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.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

I pledge to be a servant to our President?

Servant? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 27, 2009

Carolyn Jessop clearly has something to hide, and it's in her Tax Returns

Carolyn Jessop won't cooperate.
In a new motion posted today (and filed Wednesday) on the Mohave county site:
"The parties then agreed that the completion of Ms. Jessop's interview would occur on November 6, 2009, over the telephone. On November 4, 2009, the completion of Ms. Jessop's telephonic interview was re-scheduled for November 24, 2009, at the State's request. Ms. Jessop promised to disclose her tax returns showing the financial benefits she received from the publication of her book in advance of the completion of her interview. However, on November 20, 2009, the State advised defense counsel that Carolyn had called off the completion of her interview."
The summation of all of this is that Carolyn opened the door to her tax returns, pleading she could not explain herself without them. Since she has testified previously that they are an integral part of her explanations, she cannot now refuse to discuss or show them.

The bottom line? Carolyn can indeed stonewall forever as has been pointed out by anti FLDS pundits, but what hasn't been said? The state will have to strike her from the witness list, if she doesn't pony up. Natalie Malonis' letter? Balderdash.

The Thanksgiving Day weekend? Very busy indeed.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Plot Thickens in Arizona

Matt Smith has made two (a) motions that he may actually win in the Arizona case against Warren Jeffs*:
This is one of those points about which I know so little of what has already transpired combined with my less than amateur ability with the law, that I can't really call the outcome. Calling it like a ball game though I'd say that all Matt Smith has won so far is a "wait until Texas rules" play with Judge Conn, something he now no longer claims. That's good. Make it look like your idea Matt since you wouldn't win a protest of the evidentiary hearing anyway. This also now makes it look like Matt's earlier disclaimers regarding use of YFZ evidence, were smoke. Only Judge Conn can stop the evidentiary hearing in Arizona as both the defense and now the prosecution have no objections.

What Matt might win is twin motions denying Jeffs further access to Ms. Elissa "Redacted" Wall and her income from her book and movie deals and Carolyn Jessop and her tax returns. You have to figure that if Michael Piccarreta is on a winning streak, getting what he wants, that at some point he will knowingly overreach what is rightfully the province of the defense, and ask for something he'd like to have, but really shouldn't have. He wouldn't be doing his job, if he didn't.

There is a bit of absurd comedy in all of this. Elissa's name continues to be "redacted" from motions as she is a "victim," yet the names of her published works (of fiction?) continue to be used in conjunction with her "whited out" name, making it completely transparent. Arizona might as well paste over her name with clear Scotch Tape.

Then there is this crowing and self aggrandizing "elbowing" her way into the spotlight of Natalie Malonis as the representative of Carolyn Jessop. I'm linking to it only to document her grandstanding. I by no means encourage you to click on the link, unless of course you don't believe me. I in fact debated with myself for quite a while before I resolved post the link, not wanting to contribute any site traffic numbers or publicity to the blog where this letter appears:
"November 16, 2009

Mr. Matthew J. Smith
Mohave County Attorney
315 N. 4th Street
PO Box 7000
Kingman, Arizona 86402

Via Facsimile 928-753-2669

RE: Arizona v. Warren Jeffs, CR-2007-743

Dear Mr. Smith:

In connection with the above-referenced case, I am writing on behalf of Carolyn Jessop as a designated witness for the State of Arizona. As you’re aware, I represented Carolyn in her Texas child support case against Merril Jessop. On behalf of my clients in whose cases Sam Brower was engaged, I also participated with Lee Novak and Roger and Greg Hoole in preparing a response to the Defense’s motion to depose Mr. Brower. I will soon be submitting my pro hac vice application in Arizona so that I may appear in December for oral argument on the issue on behalf of clients, such as Carolyn, whose confidentiality could be compromised if Mr. Brower’s deposition is allowed to proceed.

Carolyn has requested that I contact you and communicate her intent to withdraw from voluntarily participating as a witness for the State in its case against Warren Jeffs. Although Carolyn was initially willing to provide testimony for the State, such willingness and cooperation with the State has been transformed into an unreasonable and unnecessary burden. As lead attorney for the prosecution, it appears that you are doing little or nothing to shield your witnesses from harassment and unreasonable exposure by Mr. Jeffs’ attorneys. Per your request, Carolyn has voluntarily made herself available on two occasions for more than four hours of interviews by Mr. Piccarretta; she has produced sensitive and private documents relating to her financial dealings; and she is now being asked to submit to a third interview for Mr. Piccarretta’s continued fishing expedition. Mr. Piccarretta’s right to interview witnesses is not unlimited, but there has been no apparent gesture on your part to place any outer limits on Mr. Piccarretta’s continued access to witnesses. Additionally, as far as Carolyn is aware, you did not request or secure any type of protective order or non-disclosure agreement in connection with her financial data disclosed to Mr. Piccarretta. She feels that you have failed to take reasonable actions to protect her privacy interests and to shield her from unreasonable exposure by the defense.

Carolyn is also testifying for the State in criminal proceedings in Texas. Based on your conduct and apparent open-door policy with Mr. Piccarretta, Carolyn is concerned that her Texas grand jury testimony may be requested by you and supplied to Mr. Piccarretta or other FLDS attorneys or supporters, thus exposing her to even greater harassment, ridicule and scorn (If you’re not aware, Carolyn endures a constant barrage of public invective from those who wish to hide the FLDS practices). It seems as though even Judge Conn has taken note of your passivity in the face of an onslaught from the defense – noting in a recent order that the State had not filed any type of response to Mr. Piccarretta’s motions for depositions of non-party, non-witnesses, although several responses were filed by various other attorneys on behalf of those whose depositions were unreasonably sought. This type of habitual lack of response and seeming acquiescence and exaggerated courtesy extended to defense attorneys portrays you as unwilling to protect and defend Ms. Jessop, and perhaps other witnesses as well.

Having carefully evaluated the circumstances and potential for negative exposure and unwelcome consequences to Ms. Jessop, she has made the decision that she no longer wishes to participate as the State’s witness in this proceeding, although she remains supportive of the State’s efforts to bring justice to Warren Jeffs. Naturally, Ms. Jessop is aware that the State could subpoena her and order her to appear and give testimony, contrary to her expressed desire and intent, and she hopes that the State would not place her in that position.

Carolyn has requested that any further communications on this or related issues be made through me; she does not care to be coaxed into changing her decision and is concerned that would be the result if she were to communicate with you directly. In view of Carolyn’s decision to withdraw her voluntary participation, she also withdraws her agreement to give any further interviews to Mr. Piccarretta or make any further voluntary disclosures or production of documents. Please communicate this information to Mr. Piccarretta, as necessary.

Please know that Carolyn remains very appreciative of the stance you have taken in bringing the first indictments against Warren Jeffs and being the frontrunner in bringing justice to this group. Unfortunately, as circumstances have evolved, it has become too onerous for Carolyn to remain involved to the same extent on a voluntary basis. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need for further discussion.

