Who wins the credibility contest: Sgt. Prickett or Hugh McBryde? There’s really no question.

No, there isn't. I won.

A while ago, "FLDS Texas," a blog who has no reason to be rabidly supportive of Ex UNT Sgt. Gregory J. Prickett, crowed that there was no question as to who would win the credibility contest.

Now there is no question.

I won.

Greg can't even answer the questions that a man who was not TxBluesMan would be eager to answer.

I have comments I'm working on with regard to Allen Steed. It would appear that in pleading to this charge, the case against Warren is now even technically dead as well as practically speaking.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Hey, TxBluesMan. MORON. Read this.

Five justices agree. You are the biggest legal whore in Texas, or you're a complete idiot.

You can't be an accomplice to a crime that you have not established has occurred in the first place. In other words, in the unique case of Elissa Wall, you have to establish she was raped, before you can find an accomplice to that rape:

The Daily Record - "Only after there is a determination that an offense has been committed can the law impose liability on another party who ' "solicited, request, commanded, encouraged or intentionally aided" in the commission of that offense,' the court's opinion states.

Steed was charged with rape the day after Jeffs' September 2007 conviction, but the case has languished and it's unclear how it might now proceed."

In their UNANIMOUS decision, the Supreme Court Rejects your patent idiocy. It wasn't a majority you pathetic idiot.

It.

Was.

ALL OF THEM.

You sir (ma'am?) stand convicted of schilling for the prosecution, sacrificing all principle of law to weave a tapestry of bovine manure into the supposition that I was wrong, and you were right.

Well.

I WAS RIGHT.

YOU WERE WRONG.

100%

Got that you anonymous troll? Now, crawl back to where you came from. I don't want to hear "More" from "Ron" on the topic either. Cowards.

Totalitarians. Statists.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Question for Anti FLDS Trolls

Why is there no trial date for Allen Steed?

Wanna go to Vegas and lay down a bet that he will never be tried? Why do you think that is?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Elissa Wall interviewed by Utah AG (UPDATED)

Big (Blonde) Liar?

Yup, what Jane Blackmore said was credible enough, to put Elissa back on the hotseat:

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Roger Hoole, Wall's attorney, said the development was a 'concern' and that he felt it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the trial court.

He said Wall was voluntarily being interviewed by the A.G.'s Office on Thursday.
'If Elissa was involved at all, it was unwittingly,' Hoole said. 'This is very unfortunate and we're very concerned about it.'

He said the development didn't change the fact that she had been forced into an unwanted marriage and had nonconsensual sex.

(Michael) Piccarreta said (Warren) Jeffs' attorneys had just received the A.G.'s filing and were still reviewing it, but were 'pleased' that a witness had the integrity to come forward with the information, which he said 'undermines the integrity of the trial.'

'It also suggests that there is a long-term, ongoing attempt to obstruct justice or cover up this fact and people who are involved in this have to make a decision whether they will come forward and tell the truth,' he said. 'I would expect law enforcement would take into account people who have come forward and told the trust, but on the other hand there should be harsh consequences for those who continue with the cover up.'

Piccarreta said that 'generally witnesses who are involved in that behavior are not to be trusted in other aspects of their testimony.'

During the trial, (Jane) Blackmore testified under oath that documents introduced as Exhibit 43 were the original records of Wall's visits to her Canadian clinic for medical treatment."

This story, which I had been informed a week ago was "out there," probably broke with a tip originating in the Utah AG's office or with Roger Hoole, who we now know was having his client rather hastily "re-interviewed" by the AG's office while he was "unavailable for comment" earlier yesterday afternoon. Your Modern Pharisee pointed to idea that an INcredible witness in one area of sworn testimony tends to be regarded as an UNbelievable one in other areas. Hoole is scrambling to salvage his client's credibility or else the conviction fails. He's also trying to keep his client out of jail.

UPDATE - I was on the way out the door to work this morning, so I hadn't had time to fully round out my thoughts. From outward appearances, the prosecution of Allen Steed is dead. Elissa will be ripped to shreds on the stand whether she lied or not in testimony at the Warren Jeffs trial. Why? Let's downshift into Warren's conviction.

