impressed.

Here they go again in Wyoming this time, but what's significant is where the Battleground is.

The Gazette - "(Focus on the Family) is trying to drum up support for Senate Joint Resolution 2. The measure would let Wyoming voters decide whether to amend the state constitution to specify that the state won't recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Wyoming already has a law in place that says only marriages between a man and a woman may be conducted in the state. However, the state is currently bound to recognize marriages performed in other states, some of which allow same-sex marriages and civil unions."

This is a heterosexual monogamy only bill, and you know how I "feel" about that.

" 'We want to see marriages protected,' (Sonja) Swiatkiewicz said, adding (Focus on the Family) believes that marriages between men and women are the best foundation for society and provide the best environment for raising children."

And I agree, however I don't think (ideally) government should even be in the business of marriage, and "Focus" hasn't the slightest clue what the definition of marriage is, making their talk of "the best foundation" a little scary to me.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Malonis elbows her way back into FLDS spotlight.

What do you do, if you're Barbara Walther's puppet Natalie Malonis and your client is about to "age out?"

Schedule a Deposition while you can still pretend you're acting in your client's interest!

The San Angelo Standard-Times - Lawyer Natalie Malonis, the lightning-rod attorney for imprisoned sect leader Warren Jeffs' now-17-year-old daughter, has subpoenaed:

* Merril Jessop, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints elder believed to have run the ranch since Jeffs was imprisoned

* Willie Jessop, a sect member who has served as its spokesman since a state raid in April

The depositions - scheduled for Friday and Monday - were confirmed by the Tom Green County District Clerk's Office. Copies of the subpoenas and subsequent motions to quash them, rejected Wednesday by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, were not immediately available."

Never mind that Teresa Jeffs is almost 18. Certainly it wouldn't be revenge for deposing Texas Law Enforcement figures and Walther Buddies David Doran, John Connor, and Brooks Long. Nah. Get them on record and ask 'em questions while you still have the legal authority to depose them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rozita Swinton Newsweek article in August now shown to be False

THIS IS NOT TRUE

.

Newsweek - "On April 13, one of Thrumston's sergeants received a call from the Texas Rangers, who had traced two phone numbers in the FLDS investigation to Colorado Springs. One of them, Thrumston discovered, was associated with Swinton. Within days, police obtained a search warrant for Swinton's home, carted off boxes of evidence and arrested her for false reporting in the episode involving the house-to-house search."

It has now been learned that FBI agents contacted FBI agents who passed the contact along to CSPD. See the previous two stories. Sean Mandel talked to Hugh Velasquez who spoke with Terry Thrumston. After Sean Mandel spoke with Agent Steve A. Smith.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

First Contact UPDATE, regarding Rozita Swinton and Texas.

I spoke with FBI Agent Steve A. Smith

. He cannot recall the date of contact. It was FBI office to FBI office and apparently, deliberately, informal. He did not "open a case."

San Angelo's office called him, he passed the information to Sean Mandel, Sean Mandel to Hugh Velasquez, Hugh Velasquez to Terry Thrumston. Assistant District Attorney Amy Mullaney swears out the warrant.

Steve says he would know the name if he heard it, of the agent that called. He cannot recall if Rozita's name was used in the interoffice contact between Colorado Springs and San Angelo.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

First Contact About Rozita Swinton, NOT with CSPD, but actually with the FBI

I spoke to Colorado Springs Police Lieutenant Sean Mandel today. Breaking news

.

The first contact between Texas Law Enforcement and Colorado was not actually with Colorado, it was with the FBI. Someone in Texas contacted the FBI and Agent Steve A. Smith then communicated with then Sgt. Sean Mandel as he was on detached service with the FBI from CSPD. Lt. Mandel spoke with then Sgt. Brooks Long once or twice in his recollection, which seems to be that they spoke "later in the day."

I emphasize that FIRST CONTACT as presented in Exhibit 3, attachment A, p.5 is not with Sean Mandel and Brooks Long. It is SOMEBODY from Texas, and SOMEBODY with the FBI. It filters through Agent Steve Smith to Sean Mandel and then a conversation occurs with Brooks Long.

The rest of the affidavit attached to the warrant is accurate in the successive events. Then Sgt. Sean Mandel communicated with Sgt. Hugh Velasquez who was on active duty with CSPD, who then communicated with Terry Thrumston, who then gave the affidavit to Amy Mullaney for the warrant. Sean Mandel did not go on the arrest, and says "Texas flew up" to go with the arresting officers.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's First Act? Infanticide Worldwide

Offer up a sacrifice to Moloch!