Kind regards,

Natalie E. Malonis"
I continue to maintain that Natalie has nothing but idiots for clients, the clearest evidence of which is, Natalie is their lawyer. I have been the target of one of Nat's self important missives. It was only worrisome because Ms. Malonis has the ability to file motions, and has access to the court and has proved to be a loose cannon in the past.

* (see post immediately above)
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

It's on, in Arizona

The next stage in the evidence fight will not be an appeal in Texas (though that may certainly come soon) but a straight ahead assault in Arizona:
"In previous proceedings before this Court, counsel fo Mr. Jeffs expressed misgivings about the ability to obtain a full and fair hearing concerning the Texas raid in the Texas courts. Those misgivings have now been borne out as the Texas judge who authorized the issuance fo the warrant, District Judge Barbara Walther, has, not surprisingly, now affirmed herself and affirmed the validity of the search conducted under the warrant."
Read the request for evidentiary hearing. Warren Jeffs' attorney Michael Piccarreta goes on to say:
"Notably, the district court's order does not contain any factual findings about the false information set forth in the affidavits in support of the warrant, i.e. that the purported caller did not exist and her alleged abuser was not there and had not been in Texas in decades."
He further states that Texas relied on the affirmation of Brooks Long that he sincerely believed the caller existed, as that caller described them self This argument, he claims is circular because it's self evident on the basis of the affidavit, that the affiant believes what they are saying.

Piccarreta cannot resist applause lines and goes for them frequently. This one I really like:
"An investigator of the level of Barney Fife would have recognized the call as a hoax if he had spent an hour or two of proper investigation."
Warren's attorneys also go after Elissa Wall in a separate motion and the absolutely surreal action of the court to redact the motion, removing the name of a published author, because she was a minor at the time, gives the head quite a spin.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 23, 2009

Allen Steed Still on the Calender

Just a reminder, a week after Thanksgiving:
03:00 PM 1-HR ORAL ARGUMENTS S27 071501596 State Felony
OTN: 19095116 DOB: 05/12/1981
F1 - RAPE - 04/14/01
At some point there will be a ruling on the time frame of the alleged crime.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Friday, November 20, 2009

Keate Trial to stay put

In a move pretty much telegraphed earlier by a "grant," Allen Keate's trial will not me moving:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "51st District Judge Barbara Walther denied a state request to move the trial of Allan Eugene Keate from Schleicher County to Tom Green County.

Keate is the second member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and resident of the Yearning for Zion Ranch to go to criminal trial as an outcome of the state's historic raid on the ranch in April 2008.

Keate's attorney opposed the motion."
You don't approve funding to provide for Schleicher county trial staff, when you're going to move the trial.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The Tom Green County Commissioners Court (Tuesday) morning (November 17th) approved funds to ease the stress of staffing legal proceedings in those cases.

Specifically, the Commissioners Court met <> to approve a grant that pays for a part-time court administrator to help the 51st District Court in cases brought against several men associated with the FLDS Yearning for Zion Ranch outside of Eldorado.

Money for the grant comes from the County Essential Services out of the Texas governor’s office.

'It’s fully funded,' Nathan Cradduck, the county auditor, said. 'There is no match required.'

The grant is a continuation of a grant that expired in August 2009, Cradduck said.

The money for the position will extend the grant to August 2010. The grant is for about $37,000."
This gives us clear insight into how Barbara Walther decides things. It's not in court in front of the attorneys in the presence of their arguments. It's behind closed doors without the persuasion of arguments.


Because how could you grant the money to do the business of the court in Schleicher county, until you knew you were going to do business there? Clearly there was no chance the trial would move, no matter how persuasive the argument.

The outcome doesn't bother me at all, if Allen Keate wants to be tried in Schleicher county, it's great that it worked out that way. My point is that Walther's decisions have nothing to do with facts or arguments. They have only to do with what she wants.

This makes me wonder if the state is starting to worry about the way things are being done. I'd want my convictions to stick, if I were your normal everyday prosecutor.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Allen Steed has had enough of Elissa Wall

"I, Allen Steed, being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and say that I have read the foregoing Cross-claim and that the statements contained therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge, except as to matters stated on information and belief, and as to such maters, I believe them to be true. Dated this 6th day of November 2009."
This apparently occurred about two weeks ago. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

New filing in Jeffs case

It can be found at Mohave county court's site:
Motion to determine Nature, Scope and Extent of proposed Expert Testimony. An excerpt:
"These disputed factual matters have nothing to do with any of the factual allegations in the two pending prosecutions and are, in fact, more akin to the type of 'he said, she said' allegations that permeate divorce court, or afternoon daytime talk shows."
In another portion, Jeffs' attorneys squarely acknowledge the Polygamy issue and at the same time suggest where experts might be found:
"The basic teachings of the FLDS are essentially the same as the basic teachings of the 'mainstream' LDS, with the exception that the LDS no longer follows its founders' belief in the practice of polygamy. However, the basic teachings are the same and come from the Book of Mormon and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. None of the State's proposed witnesses have any special training or expertise in the LDS or the FLDS or the history of these religions and differences between them."
There is this all too true observation as well:
"This proposed expert testimony will not assist the jury because claims of subjugation of women (are) hardly unique to the FLDS. It is and has been a tenet of fundamentalist religions everywhere including the teaching of the Old Testament, the Koran, the current teachings of the Fundamentalist Baptists, and the 'mainstream' Mormon Church."
The motion concludes that the case is either "about religion or not about religion." If it is about religion, it seems to be the defendant's opinion, through his attorneys, that he is then protected by the First Amendment, and cites the few available and recent cases before Supreme Courts in Montana and Minnesota.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 16, 2009

And now, Texas doesn't think it can get another Jury in Eldorado

The residents are whining, and so is the state. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Age and El Paso County Misdemeanor Prosecutions

I have made the claim that El Paso County is pursuing very few if any older cases than that of Rozita Swinton.
In recent months I can recall no cases where there were any 2008M classified cases on the "Call off" list of the 4th Judicial District.

