I will too, and if I come up with something meaningful to say about it, before someone else does, I'll post on it later.
Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 1)
Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 2)
It is both amusing and distressing to see that the name of "Sarah Barlow" is still being redacted, as if she exists, or could exist.
Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 1)
Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 2)
It is both amusing and distressing to see that the name of "Sarah Barlow" is still being redacted, as if she exists, or could exist.
Sphere: Related Content
8 comments:
No offense to your buddy Piccaretta, but part of the reason why neither you nor I can follow that piece of ca ca is that its poorly done.
If you want to do an effective brief you don't say "reasons for X" and then cite Y, Z, and A. You say the reasons for X are and then you quote Y, Z, and Z and then say why they support your premise.
Honestly, (and this has nothing to do with whatever philosophical position I have) that document is a classic example of just throw the crap against the wall and hope something sticks.
It looks simply as if he is reading certain things into the record Ron.
It looks simply as if he is reading certain things into the record Ron.
Perhaps. He may be planning on using it when he orally argues before the court.
However, as a "stand alone" document that he expects someone to read and follow it's pretty pathetic.
Warren's case before the Arizona court is very strong Ron. You've been getting your comments published here and we've been exchanging civil remarks because you have stayed away from more inflammatory terms, like "Pathetic."
Try to keep it that way.
It's very well written Ron. The problem is the pages are out of numerical order.
civil remarks because you have stayed away from more inflammatory terms, like "Pathetic."
Eh, well, I take exception that calling a document "pathetic" is not "civil."
I suppose you could follow it if you had the physical documents you could flip back and forth through, but like I said, the presentation is weak.
Similar to the State's written "Closing Arguments" in Walther's evidentiary hearing? It was just a page of cites, no explanations and a place for Walther to sign.
Compared to that, this is strong. It's not even a closing argument. This is Piccarreta seemingly making a request to make a prima face ruling on the part of Judge Conn, and all the footnotes that go with it. We may not have even seen everything he's filing in that at times, Mohave County delays posting motions to their website.
They are labeled as Memorandums.
I think these documents show that there was a highly-motivated cabal at work, and that the end was frantically justifying the means. It was a cover-up from start to finish. Imperfections on the part of FLDS faithful don't excuse blatantly unconstitutional conduct on the part of law enforcement. If we tolerate police tyranny against the unpopular FLDS, we encourage it against ourselves. I pray that it all comes home to roost soon.
Post a Comment