By way of the Anchoress,

Life News - "Officials with the incoming administration of Barack Obama have confirmed that he will indeed overturn a pro-life policy of President Bush on his first day in office. Despite campaigning on the rhetoric of wanting to reduce abortions, Obama will make one of his first actions promoting them globally.

Meanwhile, some 77 members of Congress have signed onto a letter asking Obama to back down from doing so.

President Bush used an executive order on his first day in office to reinstitute a pro-life policy that prevents forcing taxpayers to fund international groups that perform or promote abortions in other countries."

And I know some of you, as Christians, as anti abortion, pro life people, voted for this man.

His first act. Putrid. Shame on you for voting for this killer.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Baker's Dozen, more FLDS Kids nonsuited.

Texas drops more kids

.

The Deseret News - "Texas Child Protective Services has officially 'nonsuited' 426 children, leaving only 13 left in what was once the nation's largest child custody case. Agency spokesman Patrick Crimmins confirmed to the Deseret News on Tuesday the four remaining legal cases involve children from three mothers."

Pretty soon the Houston Chronicle's question (and mine) that CPS illegally refuses to answer, is going to be irrelevant. Who cares about the demographic distribution of a null set? In fact, with only three moms involved it might not be that hard to figure out anyway.

One of the moms has to be Barbara Jessop.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bush Succeeds

It's official

. George W. Bush, with the blessing of God (for without his blessing we can do nothing), has kept us safe in this country from terrorist strikes since September 11, 2001. Congratulations Mr. President, on a job well done. Give Glory to God.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mohave County "Daily News" sees claim of Texas Prior Knowledge of Hoax Call.

Every time I read the motion of Warren Jeffs attorneys, I see it a different way. First is seems they're claiming Texas knew who Rozita was, then they say they might have. The Daily News says Texas did know

.

KINGMAN, Mohave County, "The Daily News" - "Texas authorities were also aware that the two phones calls to a crisis hotline in Texas were from phone numbers outside of Texas and that the Colorado woman made numerous false reports of sexual abuse to police agencies, Piccarreta said."

What is unclear about the story is whether or not the reporter, Jim Seckler, actually spoke to Michael Piccarreta, or whether he simply gleaned that fact from the motion. Initially that's what your Modern Pharisee saw, then with the help of the readers of this blog, I saw qualifying remarks. Will Jim Seckler need to similarly adjust his article, or does he know something?

"(Mohave County Attorney Matt) Smith previously said he does not plan to use any of the evidence seized in the Texas raid at Jeffs' upcoming trial in Mohave County. The prosecutor opposes a hearing to suppress evidence saying he would be afraid if the Texas officers

testified at the trial in Mohave County, it could jeopardize the Texas case."

Juxtaposed this way, it might be for good reason. The evidence is tainted and Matt Smith knows it. In the meantime though he is perfectly willing to use evidence he wouldn't have, had the potentially "tainted" method of obtaining that evidence not have been employed. Matt Smith will not want the above evidence exclusion to occur, because of the domino effect that will take out other evidence he is using.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Is that an Iguana that just fell on my head?

It's so cold. How cold is it?

Iguanas are falling from trees.

The Fort Myers News-Press - "According to Collier County Domestic Animal Services control supervisor Dana Alger, Iguana reports traditionally rise when temperatures drop, as the reptiles seek to warm themselves on asphalt surfaces such as sidewalks, roads and driveways.

Most of the Iguanas were once pets that got released when they got too big. The reptiles can grow up to six feet long."

Hat tip, Where's my Global Warming Dude?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Exhibit 3, attachment A, p.5 Something Fishy Going On?

In Warren's motion for an evidentiary hearing, a reference is made to "Exhibit 3, attachment A, p.5." Poster "kbp" correctly identifies the document as

This one.

I have been reviewing the document and found this fascinatingly vague presentation, that on first blush, pins the time for investigating Rozita Swinton's hoax "Sarah" call as April 13th, 2008, but actually, it does not.

"On April 13, 2008, I was contacted by Sergeant Hugh Velasquez (1514D) regarding information he had obtained from Sergeant Sean Mandel. Sergeant Mandel told Sergeant Velasquez he had been contacted by the Texas Rangers in regard to their investigation into the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch. Sergeant Mandel related Texas Ranger Brooks Long had advised he had two cellular telephone number listings from the Colorado Springs area (719-351-0913 and 719-243-2866). Sergeant Mandel was aware that the phone number, 719-351-0913, that was possibly related to the reporting party for the YFZ Ranch incident in Eldorado, Texas, was also identified in a prior CSPD case report."

Note that the writers are Terry E. Thrumston and Amy Mullaney, Assistant District Attorney, for El Paso County (Colorado Springs) Colorado. The speaker is Terry E. Thrumston, This is found on pages 11 & 12 of the Adobe Acrobat facsimile of the document, Thrumston's report ends on page 11, or on the 8th page of the original.