Traffic cases are designated "T" and criminal cases are designated "CR" preceded by the year of the charge being filed. Traffic and criminal cases do not count.
CallOffs for Monday November 16, 2009
CaseNumber AppearanceDate DefLastName DefFirstName Division
D021 2009CR 004154 11/16/2009 Contreras-portillo Facundo 02
D021 2009CR 003542 11/16/2009 Espinoza Richard 02
D021 2009CR 000453 11/16/2009 Cisneros Jeff 09
D021 2008CR 005196 11/16/2009 Dixon Patrick 09
D021 2009CR 000318 11/16/2009 Graff Brett 09
D021 2008CR 005072 11/16/2009 Mitchell James 09
D021 2009CR 000784 11/16/2009 Nelson Warren 09
D021 2009CR 000899 11/16/2009 Battle Michael 10
D021 2009CR 001792 11/16/2009 Brown Shenequa 10
D021 2009CR 000438 11/16/2009 Dingman Bryan 10
D021 2008CR 002519 11/16/2009 Tullis Wayne 10
D021 2009CR 001338 11/16/2009 Vaughn Scott 10
D021 2009CR 001438 11/16/2009 Willson Becky 10
D021 2009CR 001802 11/16/2009 Yeagley Donald 10
D021 2009CR 001470 11/16/2009 Framel John 15
D021 2009CR 002165 11/16/2009 Ghostbird Annjeanette 15
D021 2009CR 000910 11/16/2009 Griffin Christopher 15
D021 2009CR 001020 11/16/2009 Griffin Christopher 15
D021 2008CR 003998 11/16/2009 Delgado Thomas 16
D021 2009CR 001706 11/16/2009 Erickson David 16
D 2009CR 002663 11/16/2009 Nelson Jonathon 16
D021 2009CR 001663 11/16/2009 Nelson Jonathon 16
D021 2009CR 003114 11/16/2009 Barkley Terrance 19
D021 2009CR 001602 11/16/2009 Chisenhall Betty 19
D021 2009CR 002077 11/16/2009 Maron Astra 19
D021 2009CR 002052 11/16/2009 Nixon Demetrius 19
C021 2009M 006938 11/16/2009 Campbell Derick A
C021 2009M 006940 11/16/2009 Edwards Jason A
C021 2009M 006946 11/16/2009 Helms Charles A
C021 2009M 006948 11/16/2009 Jenkins Blaine A
C021 2009M 006950 11/16/2009 Martinez Georgia A
C021 2009M 006956 11/16/2009 Newell Byron A
C021 2009M 003433 11/16/2009 Syndes Oui A
C021 2009M 004284 11/16/2009 Aripez Joshua B
C021 2009T 007545 11/16/2009 Franco Samantha B
C 2009T 009670 11/16/2009 Gossett Leigh B
C021 2009T 008830 11/16/2009 Jackson William B
C021 2009T 008168 11/16/2009 Jackson William B
C021 2009T 005701 11/16/2009 Jackson William B
C021 2009T 003445 11/16/2009 Ord Donald B
C021 2009M 004509 11/16/2009 Music Sharri D
C021 2009T 012789 11/16/2009 Alvarado-villareal Luis E
C021 2009T 008769 11/16/2009 Batton Jamie E
C021 2008M 003493 11/16/2009 Dockery Edward E
C021 2009M 005606 11/16/2009 Ebert Chad E
C021 2009M 002132 11/16/2009 Howell Jason E
C021 2009T 008725 11/16/2009 Mccormick Kirk E
C021 2009T 012740 11/16/2009 Mcdaniel John E
C021 2009M 004320 11/16/2009 Smith Dillon E
C021 2009T 006245 11/16/2009 Sylvester Sherri E
C021 2008M 009851 11/16/2009 Thomas Kelvin E
C021 2008M 008283 11/16/2009 Wicks Sidney E
As you can see here, after several conversations with El Paso county, there are now some misdemeanors that do show up as "Call offs." If a case is set for trial, as it must periodically be, to retain eligibility for prosecution, it is either tried, or called off and reset for prosecution at a later date. This must be done with the concurrence of the defense.

The above highlighted cases in red bold type, confirm the existence of misdemeanor cases as El Paso county contends, from 2008. Sometimes you wonder if you stirred the pot a little and if it affected what is being listed at the 4th Judicial districts site, nevertheless, there they are.

Rozita's case is C021 2008M 002726. As I understand the case numbers, they are assigned sequentially. The last 6 digits are the case number, which makes provision for about a million cases in El Paso county. I'm sure they don't reach that number.

Rozita's case is 2726, meaning there were 2725 cases before her. I assume most to be traffic tickets and other citations. Since it is assumed that she was charged in 2008 at the beginning of March or end of February 2008 for her hi-jinks in Colorado Springs, it means there are roughly 1000-1500 cases a month that are processed. The remaining cases showing up in the 7 day call off list for the 4th Judicial district are numbered 3493, 8283 & 9851. 3493 was charged, I would assume, approximately 2-4 weeks Rozita's was charged.

This still leaves her as the "oldest misdemeanor case" being "pursued" in El Paso county by all available evidence. This is not to say tomorrow another case might show up and blow her out of the saddle as reigning procrastinated prosecution, but she's firmly in the lead.

El Paso county for it's part blusters that it has "many" misdemeanor cases from 2008 that it is still pursuing, but mumbled in process of that declaration the word "traffic." Those would be 2008T cases, not 2008M. All the 2008M or prior cases called off for the next 7 days, appeared on TODAY's "call off" list.

(Case shown in bold green is the newest numerical prosecution, 12789. This would mean through about 10 months around 1300 or so cases are started in El Paso county's 4th Judicial district. It is a traffic violation.)
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Dear Schleicher County, Shirley Emmons & Norma Torres, Tired of Trials? Already? Here's what to do:

Be careful what you wish for:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Anybody who did not serve on the jury in the first case involving an FLDS member that wrapped up last week is eligible to sit on a jury for the remaining cases. There are still 11 other cases involving church members from the Yearning for Zion Ranch.

'The only way they’re out of the mix for the other trials is if they’ve served,' (Schleicher County’s Elections Administrator Brenda) Mayfield said.

Some Eldorado residents have already had enough of the trial.

'I think it’s a mess,' Shirley Emmons said. 'It’s going to make our taxes go up for all that trial.'

Others say that the trials' ubiquitous presence is too strong.

'It’s going to be very hard for our community here,' Norma Torres said. 'That’s just what’s on everybody’s mind. That’s all you hear is them talking about that and having all these state troopers. Everybody knows what’s going on. Overwhelming is what it is.'

51st District Judge Barbara Walther, who decides where the trials will be held, was out of the office Friday and not available for comment."
Wanna stop it? First, let me rant a little. You brought this on yourselves. You peered voyeuristically over the YFZ fence, your Newspaper railed at them, and you listened to the Flora Jessops of the world. Now you have these trials. I hate to be rude, but DEAL WITH IT.

Here's how: Whoever you are, in the Keate trial, vote for acquittal. It is your right. Two "Not Guilty" verdicts in a row or two hung juries in a row and I'll bet the trials go away.

Otherwise, I don't want to hear about it. Your taxes are going to go up, your time will be wasted and you stand a good chance of having all the guilty verdicts reversed on appeal. That took brains didn't it?

I hate to be so hard on you but when you're at the bottom of a hole, as all of us are sometimes, the first thing to stop doing? STOP DIGGING! Call it off, use your rights. It's called Jury Nullification.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 13, 2009

"True Believers..."

