First to Matt Smith he says "oh no, YOU have the burden of proof" in the evidentiary hearing that will be occurring.
Then he says "oh no Matt, this is not another interview of Carolyn Jessop" and then he challenges Becky Musser, Carolyn Jessop and Richard Holm as expert witnesses:
Then he says "oh no Matt, this is not another interview of Carolyn Jessop" and then he challenges Becky Musser, Carolyn Jessop and Richard Holm as expert witnesses:
"Carolyn Jessop has written a whole book in which she characterizes Mr. Jeffs as a bad man and the FLDS as a bad religion. She, of course, characterizes herself as intelligent, wonderful and almost perfect. The defendant does not believe that any of this admissible but, at a minimum, the defendant needs to know how much, if any, of this type of evidence he will need to met at trial."It is amazing how much the defense seems to be on it's heals in Texas, but so much in charge in Arizona. The difference must be the judge.
Sphere: Related Content
11 comments:
The difference must be the judge.
Gee, do ya think?
Yes Ron,
And it SHOULDN'T be. Granted there should be some minor stylistic variations but the progress, and it is progress, that the FLDS are making in general in Arizona, compared with defeat after defeat in Texas says that one of these Judges is wrong.
So yeah, I think, something you ought to do MORE, RON.
I submit that Judge Walther rams, jams and crams things through at warp speed and the defense is rarely right when objecting, until something goes to appeal.
Then they're right. 439 times.
When it's in an Arizona court, the FLDS seem right from the get go.
So I think, RON, that maybe Walther is biased and is part of the prosecution, and has been all along.
Isn't it funny, that we have all these crimes going to trial in Texas, and Arizona and Utah can barely write traffic tickets?
The problem out west is the system.
Texas is serious and is nipping it in the bud. These are serious crimes, and its sad that this same behavior has gone on so long in Short creek and that it was exported to Texas with the impression they would commit them unfettered.
These allegations are serious unless you are a proponent of child brides and dismissive of that behavior, of course.
Modern, todays hearing in Judge Conn's court might result in a few surprise in his rulings on Piccarreta's landslide motions. Seems he will be met with equal talents in opposition to his delaying ways and seeking to interview potential witnesses pretrial. How is it during Raymond's trial you proclaim Judge Walther's of delaying tactics and now claim the same judge is guilty of proceeding too quickly?
Stamp,
I don't believe in the concept of child brides such as modern society defines it, and 50 years ago (much more recently as a matter of fact) we didn't as a country, either.
As I continue to maintain, and you ignore for effect, I think we should nonetheless follow the law, and that includes the FLDS. I thin also, as I repeatedly say, that LAW ENFORCEMENT should ALSO follow the law, and I think they did not in the raid. I know of no other effective way to deal with LE misbehavior other than to take the stuff they grabbed away from them when they do illegally search and reprimand them. The nation is generally in more trouble from an unfettered police force, than it is from criminals.
Jam, her delaying tactics were to rule late on the evidence motion, which she could have done much earlier. She delays whenever it is to her advantage, and then jams things through in trial like greased lighting. THAT, is a CONTROL tactic. I hardly think YOU believe that these all night sessions and hurried trial time frames set in advance have been to the advantage of the defense.
I dislike INTENSELY equivocation, don't engage in it. She holds off rulings until she can't be second guessed in ways that work to her advantage. At trial time, she tries to through the defense off their game by rushing things.
I wish you could be honest, but neither of you are.
Be sure that you will someday answer to your maker, not to me, on that count.
BOTH of you know I think the FLDS are guilty of the crimes they have been charged with.
BOTH of you know what my objections are.
BOTH of you know that I think the FLDS should have followed the law.
BOTH of you know that I think LE did not follow the law.
BOTH of you know I think that invalidates the whole proceeding.
You then go on to repetitively cite COURT decisions by largely self protecting parties to claim that the raid was legal. I don't think that will stand, but we'll see.
BOTH of you know I don't share your objections to "child brides" or polygyny, BUT, like I said before, the law SHOULD be followed.
It might be perfectly fine to marry at 14 and for a man to have many wives, but it isn't NECESSARY to have a child bride, and adults can conduct themselves in a manner that passes for polygamy without really breaking any laws.