So this is what happens here. Terry Thrumston is relating a story told to him by Hugh Velasquez, which was told to him by Sean Mandel. This occurs on April the 13th. Let's be real clear what this means. On April the 16th, Amy Mullany swears out a warrant based on internal (and probably reliable) hearsay within CSPD (Colorado Springs Police Department).

She takes the statement of Statement of Detective Terry E. Thrumston (Badge #984D) (one degree of separation) and attaches it to an arrest warrant on the 16th. Thrumston in turn has taken this from Sgt. Hugh Velasquez (two degrees) who receives it from Sgt. Sean Mandel (three degrees), who is apparently, no longer with the department. It should be noted that at two degrees of separation, a date is attached. Detective Thrumston says he got the report from Velasquez on the 13th.

It does not say when it was that Sgt. Brooks Long contacted CSPD, or Sgt. Mandel who apparently has moved on to another cushier job in State Government, and is no longer with CSPD. So no date of contact is established. And the warrant is promptly sealed by Amy Mullaney. It is unsealed later and mentioned in the motion posted to the High Profile case of Warren Jeffs at the Mohave County site. The motion is made on and redacted, and posted to that site 01/16/2009 though it is dated for the 13th. I checked Mohave County's site early Friday afternoon. There was no such posting. I went home, it was there. It was dated for the 16th at that time. It now shows up as being posted by it's filing date, Tuesday, and the document is dated for a week prior to it's actual posting date, a week earlier, on the 9th.

Mainly what I am trying to point out is that a degree of sensitivity exists about what's in this motion, and in what is contained in the formerly sealed "Exhibit 3, attachment A. p5. As of yet, I don't know what all of Exhibit 3 is, unless it is the motion itself. In attachment A. is the basis for the claim that Texas contacted Colorado on the 13th. Reading attachment A though, there is no such claim. The first official record is said to be the 13th, on the 16th, when Detective Terry Thrumston makes his statement, that is by now third hand information. I had previously thought that Sean Mandel may have been promoted out of the department but I have received an email reply from another Sean Mandel, and they are not one in the same.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Dolphan Pharisee

Your Modern Pharisee is a Miami Dolphin Fan, otherwise known as a "Dolphan." This "phits" with "Pharisee." I have figured out what kind of Super Bowl match up that serves my Phin Phanaticism best.

The Dolphins lost 6 times during the past season. Previously I was rooting for the San Diego Chargers to go all the way, mostly because we beat the Chargers this year, and the rest of that desire comes from having phormer phin Chris Chambers on the squad, and primarily from having former Dolphin Offensive Coordinator Norv Turner as coach.

That didn't work.

So I've reverted to wanting an all bird bowl, and decided that it would be best for my phanticism to support the Ravens over the Cardinals. This way half the Dolphin losses during the last season come from Super Bowl participants. If you can't have been one of the teams to have beaten the eventual Super Bowl winner, at least you can explain your losses away by saying, "Well, we lost three times to this years Super Bowl contestants, once to last years undefeated team and Super Bowl participant and we won the division. You get the picture. If the Ravens win we can say "One Third of our losses during this last season came from the eventual Super Bowl Winner"We of course, lost to the Ravens twice, but they were the only team we beat the year before. Works for me.

If that doesn't happen, I figure the Cardinals need to make it and win, and again, we can say we lost to the eventual Super Bowl Champ (Once, and Badly) and I really like Kurt Warner.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Favorite new blog?

Fish die, Monkeys suffer.

Where's my Global Warming, DUDE?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED (new information): Redacting Sarah and other Observations on the Jeffs motion.

Wait for it, because the biggest news is that the REDACTING of this motion, amounts to half of the big news. We'll get to that later. UPDATED AGAIN: Now from reading the Mohave Daily News, it would seem that Piccarreta is claiming Texas did know about Rozita Swinton

.

When the hearing on Evidentiary issues comes up, we have a lot of insight into what the issues will be. A lot is revealed about what occurred in the Depositions in December. One is, that Brooks Long, got promoted. Forgive me if this has been noted before, but I wasn't aware of it. Texas Ranger Brooks Long was a Sergeant. Now he is a Lieutenant. Incidental I know. Perhaps a pat on the back for a patsy.

"Once the defendant has made the required prima facia, the state bears the burden of proving that the evidentiary hearing in this matter if it (is) willing to concede the unconstitutionality of the search because the State will not have met its burden."

Here Warren's attorneys claim to have made the prima facia case. Later in the motion several instances of how that case has been made, will be brought up. This then shifts the burden of proof to the State of Arizona (if I read this rightly) and that is what the hearing they request is all about. It's saying "the ball is in your court" and of course, the only way to answer is "in court." Hence the need for a hearing. Next to note is the menu of items that disquiet Warren's attorneys.

"The principle constitutional issues (there are many sub-issues) that must be addressed at the upcoming hearings are:

• Overbreadth of the warrants
• Whether the search actually conducted exceeded the permissible scope of the warrants
• Whether law enforcement officers acted with reckless disregard as to the false information in the search warrant affidavits
• Whether, under the totality of circumstances, the information from the unknown caller provided probable cause for the issuance of the warrants
• Whether the exposure of Arizona law enforcement officials to the illegally seized evidence has tainted the present proceedings"

Warren's attorneys also point out in a footnote that the single residence theory was not believed by Doran or Long. This was ascertained in the December Depositions.

"Schleicher County Sheriff Doran and Texas Ranger Sgt. (now Lt.) Long were aware that there were multiple residences on the nearly 1,700 acre FLDS premises, and they searched all of them anyway. [Doran Interview, December 18, 2008. p. 6; Long Interview, December 18, 2008, p. 50]."

They immediately exceeded the scope of the warrant, obtaining DNA. Exceeding it in a way that "the magistrate" had intentionally removed. It seems they had an agenda, and even a willing Judge could not restrain their actions.

"The defendant has also produced evidence showing that Texas Law enforcement officials refused to obey the dictates of the warrant under whose authority they were purportedly acting by seizing DNA samples, bucal swabs, blood samples, and pubic hair, that the magistrate expressly struck from the warrant."

The attorneys for the defendant then accuse Texas, of the Two Step. Literally.

"The first step to obstruct the truth finding process during the Rule 15 interviews of the Texas law enforcement authorities by blocking inquires into their failure to investigate the possibility that the calls from the unknown caller were a hoax, as evidenced by the ease with which it was determined to be a hoax when the authorities actually bothered to try. The second step, after blocking defendant's efforts to develop this specific information, was to file the present motion seeking to deny the defendant an evidentiary hearing by decrying the lack of specific information and claiming that 'defendant has done no more than make a [sic] conclusory assertions supported only by arguments in the pleadings.' [Request for Hearing, p 2]. The State first denies the defendant the ability to further develop specific factual information, and then complains about the lack of specific factual information. Thus, the 'two step' is complete."

Quite simply, Texas stops Warren from investigating the possibility of a Hoax in the call that set off the raid, something now widely accepted to be a foregone conclusion. It is not legally established yet, and we will see evidence of that fact, pathetic evidence really, obvious evidence, more on that in a bit. Then when Warren tries to exclude the evidence on the basis of a possible Hoax call, they say he doesn't have any evidence that the call is a hoax. The Texas 2 step, otherwise known as "Catch-22."

In the footnote, we learn more. I'm going to go out on a limb, and fill in the redacted names, and highlight them in red.

"Although the State's response neglects to mention it, there is no dispute that the affidavit was a lie: There was no such (Sarah) and she was not being abused by (Dale Barlow). The only real question is whether the Texas authorities can plausibly explain why they ignored all the earmarks of this hoax. Perhaps it is obvious why the State of Texas (with the full acquiescence of the State of Arizona) refused to allow any questions of the subject (Dale Barlow). The only real question is whether the Texas authorities can plausibly explain why they ignored all the earmarks of this hoax. Perhaps it is obvious why the State of Texas (with the full acquiescence of the State of Arizona) refused to allow any questions of (Dale Barlow)."

All the names in red are redacted (removed). This is the State of Arizona protecting "Sarah Barlow" as if she is real. By sustaining the myth that the "minor Sarah" needs protection, Arizona perpetuates the myth, intentionally, that there was abuse. If any further evidence was needed of "cahoots" we have it laid out here. Why has Arizona not shown an interest in the call? What interest do they have in preserving the notion that there is a real "Sarah" and thus protecting her identity. By redacting the names, Arizona goes through a protocol designed to hide the identity of a real minor victim of sexual abuse. Yes Virginia, there is a "Sarah Barlow," and as long as there is one, then there is cause for the raid. This proves what I've been saying all along, Texas (and now Arizona) resist knowing what they could easily know, and already have the evidence for, that "Sarah" is Rozita Swinton, of Colorado Springs, Colorado. 34 years old. Black. Single. Never a mother. Never at YFZ. A frequent sexual abuse hoax caller with a record. As long as the right had does not see what is in the left, officially, they do not know. Not redacting the name proves that they already know "Sarah" is a hoax. Redacting it maintains the myth. Not even Warren's attorney's could write the script that redacting their motion, would lead to perhaps the biggest story. It's a shame too, this motion is a bombshell without it. And it's well written. These are not only great attorneys, they're great writers.

