It would appear, to my untrained eye, that this is roughly what happened earlier in the year when various attorneys "agreed" not to release certain documents about Warren Jeffs. Instead, they were released anyway to quite a furor and the press now happily refers to pictures of Warren Jeffs kissing Merrianne Jessop, pictures of Warren on a Motorcylce and to copies of "The Prophet's" dictations. From the "filing" or "acknowledgement" of the attorneys' pleading.
It seems that Matt Smith thinks Michael Piccarreta and Richard Wright know what good behavior is, and will abide by it. No one expects in view of Matt Smith's "pleading" that it will be he that releases the content of those recordings or those actual recordings. Again, relying on memory, which I will attempt to refresh throughout the day, and with the help of you, the good reader, there was not that same confidence in Natalie Malonis, et al, on the State or Attorney ad litem side of the equation. A feeble attempt was made to bolt the door after the horse was gone when such things began to appear on blogs and in the press. I would not be surprised at all to find that blogs like "FLDS Texas" and it's two predecessors actually turned out to be the blog of supposed advocate for Teresa Jeffs, Natalie Malonis. If true, that would mean that she is using the privilege she had back in the day, even now, to disseminate information that everyone "agreed" was "eyes only."
It then seems very likely to me, that Piccarreta could blow the lid off what was in those recordings or distribute them any time he wanted. If he cannot, very simply it seems that the Court in the person of Barbara Walther passively concurred with the leak of depositions, photos and journals in Texas. If Conn comes down like the wrath of an angry God on Piccarreta because he does something similar, it would show that prejudice on Walther's part, even more. In other words, I wonder what strength this "pleading" (as Conn terms it) actually has.
In other words, if you want something private in a proceeding, get it sealed or it's not going to be. If Piccarreta and Wright wish to burn their capital with Judge Conn, they can. The cost will be Judge Conn will not trust them before his court in the future as other Judges might not either. The problem for that interesting little experiment? I don't think Piccarreta or Wright will leak. We'll never get to compare Texas and Arizona. But it would be, "interesting."
"The court acknowledges the filing in these cases of a Notice of Filing of Agreed Protocol for Attorneys' Eyes Only Review of Law Enforcement Recordings which is signed by all 3 attorneys involved in these cases. It does not appear that the Court is being asked to take any action regarding that pleading and it will not do so unless specifically requested."So when all those documents escaped, that if my memory serves me, FLDS leaning attorneys wanted sealed, there was no court "order" just as there is no court "order" in this case. Everyone is on their "good behavior."
It seems that Matt Smith thinks Michael Piccarreta and Richard Wright know what good behavior is, and will abide by it. No one expects in view of Matt Smith's "pleading" that it will be he that releases the content of those recordings or those actual recordings. Again, relying on memory, which I will attempt to refresh throughout the day, and with the help of you, the good reader, there was not that same confidence in Natalie Malonis, et al, on the State or Attorney ad litem side of the equation. A feeble attempt was made to bolt the door after the horse was gone when such things began to appear on blogs and in the press. I would not be surprised at all to find that blogs like "FLDS Texas" and it's two predecessors actually turned out to be the blog of supposed advocate for Teresa Jeffs, Natalie Malonis. If true, that would mean that she is using the privilege she had back in the day, even now, to disseminate information that everyone "agreed" was "eyes only."
It then seems very likely to me, that Piccarreta could blow the lid off what was in those recordings or distribute them any time he wanted. If he cannot, very simply it seems that the Court in the person of Barbara Walther passively concurred with the leak of depositions, photos and journals in Texas. If Conn comes down like the wrath of an angry God on Piccarreta because he does something similar, it would show that prejudice on Walther's part, even more. In other words, I wonder what strength this "pleading" (as Conn terms it) actually has.
In other words, if you want something private in a proceeding, get it sealed or it's not going to be. If Piccarreta and Wright wish to burn their capital with Judge Conn, they can. The cost will be Judge Conn will not trust them before his court in the future as other Judges might not either. The problem for that interesting little experiment? I don't think Piccarreta or Wright will leak. We'll never get to compare Texas and Arizona. But it would be, "interesting."
Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment