Now Comes "Hope4Kids" to get the Spin up to Puking Speed. WikiWar 4!

This is a desperate crew, in full LYING mode. Wikipedia is of course, considered to be a reliable source, and if it's in Wikipedia, it's "true." See the spin increase to puking speed. If our planet spun this way, we'd be flung off into space.

"On February 5, 2010, Arizona Judge Steven F. Conn approved a Stipulation between Mohave County prosecutor Matt Smith and Warren Jeffs' defense attorney, Michael Piccarreta, that evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch in Texas would not be used in any manner in Warren Jeffs' two criminal trials in Arizona. [54] [55]Based on the agreement of the attorneys, Judge Conn issued an order granting the defense motion to suppress evidence and canceled a hearing on the issue.[56]. Jeffs' first of two trials on charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor is scheduled to begin November 2, 2010." [57]

This edit is performed by Hope4Kids, who I assume to be no one in particular, but who has a Wikipedia profile bannering boldly how "Hope" is against Wikipedia Vandalism.

That's a tactic alright. Vandalize while loudly claiming what you are doing is not vandalism, but opposition to vandalism.

What has been done, to the entry? First of all there is a removal of a footnote linking to the Mohave County Courts site. That is the actual stipulation of February 4th. If anybody looked at the stipulation, they would see clearly that the word "Unlawful" is used, and they would see the authorship of the stipulation, as being from the defense team, not the prosecution. So "Hope" removes the more recent edit citing the February 4th date, and instead refers in spun language to February 5th, and deletes the link to Mohave County Courts.

Behind the scenes "Hope" cries vandalism on my part, and "Hope's" ardent opposition to vandalism, fervent adherence to published internet standards and sports a stupid symbol declaring "Hope" to be opposed to Wikipedia vandalism. While in the process of spray painting over a truthful reference to legal content, and a link to that content.

Now the casual reader does not know there was activity on the 4th, as an antecedent to the court order of the 5th, and unless they backtrack through the Mohave County Court site, they won't find the Stipulation of the 4th, to read. That Stipulation is very short, and to the point, and contains the word "Unlawful" in point three. Matt Smith signs it. The judge adopts the "terms of the order."

What "Hope" doesn't want you to read, or see or know, is that Judge Conn has agreed with a stipulation that says the raid is "unlawful" and has specifically used language that to pointedly state that the terms of that stipulation are adopted by the court. It's exactly as if the Judge had the defense write the order. He liked it so much, he signed on to it. So did the prosecution (Sorta).

An additional entry earlier in the Court Rulings section has now been added:

"On October 2, 2009, Judge Barbara Walther issued a ruling denying a defense motion to suppress the evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch, stating:

'The court finds that Defendants’ offer of proof of deliberate falsehoods contained within the probable cause affidavits to support the two warrants is unsupported by credible evidence.' "[53]

That's accurate, but combined with the same users unwillingness to have the word "Unlawful" appear, though it is used at least 3 times in orders embraced by the court in Arizona, they are trying to unbalance the article in favor of the view that Judge Walther (who has a vested interest) expressed.

An accurate section on "Court Rulings" would let the reader know that there are two very different legal opinions on the evidence that have been expressed by courts. In view of the fact that Walther has already been reversed in this matter, and she is being appealed on her evidence decision already, the reader would be served well to know this.

In the end it will be the courts that decide who is more credible. Judge Walther or Judge Conn. For now certain people don't want it known how badly Judge Walther was rebuked out of state. They don't even want you to see it. They want Judge Walther's rulings quoted for language, they don't want Judge Conn's rulings quoted for language. They delete links to the court documents that show that language, and they delete that language.

The truth is there are two opinions. Texas rules Texas and Arizona rules Arizona. For defendants in Texas, Arizona doesn't matter.

Yet.

Eventually the twain shall meet

Don't Miss WikiWar 3, WikiWar 2 and WikiWar!

Sphere: Related Content