Next, they take on the obvious expertise of Ranger Brooks Long, and how he shamelessly sets that expertise to facilitate the raid.

"Sgt. Long of the Texas Rangers personally attended a press conference staged by outspoken anti-FLDS advocate Flora Jessop at which she inveighed against the FLDS and its beliefs and practices. After the press conference, Sgt. Long had a face to face interview with Flora Jessop and asked her specifically if she had any information about criminal activity by members of the FLDS. Flora Jessop assured Sgt. Long that she had such information but Sgt. Long determined that there was no substance to Flora Jessop's allegations. In his words, no 'meat and potatoes.'

She had, she said a lot of things but there were never meat and potatoes that we as investigators in the state of Texas could say there was a violation of law happening out there or that a victim existed like what she was saying."

[Long Interview, p. 40].

Obviously, if enemies of the FLDS are willing to make unsubstantiated claims of criminal activity in a face to face interview, any reasonable law enforcement official would recognize the possibility that similar accusations would come from an unknown caller who was hostile to the FLDS. The fact that the Texas law enforcement officials included the unknown caller's allegations in the search warrant as if they were true, and without even minimal investigation is reckless disregard for the truth at its finest (or worst). After personally experiencing face to face baseless accusations, the Texas law enforcement authorities did nothing to determine whether allegations from the unknown caller were also baseless allegations from an enemy of the FLDS. Thus the defendant has presented and will present (based on Rule 15 interviews) evidence showing that under the totality of the circumstances, the Texas law enforcement authorities did nothing to establish the veracity, reliability, or credibility of the information provided from the unknown caller.

This failure to grasp the basic fundamentals of police investigation is simply incomprehensible, especially in light of the actions of ll the other agencies who received similar unsubstantiated, anonymous allegations against members of the FLDS. For the same reason, this is not a matter of hindsight being "20/20." These other agencies were competent enough to determine that further investigation was necessary at the time, rather than running off to secure a search warrant making arrangements for 152 officers to conduct a raid with a SWAT team, an armored personnel carrier, an unmanned drone, and a helicopter.

Ranger long has already demonstrated caution when it came to unsubstantiated claims, yet he believes the phone call. The answer? He doesn't believe the phone call, he believes as probably Sheriff Doran does, that it's a way in. Nothing more. A pretext. An excuse. After further review, it would appear that the first part of the next paragraph does not say that Texas did know. I believe that based on reading the Exhibit, that they may very well have known. What I said before was; "Next an apparent bombshell. The reader may feel free to correct me with observations."

"Contrary to the State's claims the defendant has provided additional specific factual information about the Texas authorities' reckless disregard respecting this hoax and has shown the ease with which the hoax could have been discovered. Exhibit 3 to Defendant's Motion to Suppress is an unsealed Colorado arrest warrant and affidavit that shows Texas authorities were well aware of the fact that two telephones utilized to make the numerous calls to the 'Crisis Hotline' in San Angelo, Texas, were registered telephone numbers outside the State of Texas. Texas authorities were immediately able to determine that these telephone numbers were associated with an individual who made numerous 'false reports of sexual abuse to the police and other agencies.' [Exhibit 3, attachment A, p.5]."

Striking what I had written before, I would say there are several revelations of this motion. What is the before mentioned redaction. By removing the name "Sarah" Arizona proves it's participation in the fiction she exists. The fiction is maintained for specific legal cover. At the point of the redaction, Texas has discovered all relevant facts but refuses to investigate. The only reason they don't know is they don't want to. This brings us to the second point. That being Texas doesn't want to know, and didn't want to know then. Warren's attorneys point to Sgt. Brooks Long's talent and natural caution with regard to believing an unfounded accusation by Flora Jessop. The last is, in combination with Exhibit 3, attachment A, p.5, we know the following;

"On April 13, 2008, I was contacted by Sergeant Hugh Velasquez (1514D) regarding information he had obtained from Sergeant Sean Mandel. Sergeant Mandel told Sergeant Velasquez he had been contacted by the Texas Rangers in regard to their investigation into the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch. Sergeant Mandel related Texas Ranger Brooks Long had advised he had two cellular telephone number listings from the Colorado Springs area (719-351-0913 and 719-243-2866). Sergeant Mandel was aware that the phone number, 719-351-0913, that was possibly related to the reporting party for the YFZ Ranch incident in Eldorado, Texas, was also identified in a prior CSPD case report."

