Monday, November 30, 2009

Scheduling Conflict my, um, "Steed....."

Now what is David Foley going to do?
Allen Steed just moved in back of Rozita again. No, I'm crazy folks, of course they're not connected.
Brooke Adams Tweets - "A hearing in the Allen Steed case has been reset from Thursday to Jan. 29 @ 1:30 p.m. due to a scheduling conflict."
I'm nuts of course, and have been told so many times by "expert" no name "lawyers" on the "other side."

Let's humor me again as it is so amusing to watch me be crazy.

The case against Allen is in DEEP trouble, and so now we have a, um, uh, "scheduling conflict." Yeah, a scheduling conflict, yeah, that's the ticket.

Everyone DOESN'T want to know what Rozita might say on the stand in a trial, so that doesn't matter, so when her "oldest misdemeanor case in El Paso County (all of Colorado?)" got delayed until the MIDDLE of January, guess where the trial that isn't linked in any way to hers, or Warren Jeffs got delayed on the calender.

Yes, that would be after Rozita's, in January. But they're not connected.

They're not connected because no one doesn't want Rozita to testify and maybe start a ball rolling that just might blow up the YFZ evidence.

They're not connected because it won't matter if the charge ORIGINATING from YFZ blows up and then Allen gets acquitted or his charge laid aside for reporting reasons and suddenly there won't be much reason to hold Warren because the law says you can can an accomplice to a crime that didn't even happen/wasn't even planned/wasn't even imagined by anybody.

They're not connected.

So it's not at all amusing to watch all the contestants stand at the door saying;
"No, you first!"

"By all means you go first..."

"Oh but I insist..."

"Ladies first!"
For anybody who hasn't been keeping up, Allen Steed (and other figures) have been stepping aside for Rozita to go first for getting close to what? Almost two years now? Every time one delays, the other delays until after their delay, and so on.


Sphere: Related Content

9 comments:

I_hate_bigots said...

Why can't Utah just be honest and say the trial will be delayed until the Rozita case is settled?

I would think the trials in Texas should also have been delayed until Rozita can testify?

At this point I thinking the Colorado prosecutor might be obstructing justice by delaying Rozita's trial.

The Pharisee said...

Because that would let the cat out of the bag. It would declare that something Rozita could speak about would be near nuclear in it's effect on all the cases.

I'll tell you what it is that Colorado is covering up.

Colorado is covering up the FACT (not the conjecture, but the fact) that Rozita had an ongoing relationship with local law enforcement.

When Rozita's cell phone records are examined, that will come out, when her computer records and emails are examined that will come out.

Texas HAS those records. Texas KNOWS there is a connection between law enforcement and Rozita Swinton. Not a casual glancing relationship, but a rather involved one.

Texas DID NOT (and this I know for a fact) TELL the FLDS or their attorneys ABOUT that relationship. That IMPEACHES the evidence that Texas has already used to convict Raymond Jessop and will be used to convict Allen Keate and other FLDS defendants including Warren Jeffs. They should have REVEALED the full extent of LE involvement in Rozita's life, but they did not.

There is a slight chance that there is nothing to document Rozita's relationship with LE on her phones or her computers but only a slight one. The relationship itself is real, the chance that Texas knows about it is almost certain.

This potentially tears down the Texas case against all FLDS defendants because they have NO EVIDENCE if they lose their YFZ evidence.

Allen Steed, if he is not convicted, places the conviction of Warren Jeffs in REAL JEOPARDY.

Those that wish to lock up FLDS men and destroy their religion know that they have to keep Warren behind bars.

If there are no charges against him coming from Texas they begin to lose their grip on one leg.

If they lose their grip on his "rape by proxy" conviction, they lose their grip on his other leg.

So the flimsy case against Allen is delayed. The truth Rozita reveals must be put off so that some charge will survive. Thus when Rozita is delayed, Allen is delayed. Colorado looks at Allen's delay in Utah, and delays again in Colorado.

