Saturday, January 31, 2009

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.


Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

TxBluesMan said...

Hi Hugh...

Two items.

1 - I have responded to Kurt's post, for those that want to look at both sides.

2 - (unabashed plug) It's on my blog.

The Pharisee said...

Keep trying blues, you may have a fine legal mind for all I know, but you have no objectivity.

cheese said...

Hugh, it seems that Blues is quite an energetic and capable attorney. He definately does good research, and I do have to hand it to him for that. That being said though, I think that he uses his brain more for a warehouse for legal facts and forgets that it was also meant to be used to THINK WITH! He also seems to have no heart and very little of the 'milk of human kindness'. He seems to not even give it a second thought that these 'criminals' as he calls the FLDS men are actually very loving and God fearing husbands, fathers and friends to many people. The only thing that makes them 'criminal' is the legislation that has been targeted and aimed directly at our religion. The Lord said "By their 'fruits' ye shall know them". So while all the teenage children of the FLDS at YFZ were in 'custody' where are the reports of their 'delinquincy' while there? Does anybody think (including Blues) that you could go into the inner city and confiscate 400+ children of which 1/2 were between the ages of 12 and 18 and not have a mountain of vandalism, drugs, smoking, etc. If Blues wants to be objective he could look at it that way. If 'our lifestyle' is so 'criminal' then where are all the juvinile crimes associated that mainstream has to deal with constantly? So I digressed, big deal!





Blues on his blog: "Third, to overcome the presumed validity of a search warrant, Piccarreta must establish:

"(1) that the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth included a false statement in the affidavit, and (2) the false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause." State v. Buccini, 810 P.2d 178 (Ariz. 1991), citing Franks v. Deleware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

There is no evidence that either of those prongs will be met.




The question I really have, Blues is 'How is waiting until April 13 to start investigating whether the call was a hoax considered to not be "knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth including a false statement in the affidavit"? The people at the gate put him (the sheriff) in contact with Dale on the 3rd. You'll note that Dale recieved two calls from the sheriff at the gate. I wonder "why?". Then they 'promptly' wait until Apr.13 to start looking into the other half of the issue. That doesn't look to me like a good faith effort! In fact it looks like the only "good faith effort" that they put forward was an effort to accomplish the dastardly deed before they are found out!! And why are they "still investigating" it, almost a whole year later? It's almost as stupid as "looking for Bin Laden"!! THE SHERIFF KNEW THE CALL WAS A HOAX ON APR.3. AND IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT BLUES, IT'S BECAUSE YOU CHOSE NOT TO JUST LIKE DORAN DID!!!!

TxBluesMan said...

Cheese,

The affidavit was sworn to prior to the 3rd - how is it a false statement in the affidavit? Based on information that was obtained afterwards?

It doesn't help them get the warrant tossed.