What we do not know is what we know. That is Assistant District Attorney Ann Mullaney hears third hand of the contact between Brooks Long and Sean Mandel on April 13th, 2008. Brooks calls Mandel, Mandel tells Velasquez, Velasquez tells Mullaney. When did Brooks Long call Mandel? Mandel in this analysis does not speak directly to Mullaney. Texas still could very well have known all about Rozita before the actual invasion of YFZ, and that would be a second bombshell. (hat tip to Silver Rose and kbp)

UPDATED AGAIN: Now from reading the Mohave Daily News, it would seem that Piccarreta is claiming Texas did know about Rozita Swinton.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED (again): Warren moves to receive an evidentiary hearing to suppress YFZ evidence.

A new motion has been filed in the Warren Jeffs case in Arizona. UPDATE: After considerable invited discussion and speculation, I will revise this remark. "Among other things, it seems Texas knew, prior to going into the YFZ ranch, the name of Rozita Swinton, and that she had made false charges of sexual abuse." I will insert this as the alternative. They may well have known, and if they did not, it is simply because they didn't want to know, as it would spoil the party they had planned. UPDATED AGAIN: Now from reading the Mohave Daily News, it would seem that Piccarreta is claiming Texas did know about Rozita Swinton

.

Texas had all the numbers necessary to immediately identify Rozita Swinton and may in fact have done so. Strange goings on that mask the time of initial contact between Sgt. Long and Sgt. Mandel of the CSPD have been found in "Exhibit 3." A conversation took place between Mandel and Long, and may have begun before the day Mandel notifies Sgt. Hugh Velasquez to formalize CSPD and Texas Ranger communication.

The defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby opposes the State's attempt to deny him an evidentiary hearing in connection with his motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property. The State has requested a hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). However, the State neglects the fact that there are many issues raised in the motion to suppress that do not relate to any alleged Franks violation and for which the defendant is clearly entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to rule 16.2 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. in any event, the defendant has clearly met and exceeded the prerequisites for a Franks hearing due to the blatant nature of the Franks violation involved in the present case. The State's attempt to deny the defendant his right to an evidentiary hearing should be denied for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9 day of January, 2009.

WRIGHT STANISH & WINCKLER PICCARETTA DAVIS PC
By Richard A. Wright By Michael L. Piccarreta
Attorney for Warren Jeffs Jefferson Keenan
Attorney for Warren Jeffs

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. The Defendant is Entitled To An Evidentiary Hearing Regarding His Motion To Suppress Under Rule 16.2 Of The Arizona rules of Criminal Procedure.

The easiest reason for this Court to deny the State's request for a hearing to determine whether defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on Franks is the fact that the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress, regardless of any claims of Franks violations.

Rule 16.2. of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the procedure for judicial determinations of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by the State in criminal proceedings. To begin with:

Rule 16.2, which provides the "[p]roceedure on pretrial motions to suppress evidence," requires the Court to inform unrepresented defendants whenever a constitutional issue arises concerning the acquisition of evidence that may warrant an evidentiary hearing. See Ariz.R.Crim.P 16.2(a). And the rule establishes that it is the prosecutors burden at such a hearing to prove "the lawfulness in all respects of the acquisition of all the evidence" the state intends to use at trial. Ariz.R.Crim.P. 16.2(b).

State v. Bejarano,__Ariz.__,__P.3d__,2008 WL 5205421 at *4 (Ct.App.Div.II, December 21, 2008) [Emphasis added].

Under circumstances such as those in the present case, the defendant is only required to make a prima facia showing that evidence should be suppressed. The State is apparently unaware that the Arizona Supreme Court has stated that a "Defendant may fulfill this burden of going forward by bringing to the court's attention - through argument, legal theory or testimony - the defects in the State's argument." State v. Hocker, 113 Ariz. 450, 455, n. 11, 556 P2d 784, 789 n. 11 (1976), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Jarzab, 123 Ariz. 308, 311, 599 P.2d 761, 764 (1979). *1
_____________________
*1 The State erroneously claims that "the defendant has done no more than make a [sic] conclusory assertions supported only by the arguments in the pleadings." [Request for a Hearing, p. 2]. Even if the State's claim were true, it would be sufficient to satisfy the defendant's burden under Hocker.
_____________________

It is thus established practice in Arizona courts that the Court holds an evidentiary hearing "[w]henever an issue concerning the constitutionality of the use of a specific evidence against a defendant arises before trial...." Rule 16.2(a), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. An allegation of a Franks violation is not necessary to obtain an evidentiary hearing although, of course, that issue will be involved in some cases. Once the defendant has made the required prima facia, the state bears the burden of proving that the evidentiary hearing in this matter if it willing to concede the unconstitutionality of the search because the State will not have met its burden.