Found at the Wasatch Intercept.
" 'All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest' - The Boxer, Paul Simon."
An apt lead in:
"What I see in play is some kind of morbid curiosity. For some reason, that eludes me, some people in this country are eager, desperate even, to believe lurid tales of organized abuse rings, masquerading under the guise of religion, holding children hostage as sex slaves today, right here within the boarders of the good 'ol USA.

This is by no means an intellectual exercise for this group of 'true believers', they believe it with their hearts, and any skeptic will quickly be accused of being either a child abuser or a child abuse enabler.

This 'true believer' phenomenon certainly did not begin with this particular group. In the 1980's, a book called 'Michelle Remembers' was released. In it's aftermath, a large number of apparently unconnected individuals, across both North America and Europe, began coming forward with accounts 'recovered memories' of satanic ritual abuse. Evangelical Christian traveling speakers Bob Larson and Jerry Johnston were drawing huge audiences, then Geraldo Rivera fanned the flames even more with a primetime special, treating it all as real. But was there any evidence?"
Remind you at all of the fanatical types surrounding YFZ with stories of horrible events?
"When I actually start publicizing this blog, so that people will actually start reading it, hopefully I can get some insightful comments as to why they so passionately want to believe. Could it just be that some have a pathological need for a scapegoat to hate, or that they find some personal validation in believing the worst of those who seem strange or different from themselves, or could it go even deeper than that? For now, I remain perplexed."
Oops, too late.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Subtle. Believe it or not.

I love this one: More →

Sphere: Related Content

Walther Juggernaut Rolls On, Keate trial on December 7th.

One of the most complex series of prosecutions in US History continues with Allen Keate being tried on Pearl Harbor Day this year.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Authorities decided Thursday afternoon to hold the jury trial in Eldorado, according to district clerk administrators.

District Clerk Peggy Williams said she plans to send out 300 notices today. Jurors will be pulled from voter registration rolls and driver’s license records.

Allen Keate will be tried Dec. 7 on a charge of sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000."
Meanwhile back in Colorado, an open and shut prosecution of a misdemeanor continues to confound the DA's office, and they refuse to comment on even the most elementary aspects of the case, such as whether or not there are any older misdemeanors they are still pursuing. Allen's case, like Raymond's, will be assembled, brought to trial and finished before El Paso County can get around to prosecuting a simple prank phone call that tied of almost all of CSPD for the duration about two years ago.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Tribune Finally Owns Up

As if we didn't know already. The Salt Lake Tribune has alternately sat on stories or not investigated them from the beginning. They're not the only ones. From about fall of last year, if you hadn't caught on to what was being said between the lines, you weren't reading. Now they just say it:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "We continue to have reservations about the raid on the FLDS Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas in April 2008 that gave rise to this and other prosecutions. The appeal of the Jessop conviction may bring rulings by higher courts in Texas on whether the evidence from that raid, which was based on a bogus phone tip about a young woman in distress, was tainted by the false foundation for the state's searches and the breadth of the resulting seizures.

Procedural questions aside, however, we believe that justice was served by this prosecution, the conviction and the sentence."
And we, those of us who were outraged by this business, do not. You cannot in this country, separate the procedural from justice, and even relegating it to the bin of "procedural" shows a sort of snooty bias that causes me to grind my teeth a bit.

The bill of Rights is largely concerned with procedure. Our 4th Amendment is in fact nothing, if it is not about procedure.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
By failing to do anything but step back, and NOT editorialize on the issue, and then in the final analysis issue a weak "We continue to have reservations," The Salt Lake Tribune openly declares that when it comes to personal freedom, they opt to subordinate it to what they evaluate as creepy:
"The whole notion of pressing young women into polygamous sexual unions with much older men is abhorrent, and any state which respects the rights of the young, the vulnerable and the brainwashed should prosecute it."
Thanks at least, for telling us that. The fact that no member of the community came forward to testify against Raymond, his "wife" included, who is an adult now, is of no importance to the Tribune. Their claim of abuse only holds legal, but not real water. Had their been real abuse, one of the women of YFZ would have broken ranks, but no one did. Not even to this day. Isn't Janet, Raymond's wife, able to say if she feels abused now? If in fact it is a date on a calender that makes a girl a helpless victim of sexual violence, doesn't the passing of another date on the calender make her capable of saying she wasn't?

Furthermore, if polygamy was the issue, as the Tribune clearly seems to think it is, along with the age of the polygamists involved, why was it that Texas didn't charge the FLDS with bigamy? Certainly there was probable cause to enter the Ranch and claim bigamy. All that evidence could have been collected and we'd be sitting right here, right now, with the same verdict.

And I'd have been reluctantly supportive of that verdict, because I too believe Raymond broke the law.

But we would have had a test case eventually going before the US Supreme Court on the issue of polygamy, and every State, Utah, Arizona and Texas is too cowardly to set that confrontation up. Instead they concocted a premise of abusive teaching and atmosphere and went into YFZ in a procedural way forbidden by our Constitution. That should be more important to the editorial board of the Tribune, but it's not.

You would think that a Free Press would have some allegiance to the idea of rights.
"In our view, there is no question that this is a crime of sexual violence which cannot be justified or explained away by reliance on the constitutional rights of religious freedom."
I guess the 1st Amendment only pertains to them.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

I just realized...

Tomorrow, is
Friday the 13th. Welcome to the twilight zone, paraskevidekatriaphobics.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Raymond to serve at least 5 years.

The sentencing phase is over.
Raymond got a 10 year sentence, no parole, he must serve 5 years. ABC 4.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

El Paso County Responds, Rozita to be tried NEXT YEAR.

I called, and I emailed Frederick Stein, Senior Deputy District Attorney for El Paso County Colorado.
This is my letter, to him:
"Mr. Stein,

I have several questions with regard to the Rozita Swinton case, that continues to be delayed. From where I stand this seems to be the oldest misdemeanor case in El Paso county, at this time.

Are you aware of the recently concluded CSPD IA investigation regarding Lt. Magdalena Santos and her well known (around CSPD) association with the defendant?

Are you aware of a statement made by Becky Hoerth, Rozita's former roommate in which she states that Lt. Magdalena Santos (980D) and Lt, Jane Anderson have interfered in a case or cases involving Rozita before, in her favor? This 50 page statement appears to have been generated in the first half of 2008, probably in April.

Are you aware of Rozita being used as "voice talent" for CSPD/CBI (and possibly FBI) internet sex sting operations that drew in suspects from across the Western United States? CSPD in conjunction with a task force was using phone contacts with leads picked up on the internet in which adults successfully portrayed themselves as little girls, to lure in predator suspects.

All of this looks terribly suspicious in view of the fact that the defendant sparked the largest child custody case in US history last year and in view of the fact that her attorney, former El Paso county prosecutor David Foley rather loudly stated he had "surprises" regarding the case in April of last year, a week after Rozita's arrest.

Can you let me know what is going on with this case and when it will next be on the court's calender?

Hugh McBryde
Modern Pharisee Blogspot."
This is his reply:
"Mr. McBride [sic],

The next court dates for Rozita Swinton’s case are Jan 6, 2010 for pre-trial readiness and Jan 13, 2010 for JT. Because this is a open case which is currently being prosecuted by the 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, I am unable to answer any further questions about this case.

Frederick Stein

Senior Deputy District Attorney

4th Judicial District Attorney's Office

719-520-6191 "
I of course, told you it would be delayed, again.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

And Rozita's Trial? YOU GUESSED IT (called off) UPDATED

Will Rozita EVER go to trial before a case in the YFZ matter is finished? It's beginning to look as if the answer is "NEVER."
CallOffs for Tuesday November 10, 2009
CaseNumber AppearanceDate DefLastName DefFirstName Division
D021 2009CR 003517 11/10/2009 Windle Emily 07
D021 2009CR 000857 11/10/2009 Rodriguez Jesus 09
D021 2008CR 005179 11/10/2009 Rodriguez Jesus 09
D021 2009CR 003056 11/10/2009 Allen-turner James 18
D021 2009CR 003389 11/10/2009 Tian-velasquez Pablo 18
C021 2008M 002726 11/10/2009 Swinton Rozita C
If you go there, go to this page, it will be under "View Cases For Tomorrow" until sometime this morning, then it will revert to "View Today's Cases." "Called Off" does not mean "it will never happen," at least TECHNICALLY it doesn't mean that. It means IN THEORY it is being rescheduled.

UPDATE: Judging from the case number, Rozita's case originated in 2008. The "M" after "2008" appears to does designate "Misdemeanor." On the whole page of 7 day call offs, there is only one case from 2008 that is a misdemeanor that is still in play in El Paso County. Rozita's. Don't tell me this is normal, this is highly unusual.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 09, 2009

Raymond Jessop's sentencing seems to spark more life out of his defense team

Again, Brooke Adams is there, and is providing reliable updates through her "Twitter" account.
It would seem things are going to spill over into tomorrow, maybe longer? There is more at the San Angelo Standard-Times:
"While 51st District Judge Barbara Walther surveyed the prosecution’s evidence about the accusations Monday morning, Stevens regularly informed her of his numerous objections ranging from hearsay to violation of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

And Walther regularly responded that she wasn’t yet granting admittance to the evidence but just examining it, suggesting Stevens was jumping the gun.

She was also pushing to complete the punishment phase."
What? Stevens doesn't trust Walther? Her pattern is to push people up against an iron clad deadline of her own making, dropping a ruling on them and shutting them up. All the while we know what her ruling will be, only she says she hasn't made up her mind.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

An Interesting Tidbit on Sentencing from Bill

I did not know this, and hope it's true:
Free the FLDS Children - "As you recall, almost no jurors said they would consider probation for Raymond if he was convicted. OOPS!

Since on Voir dire they stated that they would not consider probation, the Defense can ask for a mistrial, and a new Jury HAS to be chosen for the Sentencing Trial.

It’s (Barbara Walther's) plan to bring in every maggot she can find that hates the FLDS almost as much as she does. She has that right.

On the other hand, Janet (Jessop's "informal" Mrs.) has the right to speak at the Trial, and so does Raymond himself. By Texas Law, he can make a statement to the Jury just the same as he could have made a statement to (Judge Walther) if she were railroading him into prison."
Defense attorney Mark Stevens has some sort of inscrutable strategy that I have not fully divined yet. I am not an attorney, least of all a Texas criminal defense attorney. I continue to suspect that Judge Walther has left an appeal rich trail that any attorney who likes appeals would drool over.

Perhaps the "deal" where Stevens capitulated on FLDS members on the Jury was that no one would contest them if a new panel was seated for sentencing. Either there's a plan or Stevens is a spectacularly bad attorney, is hobbled by defense wishes (I would think he wouldn't have taken the case then) and everything I hear over the transom is that Stevens is not a bad barrister.

Frankly if they're going down, I'd hope the FLDS sets up some sort of legal confrontation that clarifies certain points of law, but on the other hand, I can understand of people like Raymond Jessop elect to take probation over idealism.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, November 07, 2009

CSPD Internal Affairs concludes it's investigation.

It lacks specifics and I have never been given the "receipt number" for the investigation:
November 2, 2009

Hugh McBryde
P.O. Box ****
Montpelier, VT 05601

Dear Mr. McBryde

This letter is in response to the suspicions you raised in your complaint on 09-24-09 regarding employees of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

A thorough inquiry was conducted which included a review of Department records and reports, interviews with involved employees and review of Department policies. The investigation disclosed there was no violation of Department policy nor was there any indication of inappropriate behavior by our employees.


Lt. K. D. Wilson
Internal Affairs Division
Colorado Springs Police Department
The letter came in an envelope postmarked November 3rd, 2009, as Raymond Jessop's trial was winding down, and right before Rozita's starts in Colorado Springs. I got it today.

Right way I note it is fairly vague. What is "inappropriate behavior" on the part of their employees? What is department policy? Where's my receipt number?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 06, 2009

Walther Tries to Sentence Raymond Jessop on the sly

Except for a tip, no one would have known.
The Plural Life - "Surprise, surprise. The court decided to hold a hearing today after all. I got there in the nick of time, thanks to a certain unnamed tipster. Thank you!

Last night when we left, Judge Barbara Walther told everyone court would resume at 10 a.m. on Monday. That was the word from the Texas Attorney General’s Office, too.

But Walther changed her mind. Had things gone more quickly today, I think she was prepared to go ahead with sentencing. The jury was at the court, sequestered in the waiting room. She finally sent them home about 2:30."
Brooke Adams scores again. She is apparently responsible for getting Juror 12 86'd, though in retrospect I think I would have preferred that she remained, and now she scores with nosing out another Walther Friday Surprise.

I don't know if the defense consented to this or not. I personally don't know the workings of the court, but I know that Walther would trample them if she could, and probably has IMHO.

On the surface, this seems to stink.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Heard on the Radio, Reflections on the Verdict

With the Fort Hood tragedy dominating the news, the Raymond Jessop verdict sorta slid beneath the waves.
I was on my way to the bank this morning, and overheard on the news, as the last story (paraphrased of course) was this:
"Raymond Jessop is facing 20 years in jail as a result of being convicted yesterday in Texas for sex with a teenage girl. The conviction was a result of a raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch last year, in which over 400 children were put into foster care."
There are probably less than 2000 people outside the FLDS and Texas Law Enforcement that know what really happened and this is how public opinion is shaped. The story didn't include the fact that the children were all returned. Most people don't know the big issues that were in play at YFZ for all of us, and are still fuzzy on what happened afterward. I think Brooke Adams spoke for herself as well as others about the result of the trial when she had an anonymous man who accosted her outside the courtroom respond to the verdict with one word.


