"Counsel for the Defendant has filed a Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow in CR-2007-0743and requested oral argument as soon as possible. The State has filed a Response seeming to indicate that Mr. Barlow does not have any objection to granting another personal interview, presumably limited to the issue identified in defense counsel's motion. If he is willing to grant a personal interview, then he is not subject to being deposed pursuant to Rule 15.3 However, the Court can understand that counsel would like this issue resolved before arriving in Salt Lake City on March 16th, 2010. The Court will probably be inclined to order Mr. Barlow to submit to a deposition on or about the above date but only if he refuses to grant a personal interview and only to cover the issue identified in the defense motion.The claim of "four layer hearsay" is not impressive to Judge Conn, apparently he thinks something smells wrong and that the defense is entitled to delve a bit.
IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for hearing on the above motion on Friday, March 5, 2010. at 830 a.m.
The Court will not provide for the presence of the Defendant at the above hearing unless specifically requested by defense counsel at least 24 hours in advance.
Counsel for the Defendant having filed a Request for Omnibus Hearing in each case,
IT IS ORDERED setting these matters for Omnibus Hearing on Friday, March 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m."
This could get tricky as Lamont Barlow is married to Elissa Wall, but there are few good options for Lamont and Elissa if she did hide something. It will start a chain of events where she will be back under oath. I assume that Warren's investigators have found something, and they're going to start asking uncomfortable questions. My information is, that whatever various FLDS operatives/investigators/lawyers have found, they are certain of their footing.
Figure it this way, Elissa Wall's rape by proxy, as "directed" by Warren Jeffs begins to fall apart a bit, since she was regarded as "believable" by the jury. If it is shown she is not believable with regard to material facts, then we will potentially start all over again. An impeached Elissa Wall, opens doors.
Sphere: Related Content
19 comments:
How do you jump to the conclusion that "the four layer hearsay is not impressive?"
Allowing Barlow to be deposed has nothing to do with whether what he says will be admissible. The whole idea of deposing someone is to see if they actually HAVE personal knowledge.
Further, how are you going to impeach someone on something that never gets offered into evidence? If the prosecution never offers the medical records there will not be any impeachment over them.
You're so far off base on this one that you're not even in the ball park.
Right Ron, I'm so far off base that every time Judge Walther's decisions have been judged by another judge....
I've been reading Judge Conn's rulings for a while now. He's telegraphing VERY CLEARLY that if Lamont Barlow even blinks, there will be a subpoena.
Matt Smith's attempt to label it "four layers of hearsay" is not impressive at all to him or he wouldn't have spoken so much of the defense's concerns for time and so on.
You're free to start going to the old well of rude speak if you want, but I had hoped we could continue to be more level headed.
If you're a lawyer Ron, you're not a good politician. Read between the lines here. Judge Conn has always telegraphed his moves. It's a courtesy he provides. I've known pretty much in advance what he would rule for, and against. If you check back a few blog posts on the subject, I told you when Piccarreta was overreaching.
Why?
Because I am such a great legal mind?
No, because Conn always clears his throat first, then speaks.
Hugh, all he's doing is allowing the defense to depose him on the issues they raised in their motion.
You're reading way, way too much into this.
It has nothing to do with whether or not he's impressed with "four layers of hearsay." It has nothing to do with anything Judge Walther ruled.
He's basically saying that he's going to give the defense every opportunity to make sure they get what they feel they need to have a fair trial.
In many ways I respect Judge Conn's approach to trying a case. My only gripe with Judge Conn is that he gripes about how long it has taken to actually try this case. For gosh sakes, when you allow a defendant with almost unlimited resources to conduct whatever discovery he wants, you shouldn't then turn around and complain that it's taking a long time.
No, I'm not reading anything into it Ron, I don't know where it's going to end up.
I do know that the FLDS have invested a LOT of time in this effort. When they're allowed to drill for oil, they tend to hit it, which may account for Judge Conn's "largesse."
No offense intended, but you might want to listen to yourself. It sounds a bit like a whine to claim that Warren has "unlimited" resources. In view of what and who is arrayed against him......
If justice is served, you and I should both be glad that he has "resources."