I don't agree with marrying ANYONE at age 14 -way too young - but here's the issue:
TEXAS IS OK WITH MARRYING AT AGE AT AGE 14.
TOTALLY OK IN THEIR MINDS - legal
Unless you are a FLDS member.
If Texans were really serious about 14-16 year olds getting married then the legal age to marry would be 18 -simply as that.
But they want to be able to have their pregnant 14 year old baptist girls get married - just not FLDS 14 year old girls.
So they crafted two laws which make it fine and dandy for Baptists girls to marry at 14 but not FLDS girls.
If Texas wanted to raise the age of marriage to 21, I could care less. When I care is when the write laws which make it legal for one religion to marry but not another.
I'm fine if someone thinks 14 is too young, but you are correct IHB, Texas doesn't think it's too young.
The problem remains that polygamy is not legal so when a polygamist marries at 14 year old that 14 year old must be their only legal spouse at the time or that 14 year old must have been married before, the latter being a rather rare occurrence.
I continue to point out this rather graphic fact. I don't think a vagina knows the difference between a 14 year old phallus or a 50 year old phallus so I don't know how we protect a 14 year old vagina by punishing the men attached to the 50 year old phallus.
A vagina doesn't know the difference between a phallus that has 20 other vaginae whether that phallus is 50 or 15, but in the context of the FLDS that 50 year old is likely to be disease free whereas that 15 year old wandering Lothario in a public high school, not so much.
Either we go string up 14 year old girls and boys or lock them up for 20 years for the heinous crime they are committing against one another, or face it, what the 50 year old is doing to them is only as bad as what the 15 year old kids are doing to each other.
We try 14 and 15 year old murderers as adults. We punish them for lengths of time similar to what is proposed for Allen Keate and was proposed for Raymond Jessop. Either what they did wasn't as heinous or we need to be locking kids up for assaulting each other.
It's not popular to say but if it's wrong for a 14 old to have sex with a 50 year old it's wrong for them to 14 on 14 sex. It's arguably more damaging when you look at the societal controls in place with the FLDS.
Having said all of that, it's still illegal, but that's precisely why polygamy shouldn't be, and then Texas judges could simply decide if they wish to let 14 year olds marry 50 year olds with other wives, or 18 year old boys with no other wives.
If not they could run off to North Carolina and get married there. Or Saudi Arabia.
I didn't think you would have the hair to discuss the sexual abuse older men have been caught conducting against younger and more vunerable young women. How many Congressional Pages, Presidential staff secretaries or aspiring actresses have to be forced to sleep with grandpa's for a dimwit like you to acknowledge that it's not exactly like two young lovers like Romeo and Juliette. Piccaretta had a 'Barney Fife' day yesterday and right in front of Warren, F. Merril, Wendell, JD Roundy, Lyle and WeeWillie. Gee I wonder what all the old grey-haired studs thought about their Courtroom dud?
Jam,
Since that ramble was shorter than the last one, I'm publishing it.
You have NO HAIR since we don't know who you are. You continue to try to red herring the discussion, equivocate and usually when you deliberately confuse arguments, you also play dumb, (obtuse).
The ONLY People I have respect for on your side of the Aisle are those that post in the clear. We still disagree, but I have respect for them.
Even Flora Jessop merits respect because she is out there but you aren't.
Crawl back under your rock you slimy low life.
Grow a pair, whatever your gender is.
Well I have sired five that have all graduated from co;;ege and stayed out of jail. Maybe instead of proclaiming yourself a s Polygamy Sheriff you should just read about parenting skills, never too late to be a Father than just a sperm donor in a Bigamy enclave. Still don't believe a series of polygynist convictions ruins your cause for bigamy in Vermont and I am the one who has an issue with honesty? I noticed you had to attack me than admit old perverts make a practice of sexually abusing young females and that's why statutory rape carries a 1st degree form as the most heinous form of assault. Honestly?
You haven't done anything, because you are NOBODY.
You can't compare yourself to me. You don't exist you pathetic troll.
Now, come out into the light, and I'll take that back :)
We don't know how many kids you have, you can't spell college and one day you talk like a lawyer, and on another, a refugee from an Ebonics class.
You don't exist. Coward.
Post a Comment