Most people who did know about the details of YFZ were concerned with the children. When they all went back (a perception not reinforced by the above referenced news story) that was the end of their outrage. By hook or by crook a molester or 12 had been apprehended and that was good enough. Compromise tends to rule the day when truth is at stake and it seemed a fair result to most that at the end of an illegal raid, FLDS members got half their stuff back. You YFZ'ers keep your kids, we'll jail the dirty old men for the next 20 years. Nothing can ever make a wrong right, but the least you can do is try to reset things to the way they were. Such moral compromises always encourage the despot and the thief.

You want 100%? Just steal twice as much as you need. Compromise. Meet your opponent half way. How is it good that I walked through the door with $100.00, got beat up, had to dust myself off, shake hands with my assailant and walk out the door missing a tooth and only having $50.00 and him getting credit for giving it back to me? I want my $100.00 thank you.
The Washington Times - "Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.

That's right. Orchids."
Everything is criminalized now. From food, to sex to drugs to marriage, it's all regulated overmuch by the Government and you're doing something wrong, I promise you. Have we forgotten the Manna Storehouse? In a completely criminalized society, where you cannot hope to stay violation free, you're only hope is a valid search warrant standing in between you, and imprisonment. Anyone who has bothered to follow the few facts accumulated about Rozita Swinton's call to the Newbridge shelter knows that she guessed at a lot of details and out of several jurisdictions she called, only Texas eventually chose to believe her tall tales. We all laugh in theaters and watching TV at the pretense used by police to gain entry to places they cannot go. We cheer them on because they are the monolithic "Good Guys" and the script demonized "Bad Guys" have been getting away with too much anyway. Time to win one for the team.

If you combine too much regulation, too many personal swat teams and too little in the way of barriers to home invasion on the part of Law Enforcement, you end up with the purest form of tyranny. The laws cannot all be enforced. Many of the agencies still don't have their personal swat teams and their laws just lay there, on the books, no one enforcing them. You can TRY to get them enforced but good luck with that. Angry police officers and detectives will inform you of rules and regs they know about pertaining to harassing a police officer and threaten to come get you if you don't quit bothering them. And they can. This then becomes the selective use of law to keep you in line, not to make for a law abiding society. I have personal experience with that. A 2am obscene phone caller from out of state. I should have known when the whole YFZ thing started that nothing would happen with the prank caller. I had personal experience with a misdemeanor offense committed against me. It ended with a Gallatin County Sheriff's department detective threatening me to enforce a law against me if I didn't stop bothering him about it. It didn't stop them from sending a cruiser to my door in the middle of the night to shut up my persistent out of state harasser, that they could not shut up.

How odd that this in many ways fits the pattern exactly of the YFZ affair. Wanting to be cooperative I invited the Deputy into my home. It is only now that I remember his eyes roaming the room for an "exigent circumstance." There was none, whatever unknown misdeed I was committing, he either did not see, or didn't know about himself. I suppose if my daughter had been up downloading copyrighted music, he could have cuffed me right there.

We are all in that sort of peril. We are all at the mercy of Law Enforcement trying to make their day go easier and shut up pests, many of them from out of state, be it pranksters from Colorado, or Malcontents from Utah and Arizona or regulators from Washington DC wanting to eliminate the illegal orchid trade, or food Nazis in Ohio.

My only natural son has proved an interesting lesson for me in many ways with his various and continuing scrapes with the law. One of the most vital lessons was how LE seeks to gain control over people. At the end of one of his scrapes I had managed to guide him through the court system, getting him cleared of an undeserved felony and winding up with a correct charge that was a misdemeanor and accompanying probation to go with it.

Then I got my education. The probation officer as much as told me that he wasn't interested in managing my son's probation to keep him out of trouble, instead, he wanted to manage it so that he could catch him in another felony. Why? Because he could then control him better, if he was a felon. A felon goes back to prison, a misdemeanant does not. Alcohol consumption may be legal, pot a minor crime and having hand lotion (allegedly for the purposes of self gratification) are not that big a deal for you or I, but as terms of probation for a felon, can send them to jail for things they seemingly can't resist. Control.

In this same way police don't want to give up the small controls they have in our lives. It works to their advantage if they can just go anywhere they want, anytime and in the currently over regulated environment, if all it takes is Pinky (or Sarah) calling while watching TV to spark a raid, LE doesn't worry about what they'll find when they get inside. They know they'll find something.
"Jerry Lee Lewis had already gone through two marriages by 1957; he'd married Jane Mitcham, his second, 23 days before his divorce from his first wife, Dorothy Barton, was final. On December 12, 1957, Jerry married his third cousin, Myra Gale Brown. A lot of ink has been spilled about his close blood relationship with Myra, and the fact that she was only thirteen and still believed in Santa Claus when the pair were married. For a man from his time and place, however, marrying at thirteen and marrying one's third cousin (twice removed) were both fairly commonplace occurrences, although Lewis further complicated matters by again marrying before the divorce from his second wife was final.

Lewis didn't seem to realize that this was offensive to most urban markets (and to other countries): in fact, Sun Records' Jud Phillips (brother of producer Sam) had warned him against taking Myra with him to England on his first European tour. Jerry Lee, never one to change his mind, took her anyway. When they stepped off the plane on May 22, 1958, Lewis obligingly told the British press that Myra was his wife (although he gave her age as 15 and moved up the date of their actual wedding). His bride, for her part, told the gathering that fifteen wasn't too young to marry back home: 'You can marry at 10 if you can find a husband.' "
1957. It wasn't that long ago, I was three years old. Jerry Lee Lewis is now considered to be a bit of a rascal, a country singer, and his daughter by his union with Myra, manages his career. Now there's a pedophile for you. We too quickly forget. What is now a 20 year jail term was once commonplace and I promise you that a look back at your recent ancestry is liable to produce a similar union. Without them, we would not be here.

Now like prohibition crazies gone wild again, we have found a new vice to be shocked about. Sex with "children." On the surface it seems like a righteous cause and it's perfect because both the left and the right hate their newfound sinners, so they have no friends. The left tears at the LDS and other religions regularly and popularize their failings. The right whines about molesters and homos and wants to pull the dust from everyone else's eye while ignoring the lumber yard in their own.

What do they find? A small fundamentalist group of Latter Day Saints who have been doing what they've been doing since the religion was founded. The Right hates them. The mainstream LDS religion hates them, the Left hates them. Once you're isolated like that, you have little hope. After a year and a half of demonizing the FLDS and trying the case in the press with outright lies, Raymond Jessop, who they can't even prove committed a crime in Texas, is convicted by a jury in time to get home for dinner. Raymond's wives will not see him now for perhaps the rest of his life. His children may even be barred from seeing him. They will become doubtless members of the welfare roles. Not a single participant in the "crime" (both adults now) testified in the case. Raymond's "victim" didn't even complain.

Is all well?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 05, 2009

That didn't take long.