The principle constitutional issues (there are many sub-issues) that must be addressed at the upcoming hearings are:

• Overbreadth of the warrants
  
• Whether the search actually conducted exceeded the permissible scope of the warrants
  
• Whether law enforcement officers acted with reckless disregard as to the false information in the search warrant affidavits
  
• Whether, under the totality of circumstances, the information from the unknown caller provided probable cause for the issuance of the warrants
  
• Whether the exposure of Arizona law enforcement officials to the illegally seized evidence has tainted the present proceedings
  

In his motion to suppress, the defendant has presented evidence and argument with regard to all of these issues which he is now able to supplement after the Rule 15 interviews of the Texas law enforcement officials. *2 The State now bears the burden of proving the legality of the searches and seizures with respect totality of these areas, only one of which involves allegations of Franks violations.

_______________
*2 For example, both Schleicher County Sheriff Doran and Texas Ranger Sgt. (now Lt.) Long were aware that there were multiple residences on the nearly 1,700 acre FLDS premises, and they searched all of them anyway. [Doran Interview, December 18, 2008. p. 6; Long Interview, December 18, 2008, p. 50]. The defendant has also produced evidence showing that Texas Law enforcement officials refused to obey the dictates of the warrant under whose authority they were purportedly acting by seizing DNA samples, bucal swabs, blood samples, and pubic hair, that the magistrate expressly struck from the warrant.
________________

Accordingly, under the well established procedures in Arizona courts, if the State wishes to defend the constitutionality of the searches and seizures in any of these non-Franks areas, the Texas law enforcement officials will be required to testify at the upcoming evidentiary hearing on the defendant's Motion to Suppress, regardless of whether they committed any Franks violations.

II. The Defendant Clearly Met And Exceeded The Prerequisites For A Hearing Under Franks v. Delaware.

The State's attempt to deny the defendant his right to an evidentiary hearing is yet another example of the "Texas two step" previously referred to by the defendant. However, this time the "two step" is more literal. The first step to obstruct the truth finding process during the Rule 15 interviews of the Texas law enforcement authorities by blocking inquires into their failure to investigate the possibility that the calls from the unknown caller were a hoax, as evidenced by the ease with which it was determined to be a hoax when the authorities actually bothered to try. *3 The second step, after blocking defendant's efforts to develop this specific information, was to file the present motion seeking to deny the defendant an evidentiary hearing by decrying the lack of specific information and claiming that "defendant has done no more than make a [sic] conclusory assertions supported only by arguments in the pleadings." [Request for Hearing, p 2]. The State first denies the defendant the ability to further develop specific factual information, and then complains about the lack of specific factual information. Thus, the "two step" is complete.
________________
*3 Although the State's response neglects to mention it, there is no dispute that the affidavit was a lie: There was no such (Here the name "Sarah" is apparently redacted) and she was not being abused by (Here the name "Dale Barlow" is apparently redacted). The only real question is whether the Texas authorities can plausibly explain why they ignored all the earmarks of this hoax. Perhaps it is obvious why the State of Texas (with the full acquiescence of the State of Arizona) refused to allow any questions of the subject. (apparently Dale Barlow). The only real question is whether the Texas authorities can plausibly explain why they ignored all the earmarks of this hoax. Perhaps it is obvious why the State of Texas (with the full acquiescence of the State of Arizona) refused to allow any questions of the subject. (apparently Dale Barlow).
________________

The State's efforts to obstruct and impede the truth finding process relation to the illegal raid of the FLDS property in Texas will be the subject of a separate motion for sanctions including striking the State's response to the motion to suppress. *4 However, for the purposes of the present motion, defendant submits that the State's tactics are transparent: the State has blocked inquiry into the illegal actions of the Texas law enforcement officials during the Rule 15 interviews, and is now trying to keep the same facts from being developed before this Court at the upcoming evidentiary hearing on this matter. No law enforcement agency should be able to shield its unconstitutional conduct from judicial scrutiny in this manner. The State's request must be denied.
________________

*4 The defendant is also in the process of preparing his reply to arguments raised in the State's response to his motion to suppress based upon information gathered in the recently completed Rule 15 interviews.
_________________

It is difficult to conceive of a more blatant example of reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of information that is set forth in a search warrant affidavit. This reckless disregard is revealed by the fact that, under the totality of the circumstances, there were obvious reasons to further investigate the claim of the unknown caller. For example, Sgt. Long of the Texas Rangers personally attended a press conference staged by outspoken anti-FLDS advocate Flora Jessop at which she inveighed against the FLDS and its beliefs and practices. After the press conference, Sgt. Long had a face to face interview with Flora Jessop and asked her specifically if she had any information about criminal activity by members of the FLDS. Flora Jessop assured Sgt. Long that she had such information but Sgt. Long determined that there was no substance to Flora Jessop's allegations. In his words, no "meat and potatoes."

She had, she said a lot of things but there were never meat and potatoes that we as investigators in the state of Texas could say there was a violation of law happening out there or that a victim existed like what she was saying.

[Long Interview, p. 40].

Obviously, if enemies of the FLDS are willing to make unsubstantiated claims of criminal activity in a face to face interview, any reasonable law enforcement official would recognize the possibility that similar accusations would come from an unknown caller who was hostile to the FLDS. The fact that the Texas law enforcement officials included the unknown caller's allegations in the search warrant as if they were true, and without even minimal investigation is reckless disregard for the truth at its finest (or worst). After personally experiencing face to face baseless accusations, the Texas law enforcement authorities did nothing to determine whether allegations from the unknown caller were also baseless allegations from an enemy of the FLDS. Thus the defendant has presented and will present (based on Rule 15 interviews) evidence showing that under the totality of the circumstances, the Texas law enforcement authorities did nothing to establish the veracity, reliability, or credibility of the information provided from the unknown caller.

This failure to grasp the basic fundamentals of police investigation is simply incomprehensible, especially in light of the actions of ll the other agencies who received similar unsubstantiated, anonymous allegations against members of the FLDS. For the same reason, this is not a matter of hindsight being "20/20." These other agencies were competent enough to determine that further investigation was necessary at the time, rather than running off to secure a search warrant making arrangements for 152 officers to conduct a raid with a SWAT team, an armored personnel carrier, an unmanned drone, and a helicopter.

Contrary to the State's claims the defendant has provided additional specific factual information about the Texas authorities' reckless disregard respecting this hoax and has shown the ease with which the hoax could have been discovered. Exhibit 3 to Defendant's Motion to Suppress is an unsealed Colorado arrest warrant and affidavit that shows Texas authorities were well aware of the fact that two telephones utilized to make the numerous calls to the "Crisis Hotline" in San Angelo, Texas, were registered telephone numbers outside the State of Texas. Texas authorities were immediately able to determine that these telephone numbers were associated with an individual who made numerous "false reports of sexual abuse to the police and other agencies." [Exhibit 3, attachment A, p.5].

The defendant has also established a Franks violation via material omissions in the affidavit in support of the second search warrant, i.e., the failure to advise the Magistrate that Sherrif Doran actually spoke to the suspected perpetrator, (Apparently Dale Barlow's name is again redacted) in Arizona by cell phone, confirming his driver's license number and the fact that he was in Arizona, and further learned that the (probably Dale Barlow, redacted) they were looking for was not at the YFZ Ranch. These facts, under the totality of the circumstances, obviously severely undercut the credibility of the information provided from the unknown caller and mandated further investigation. In addition, these "material omissions" were obviously essential to the determination of whether there was probable cause to believe that (Apparently Dale Barlow redacted) was "located" on the YFZ Ranch and posed "an immediate risk of physical or sexual abuse" of (Sarah/Rozita Swinton apparently redacted) as had been previously averred to the Magistrate under oath. It is undisputed that the Texas authorities knew these facts yet did not return to the magistrate with this information that completely undercut the initial showing of probably cause and also omitted these facts from the second search warrant affidavit. Contrary to the State's assertions, these are uncontradicted, specific facts that support defendant's claim of a Franks violation.

All of these factual circumstances, taken collectively or individually, display a reckless disregard for the truth as they constitute "obvious circumstances that impeach the credibility of the information in the affidavit." State v. Carter, 145 Ariz. 101,109, 700 P.2d 488, 496 (1985) [citing United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677, 694 (D.C. Cir. 1979)]. See also State v. Poland, 132 Ariz. 269, 279, 645 P.2d 784, 794 (1982) [reckless disregard can be proven by "obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant"][quoting Davis, supra].

Accordingly, the defendant has clearly exceeded any requirements necessary to obtain a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware inasmuch as he has alleged reckless disregard for the truth and specifically pointed out the portions of the affidavit claimed to be false (everything in the affidavit except for the affiant's qualifications), made a detailed offer of proof in his motion to suppress stating the supporting reasons, and has shown clearly that, without the false information, there was no probable cause for the warrant. In any event, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the numerous additional constitutional issues he has raised, including but not limited to Franks, and the State's attempt to deny his right to an evidentiary hearing must be denied.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of January, 2009.

WRIGHT STANISH & WINCKLER PICCARETTA DAVIS PC
By Richard A. Wright By Michael L. Piccarreta
Attorney for Warren Jeffs Jefferson Keenan
Attorney for Warren Jeffs

More →

Sphere: Related Content