Rozita's case is now the OLDEST misdemeanor case in El Paso County Colorado that is still being actively pursued and may well be the oldest such case in all of Colorado and Allen's apparently can't stand up to an examination of the time frame that his "crime" was brought to police attention.

Jam Inn said...

Allen Steed's attorney has filed several motions that have delayed Allen's trial from coming to trial, namely tainted jury, fair trial and failure to charge in a timely manner. Allen Steed is planned for as a witness in Warren Jeff's trial in Arizona and if convicted Steed is convicted of rape his ability to testify for Warren would be lost. Additionally, this latest reschedule will allow both Allen Keate's and Michael Emack's trials to have returned verdicts and afford Mr. Steed the ability to still plea bargain. Allen Steed's plead out or conviction only strengthens Elissa Wall's lawsuit against the UEPTrust, valued at over $100+Million Dollars.

Of course, Elissa Wall's pending lawsuit and Allen Steed's charges didn't have anything to do with this latest reschedule, unless it was requested by Allen's attorney's, namely Jim Bradshaw or Mark Moffat.

The Pharisee said...

Jam, it's simple. If the state had wanted to try this case, they would already have done so.

Warren was convicted over three years ago on the same evidence Allen will be tried with, and Allen was arrested for the "offense" at the time of Warren's conviction.

The state does not have a firm belief they can convict. The reasons for delay are essentially, technicalities. It is clear that delays work in Allen's favor.

Jam Inn said...

What's so obviously simple here Modern is the fact that Washington
county Attorney Brock Belnap's agreement of 'Confidentiality and Cooperation' signed with Elissa Wall on November 16, 2005 bound the charges of accomplice to rape charges to be brought solely by the prosecution against only Warren S. Jeffs first and foremost or Elissa Wall could recant her cooperation. Warren's conviction simply freed the prosecution to then bring primary charges against Allen Steed, since the confidentiality agreement had been met.

With conviction verdicts against Keate and Emack, Allen Steed can agree to a plea but he has to be offered one or change his plea to 'Guilty' to avoid a trial. Allen Steed has been charged since October, 2007 and Warren's conviction was in September, 2007, that's just over two years ago. Steed's delays do not play into his favor but rather make his outcome more inevitable.

I believe a negative ruling from the Utah Supreme Court on Warren Jeff's conviction will further worsen this situation. Had Warren stopped this underage marriage or if he would have granted an annulment, neither Warren nor Allen would be convicted/charged. Washington County is going to try this case and no plea bargain will be proffered.

The Pharisee said...

Jam,

Doesn't that smell a little bad to you? "I want someone else to be convicted of rape, other than my rapist?"

You're also engaging in revisionist history since a "resolution hearing" was offered by an increasingly frustrated judge and there was no middle ground to be had.

Then Bradshaw asked for a trial. Now it's being delayed again. An increasingly stale dated rape charge where the defendant has always been available for trial does not increase chances of conviction.

Jam Inn said...

The resolution hearing is perfunctory and always offered. What was surprising to the judge, and not frustrated as you concluded, was that no offer had been made or discussed, so maybe the hearing could have been mutually waived than a waste of the courts resources. Warrne Jeffs was sentenced in September and Allen's charges were filed in that same month.

Who has requested this latest reschedule, you seem convinced it was from the prosecution. Facts and evidence don't change as a result of a prolonged trial preparation, you should look to the defenses motions and legal delays are more their practice than the prosecutions. You refused to believe reports that FLDS jurors were dismissed by the actions of defense attorney Mark Stephens, do you honestly believe any of the six FLDS jurors will be empaneled onto Allen Keate's jury?
Does,"Answer Them Nothing", again prevail as Allen's defense with no witness to be called for his defense? You still refuse to see this as a religious defiance directed by a convicted Prophet?

The Pharisee said...

There must be more than one "Jam."

The Pharisee said...

Since Rozita has pled guilty once again, never having been acquitted of any crime she has been charged with, always pleading guilty (but with deferred consquences), it was, finally, after all this time, "Ladies first," after all.