Guilty, but you probably know that already.
Lone Star Texas News - "Raymond Jessop has been found guilty of sexual assault of a child in connection with charges he married an underage girl. Jessop was a member of the FLDS Church and live on the compound near Eldorado that was raided by the state last year.

Attorney General Greg Abbott says 'the jury in State v. Raymond Merril Jessop has rendered a guilty verdict. The sentencing phase of the trial will begin Monday morning. Because trial proceedings are still ongoing, we cannot comment further at this time.'

This was the first trial stemming from that state raid."
The way the trial was going, it really didn't figure that the verdict was going to take long. The way I see it their minds were made up before they even heard the first word uttered in trial.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Possible Terrorist Attack at Fort Hood? (UPDATE Shooter Muslim?)

The fog of war definitely clouds early reporting in these matters,
but Fox News is reporting that three different shooters have been firing on people at Fort Hood, from three different locations. That smells coordinated, and that smells like terrorism. The dead captured shooter is 39-40 year old Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a convert to Islam.

There are 7 12 confirmed dead, and 20 31 wounded.

UPDATE: There now appears to only be the one shooter, Major Hasan acting on his own. He is also a life long Muslim. The Jawa Report is stating that he has made supportive statements of Suicide bombers, yet the Army did not investigate him.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Stevens moves for an "Instructed Verdict"

Denied of course:
The Salt Lake Tribune - "One document, a marriage record, showed Jessop married the then 16-year-old on Aug. 12, 2004, for 'time and eternity,' at Jeffs' home at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, where about 600 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints reside.

Jeffs performed the ceremony, while counselors Wendell Nielsen and Fred M. Jessop were witnesses.

A dictation dated Oct. 19, 2004, said that a 'fourth home was to be built' at the ranch for Jessop, its foundation to be completed by Nov. 5 of that year.

A list dated Oct. 7, 2005, of 'Babies Born at R-17' showed names of Jessop and his alleged victim and a check mark under a column labeled 'girls.'

Hanna also read from a 'List of Nursing and Expectant Mothers,' which under Jessop's name show the alleged victim as a nursing mother in October 2005. As required by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, names of two pregnant women and two other nursing mothers associated with Jessop were blacked out.

None of the documents were dated from November 2004, when the state alleges the alleged victim became pregnant.

Defense Attorney Mark Stevens focused on that when he asked Walther to give the jury an 'instructed verdict' that the state hadn't proved jurisdiction. Walther denied that motion
This would seem to say that the defense is conceding that Raymond is the child's father. That really doesn't surprise me. It also may be that the defense will point to the fact that other possible candidates that were close relatives were not tested, and we don't know what those tests would have shown. If I made that argument in Mark Stevens' shoes, I would point out that we can't know what likelihood of paternity exists in another person not tested, that the state assumed too much and didn't do it's job.

In the final analysis though, it seems that he is going to hang his hat on the idea that Texas is trying a case it can't know it has jurisdiction over, that Raymond and his "Bride" could have been anywhere in the world, and it certainly hasn't been shown that Raymond was on the ranch when the child was conceived.

The Associated Press seems to concur that it is an essential element.
WRAL - "(Raymond) Jessop's attorney, Mark Stevens, has argued that prosecutors failed to show that any assault happened in Texas - a necessary element in demonstrating the court's jurisdiction.

'There is no way one can draw a reasonable inference ... that this alleged event must have occurred on that ranch,' he said."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

What's the Message here?

Judge Walther has made this trial an unpleasant experience for all, keeping long hours and holding jurors into the night. Now she tells them they can't go home until they give her a verdict:
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Texas Judge Barbara) Walther told the seven-man, five-woman jury Wednesday evening that she expected they’d be hearing closing arguments about midday Thursday. She also told jurors to pack suitcases, and her bailiff reserved rooms for them. Once jurors begin deliberating on a verdict, Walther has decided not to allow them to separate."
So they shouldn't communicate during the trial (but could) and now until the reach a verdict, they're going to jail.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Trial to go to Jury this afternoon

They said Stalin (at least) made the trains run on time.
The Deseret News - "Texas District Judge Barbara Walther told jurors in the trial of 38-year-old Raymond Jessop that attorneys hoped to offer closing arguments by midday.
And Judge Walther apparently read his book.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

And you've been buying Fords, because they "Didn't Go Bankrupt"

I'm sure every industry insider grates at the simplistic views the "outsiders" have of their industries. Ford made a billion this last quarter, but that's just as easily reversed.
June 1st, 2009 - "The UAW lynch mob is at (Ford's) gates having successfully pulled a revolt at GM and Chrysler, elbowing their way into the board room, they now have Ford right where they want them in terms of bargaining power. Ford may not have needed to go bankrupt and may complain until doomsday that they had the right to survive as the sole American Automaker, but that ship has sailed. Now they are saddled with unattractive Union commitments and costs that the other two of the big three have shed. Ford either goes slowly under the waves, or signs onto some version of what the other two have been forced to accept.

In the end, with behavioral precedents now firmly set, when the Government comes knocking, Ford execs will likely get up, dust their chairs, pack their knick knacks in boxes and head for the doors, just like Chrysler and GM because disturbing perceived realities are now governing." (Who said that?)
I've had people come up to me on the street, at work and in Church and loudly proclaim how great Ford was because they "didn't take Government money" and get visibly agitated in some cases when I point out that Ford would go down some similar path. Not wanting to be too odious face to face, I eventually said the following:
September 19, 2009 - "I'm not prepared to argue with anyone (without wanting to explode at the same time) how it got that way. Let's just say there is blame to go around and it doesn't all settle on Auto Industry Fat Cats, the convenient location both those on the right and left like to place most of the blame. We have a new Little Three left over, and Ford's problems are the same as those of GM's and Chrysler's prior to both going bankrupt. All were losing money. 67% of the US auto industry going down the tubes with one remaining almost assures that the next time we're having this discussion (and there will be a next time), 100% of the Auto Industry (Ford) would be on the chopping block."
Now, "the Blog Prof" says:
"Someone explain to me how this is right. GM is owned by majority shareholder the UAW. The UAW negotiates a labor contract with GM competitor Ford, refuses to make the same concessions it basically gave itself at GM, shoots down the Ford contact that would have put it on a level playing field with UAW-owned GM, and won't renegotiate. Uh - am I missing something? This coverage over at MLive seems to miss the whole conflict of interest angle in its entirety: Ron Gettelfinger: UAW membership has spoken loudly, won't renegotiate with Ford."
And he points to this article:
United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger says members spoke loudly last week and the union will not renegotiate with Ford at this time.

Members resoundingly rejected a new contract with Ford last week, as 70 percent of production workers and 75 percent of skilled workers voted against concessions that would have made their contracts competitive with workers at General Motors and Chrysler.

'We have a political process. It's called ratification,' Gettelfinger told Paul W. Smith this morning on WJR AM-760. "We all are disappointed, but the membership has spoken.'