I grow tired of talking to an alleged "legal mind" who is arrayed in defense of actions of the law that are reversed or contradicted when they proceed up the legal ladder. It's hard for me to see such a person as being on the side of justice.
Justice in this country depends a lot on law enforcement following the rules and I don't think they have here. There is an ever growing appearance of conspiracy, and Ron, the reason CONSPIRACY is against the LAW is that CONSPIRACY happens.
The prosecution simply isn't playing on the up and up in this matter, in ANY of it.
It is likely that Allen Steed is being prosecuted beyond the statute of limitations and can never be convicted.
Warren's accuser seems (perhaps) to have had her medical records fabricated in a day and her veracity is combined with the character assassination of Warren Jeffs were the things that got him convicted. Of a crime, that can't even be demonstrated to have happened.
This whole business stinks and you defend (anonymously I might add) a host of anonymous character assassins and questionable public figures who seem hell bent on destroying a people and their way of life.
There isn't enough crime originating from the FLDS to give it such overriding concern and still this monster lurches forward.
Dude
I don't defend anything. Everything has its good and bad sides.
The Arizona prosecution of Warren Jeffs has gotten to the point to where it's pretty much pointless. It appears that the only thing driving the case now is Matt Smith's political career and Piccaretta's college fund.
I don't necessarily feel sorry for Allen Steed, but I do think part of the reason he was charged was payback for him testifying at the first Jeffs trial. That's not right, but if the allegations against him are true, then that's not right either.
Now whether you think it sounds like a whine to say "unlimited" is true doesn't really matter. Whether I said he has "substantial," "significant," or simply that he's "well funded" the fact is that Warren Jeffs has a whole lot more resources than probably 99% of the criminal defendants out there.
And as for me "anonymously" defending people - I "anonymously" defend you too.
Ron,
One of the big reasons I complain about the general anonymity of the FLDS attackers is I really don't know who I'm talking to at any given moment.
For all I know you're "Stamp." There's no way for you or I to create the confidence that you are, or are not. For all I know I'm wrong about Rozita and you're Dana and Stamp and Texas Twist, and LaughingPanfish (and Rozita). (etc, etc.)
Unless I'm psychic it's not very profitable to get involved in this blanket party. Even if I guess "who hit me," I'm probably going to get lied to. It's very difficult to take such adversaries seriously. Doing so, as you can see, only produces flashes of real paranoia.
Frankly I'd rather that everyone WAS out to get me and I didn't know, as opposed to thinking everyone was, whether they were or not.
Well Hugh
You, unlike other people on your site can always check IPs.
Probably 99% of the time my IP will always originate out of Houston.
Probably 95% of the time my IP will be an AT&T IP in Houston. Even though I have a dynamic IP, I don't think mine has changed in at least 2 or 3 months.
Yeah, sure someone could go way, way out of their way to redirect an IP, but I highly doubt most folks following this have the technical knowledge to do that.
Ron, don't play dumb with me. IP addresses can be covered up or run through mirrors.
Like I said, it's a descent into paranoia, no one goes there on purpose.
Hugh
I never said "can't." I just said not that many folks even understand IP addresses let alone have the technical knowledge to actually redirect their IP. It would also take some real digging to be able to redirect your IP consistently from a particular city. You'd have to find a proxy server in that particular city.
Besides, as you say, "I'm a nobody." Why would someone go to all that trouble to impersonate me?
That's right Ron, nobody. And one person can pose as 20 nobodies, or more, if they want to.
There are a few actors on your "side."
There seems to be a large number of posters from Washington State.
I wondered what the connection was to the FLDS.
Perhaps they really don't live in Washington but rather they are using a proxy server.
Wonder if this server is associated with the shelter Rozita called?
Ron, it appears the Associated Press reads it the way I do.
In Ron's defense (imagine that!) others could not direct their address to any IP he uses.
..not in any way I am aware of.
Yeah, but if Ron is not Ron, but a persona constructed to be trusted and not be internet savvy, then Ron's just pretending not to know.
See how it goes? Really, I've stopped looking for any of the "principal" characters on the other side, I don't expect to find them. Assuming that "TxBluesMan" is ANYONE in particular is foolishness. Assuming that "Ron in Houston" is anyone in particular, also foolish.
They're just names and the "Ron" persona claims not to know how to mask his IP address. But if Ron is really someone or several someones other than Ron pretending to be a character that isn't internet savvy, well, there you go.
Ron is supposedly a "Family Law" attorney in Houston. That's all I know. I'm generally inclined to believe that, but Ron doesn't even appear to KNOW who the real persons are, that are in the "inner circle" on the other side. I don't see "Ron" for instance, coming up with all of these fantastic document dumps, only the anonymous "others" seem to do that.
You can go round and round for ever and it's simply NOT good for you to do it so all I do is assume that most of them, are not who they say they are in any way shape or form, including where they seem to be posting from.
How you say the AP agrees with you simply boggles my mind.
The whole "inclined to order the husband" comes directly from Judge Conn. All you and AP are doing is lifting the last line of Judge Conn's ruling.
So, yeah they agree that the last line of Judge Conn's order is relevant, but I'd hardly call that "analysis." They clearly don't jump to the conclusion that the "four layers of hearsay" is not impressive or that "something smells wrong."
I don't know anyone other than by handle. I'm also not connected to anyone who has access to the documents.
I'm simply an observer with my own set of opinions.
Clearly, a number of folks who don't care for the FLDS do know one another and share information back and forth.
I'm not part of that group nor do I really desire to be a part of that group.
Ok Ron, I agree with you and I am Captain Obvious. However, let us examine what we are up against when talking to "your side." We're talking about people claiming that Conn agreeing to a defense motion to suppress the evidence from an "unlawful" raid is not agreeing to a motion, but instead a stipulation.
To rephrase, in this discussion (which is often not a discussion), your side gives no ground at all. Judge Conn granted a defense motion, EXCLUDING the evidence taken at YFZ in an Arizona trial. Your side says that this is a defeat for Warren because it is a "stipulation" of the prosecution that Michael Piccarreta was forced to accept.
I don't see you (and I apologize if I missed it), stepping up to the pump and admitting that the EVIDENCE of YFZ was RULED INADMISSIBLE. It was not "stipulated" by the prosecution that the prosecution wouldn't use it, it was RULED INADMISSIBLE.
The only stipulation involved was that in the end, Matt Smith gave up on having a hearing on a motion he was going to lose and instead of wasting everyone's time, and embarrassing himself, and putting witnesses on the stand who would be asked embarrassing questions or being embarrassed by them not showing up, he STIPULATED to the MOTION of the defense.
He AGREED to the motion of the defense.
Judge Conn then AGREED that if the prosecution and the defense agreed, well dagnabbit, so would he. He then RULED without a hearing because there was no longer any dispute over the evidence.
The only MOTION I ever saw that Conn would rule on, ACCEPTING, also said the raid was "UNLAWFUL."
Perhaps this is why I don my "Captain Obvious" suit and call what is glaringly obvious, "analysis."
Hugh
Many things are "glaringly obvious;" however, that doesn't mean that your perception of that which is glaringly obvious isn't totally wrong.
You're more than entitled to your perceptions. Doesn't mean they're right, but you're clearly entitled to them.
Well, don't bother coming back here, until you can admit Ron, that Arizona ruled the evidence inadmissible. Either that, or give me and explanation with specific laws and examples (not just REFERENCES to them or links to the outside) where you can show me how what I said isn't true.
There was a motion. In Arizona. The motion was RULED on, that motion declared the evidence INADMISSIBLE and you can't bring yourself to admit that it's true, no one on your side can, so that pretty much puts you in that dumb-ass cabal of total denial, "over there."
I can't accept you as a lawyer, as honest or as "not one of them." You're just another anonymous, unverifiable voice but you give yourself away when you act like the LAST thing you can do is admit ANY part of the FLDS case is good.
You're entitled to your opinion "Ron," as I am to mine, but you're NOT entitled to your own set of facts.
Let me ask you this; Is Michael Emack wandering around a free man simply because he didn't plead guilty? You're asking me to believe that the motion in Arizona didn't carry and all that entails simply because Matt Smith agreed to it in advance.
Post a Comment