"As I said, the documents you link contain no stipulation by Matt Smith that the raid was 'unlawful.' That is simply your spin as a polygamy proponent and one who feels you must control the 'substantiated perception.' This page is on my watch list and every time you change to try to add 'the raid was unlawful' I will revert the page." RonLawHouston (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)"But I thought I was wrong. Guys (gals, fluffers, committee, whatever), make up your minds!
And though I am also wrong about the use of the HPL (Houston Public Library) system, and a static IP (that's fixed terminal, hardwired to a "LAN") by Ron, and only at best "half right," Fluffer is posting now from what appears to be an offshore site to mask location. Though this post will appear April 9th, it was composed April 8th, and the above "correction" appeared notated as occurring 1:45 (UTC). That means Fluffer is in England, or using net camouflage. I'm wrong too about that, but now Fluffer is taking care to hide more thoroughly?
Enough of the gratuitous insults. The YFZ Ranch page used to read this way, after I successfully navigated Wikipedia notation protocols and created a referenced (with active linkage!) blurb about the suppression ruling in Arizona.
"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that '1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed (and) 3.) That the raid was 'unlawful.' Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day  stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted. None of the evidence may be used 'directly or indirectly' in Arizona. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."It now reads this way:
"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that '1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed  Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day  stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted. None of the evidence may be used "directly or indirectly" in Arizona.' Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."Ron the Site Fluffer is also Ron the Spinner. Lying is the order of the day. Fluffer is claiming that I said that Matt Smith said the raid was "unlawful." I did not. I said Matt Smith AGREED to a STIPULATION of the defense that said the raid was "unlawful." Ron is simply engaging in bald faced lying about what I said, and about what the orders, and motions say. Point three of the February 4th, 2010 stipulation written by the defense is SIGNED by Matt Smith, without reservation or qualification and contains the word "unlawful" to describe the raid. The Stipulation declares prosecution and defense agreement that the September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted. On page 26, the word "unlawful" is used. Judge Conn agrees without modification of the language of either document, to the September 3rd, 2008 motion.
Matt Smith AGREES to language that says the raid is "unlawful." Judge Conn accepts that language. Reporting that such language was used, is accurate. The liars on the other side cannot abide by people learning in a precise way, what the truth is. And that is, that the evidence was dismissed from Arizona courts, with extreme prejudice, as the result of an "unlawful" action, because Judge Conn states clearly, "The court signs the stipulation and adopts the terms thereof."
He might as well have said to Michael Piccaretta; "What YOU said."
Oh, he did.
I would also note that the opposition has now caved to the reality that the evidence was in fact suppressed in Arizona, despite all the lying claims that it was not by their "ex spurt" legal team. They are now fighting the battle over the word "unlawful."
Sphere: Related Content