...Gettelfinger acknowledged Ford did not enjoy some of the benefits its domestic competition gained by going through bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler, he said, were able to reduce debt, cut dealers, walk away from liability claims and rework supplier contracts during their bankruptcies."
Found at "Michigan Live."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Shurtleff Suspends Senate Campaign

The official reason is to deal with his daughter's mental health issues. He has my sympathies and support, even if this is just a cover story for quitting.
Fox13 - "(Mark) Shurtleff said he would suspend the campaign, to spend more time caring for his daughter, who has struggled with mental illness issues for some time. Shurtleff has been challenging incumbent senator Bob Bennett."
Everybody has something to do other than what they're doing. If this paid well for instance (that means I do make money blogging), I might quit my job to pursue this full time. I might "quit my job to go help my son" if I had the time and money as well. Usually politicians who are supremely ambitious, quit because they aren't getting anywhere.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Ben Winslow Reports on Warren's appeal

  More →

Sphere: Related Content

Two Critical Trial Observations, from Yesterday

There is some obscurity in the statute from before 2005. Granted, the law was changed, but before it was changed, the state may have to deem the "Victim" to be "married."
The Plural Life - "Judge Barbara Walther observed that that would also show that the alleged victim could not legally have married Raymond Jessop since she was married to someone else — a comment that seemed to make defense attorney Mark Stevens freeze up."
That may very well be the case since it seemed possible for persons to become less formally married, but married nonetheless in Texas before Harvey Hildebran's bill changed law effective 2005. My friend "Toes" wrote me and also blogged on this:
"Judge Walther is willing to recognize the previous marital status of the 'child' 'victim'.

According to DFPS legal definitions the 'victim' would then be an Emancipated Minor, according the DFPS definitions :

Emancipated Minor - A person under age 18 who has the power and capacity of an adult. This includes . . . a minor who, with or without parental consent, has been married.

Texas Family Code, Chapter 5, Sec. 101.003 defines a child:

CHILD OR MINOR; ADULT. (a) 'Child' or 'minor'" means a person under 18 years of age who is not and has not been married or who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes.

If the Judge (State) recognizes the previous marriage performed under the auspices of the FLDS church in a religious ceremony, the Judge (State) must also recognize the termination of that marriage under the auspices of the FLDS church and the subsequent remarriage under the auspices of the FLDS church to the Defendant.

The law regarding sexual assault of a child: Texas Statutes, Penal Code 22.011,

(c)(1) 'Child' means a person younger than 17 years of age who is not the spouse of the actor[perpetrator].
(2) 'Spouse' means a person who is legally married to another.

This throws the whole case out the window, as 1) the 'victim' was not a child by legal definition; and 2) the 'victim' was a spouse of the accused."

If she was married, the state has no case. If that's ignored on the trial level and a conviction handed down, it will eventually be reversed. Period. I've seen the prior statute and it did seem to say you could purport to be married and go through certain motions and be recognized as married and the state can't have it both ways. If they're going to try Raymond on bigamy for purporting to be married, well then, his "victim" was married. That, we'll have to wait and see to know.
"DNA shows Jessop is the father and photographs and other documents put the alleged victim and Jessop at the ranch, though not yet during the critical time period."
This is also critical, and I believe the jury to be stacked, and they will ignore this as well. With some judges and some trials there might be a directed verdict at the point where the state fails to "connect the dots." I don't think this will happen with Walther.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Texas Clearly accepts that Jurisdiction is a valid defense

The state of Texas is not arguing a fine point of law or a gross mutilation and misunderstanding of it, as blogging scoffers tried to palm off on us during the last year and a half.
Clearly Texas thinks if they cannot get the jury to accept that the crime occurred in Texas, there was no crime:
From Brooke's "Twitter" page - "Defense says most documents or photos about Raymond and other women/children are irrelevant to crime charge and prejudicial."
To which the prosecution replied:
"(Texas) says such documents help make jurisdiction argument and thus are relevant."
And there you have it. If Texas argues it must admit evidence for the sole reason that it establishes where Raymond Jessop was when his "Bride" (now an adult) became pregnant, then Texas is clearly saying if it can't establish in at least general terms, the location of both parents in Texas (assuming as I do that Raymond is the father), then the whole trial is moot.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke continues to provide good coverage

Since I can't be there, and she is there, and she is providing the coverage,
it's really best to hear it from her. I think that unless Walther is instructing the jury that the prosecution is pushing the limits on procedures, apparently agreed to by both side, then Mark Stevens call for a mistrial is justified.

From other reports I was getting the impression that Stevens was essentially saying he was being maneuvered into looking like the bad guy before the jury, which is subtly prejudicial, and that of course, was what he was complaining about. I hope to have something to say on this later, but the trial is moving fast enough, that my observations may be dated.

It does look like (for now) that the variance in DNA odds that Raymond fathered the child in question would not be very large even if there was a far smaller "initial" chance used for his paternity. This is a point Ron took me to task on earlier. It appears for now, he is right. Sorry Ron, I just don't take your word for it until it's verified. I could have done the math myself ( a matter of time and lack of interruption ) or I could wait to see how it worked out in court. You seem to be right. That is, unless the defense brings in a witness later that credibly torques the odds in a different direction.

The next observation is that venue is a big deal and as of yet, I don't see how it is going to be proved that Raymond was on the ranch. I have no reason to believe Mark Stevens is an incompetent defense attorney and the prosecution is supposed to supply him with witness lists and evidence it is using against Raymond Jessop. If that's the case and the prosecution can prove Raymond was on the ranch, Mark Stevens should know that. He has argued that it can't be proved, and so far the state has done little to show that it can place him on the ranch. They seem to be centering their effort on proving he "resided" there.

If Raymond traveled in his line of gainful employment, and stayed away for extended periods of time, then it isn't going to matter a hill of beans if he resided there or not. He has to be shown to have been there at the time of conception of the child. Let us say there is a two week window for conception, and the prosecution can't place Jessop's bride or him there during that entire period of time, then even if it is proved he is the father (and he probably is) it can't be proved he committed a crime in Texas.

The venue question is important. A lot of noise has been made by FLDS haters over the last year and a half that it wasn't important. The state seems to think it is. Venue has been said not to matter because what happened was as crime in Texas. Since the state is trying to prove Raymond's location, it would seem venue is important, and if it can't be shown to have happened in Texas, or perhaps merely not to have happened in Eldorado, it should be game over.

I think the judge is biased, and the jury tilted and the playing field, not level, so it won't surprise me if a guilty verdict comes out of this jury. But, perhaps there is an honest soul among them.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 02, 2009

Da Nuge!

I never tire of this man though I often tire of his music.

Hat tip to a "Facebook" friend, Sally Robb McGirk.

And yes, there are some Nuge Tunes, that I do like.
More →

Sphere: Related Content