Warren should be able to lever this development into freedom (with regard to Utah) as well. Even if it is shown that Elissa did not consciously misrepresent facts, she can now be shown not to be able to remember them well enough to amount to a hill of beans. Warren should be given a new trial, and the developments this week will be used as a hammer against any testimony that is based on her distant past recollections.

Hasn't this always been the problem with old crimes based on witness testimony? People who in psychoanalysis suddenly "remember" a murder or a rape? Exhibit 43 is now for legal purposes, a fiction. The whole timeline is subject to question and it appears that Elissa's memory of it, bolstered by forged documents can't be relied on either. Why then would we rely on her knowing when her "rape" occurred? Even assuming that the rape did occur as she described it, she doesn't really have any idea when it happened.

Under the above scenario, Warren is granted a new trial, and the charges will be dropped.

You don't believe me? Hoole is in full client protection mode right now. Everything including Elissa's testimony is expendable, except for Elissa herself.

Also, you have to realize that if the statement of the AG's office was issued after Elissa's visit, they have already said they no longer believe her or no longer regard her as credible.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Will there ever be a trial? Judge G. Rand Beacham wanders away from the problem.

After taking an overly long time to decide what should be a simple matter, the Judge in the Allen Glade Steed (could be a rape) case, punts. Or maybe it's a "mulligan." In addition, the Judge seems to put the game into continuous overtime, as he specifies no time limit.

I have decided to "Fisk" the order:

"Having studied the memoranda supporting and opposing Defendant's 'Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations,' the Court finds it necessary to require the parties to submit supplemental memoranda to clarify the facts before the Court for the following reasons:

1. Defendant's original memorandum contains fact statements in 23 paragraphs and subparagraphs, many of which contain multiple sentences. Many of those statements are made without reference to any evidentiary source."

I'm not sure entirely what Judge Beacham wants of Allen, though perhaps someone could enlighten me. How is it that you deny an event with evidence that the accuser can only give a "range" of times as candidates for the date the offense took place?

I passed through that section of southwestern Utah on multiple occasions during that rough time frame. On some days I have an ironclad evidentiary alibi. I can prove from California DMV records that I wasn't in Utah on certain days, but on other days, I can't. I would expect the innocent to be vague on when it was that they didn't do something.

2. "Plaintiff's opposing memorandum contains statements of fact in five paragraphs and Attachment A, for which some sources are cited but not provided to the Court. For example, Plaintiff refers repeatedly to a trial transcript as '9/19 Tr/.,' followed by numbers, but the transcript pages have not been provided to the Court. In addition, Attachment A contains references to unexplained 'facts,' such as 'the incident at the park' which is not otherwise explained."

Frankly, I have seen a lot of what appears to be "classroom" cheating in these cases, such as getting to look at someone else's paper. It would seem to me that Elissa wants Allen to be specific, before she is. Understandably, if I were Allen, the accused, I'd want to see specific dates and times before I started trying to prove I wasn't in town every day of the week, except for Thursday, and then suddenly, Elissa has a "recollection" that the "crime" occurred on May 10th, 2001. She's the accuser, let her pony up with some specifics.

3. "Both parties have also referred to additional facts within their legal arguments, some of which are not supported by any evidentiary source before the Court.

Although the Court has attempted to analyze the statue of limitations issue on the basis of the facts as they have been presented, the Court's analysis has been hampered by insufficient clarity in the facts as presented. For example, the memoranda disagree as to when the alleged rape took place, a fact critical to the statute of limitations issue."

"Both parties" really means "one party." That one party being Elissa Wall/the Prosecution (or "it"). Essentially Ms. Wall cannot remember exactly what happened, and not surprisingly, Mr. Steed cannot remember specifics to counter such a vague recollection on her part. If Elissa cannot remember with clarity, in essence, Judge Beacham has enough to rule already. Namely, enough to rule that the Statute has expired, otherwise he'd rule that her vague set of dates falls within the statute and that her vague recollections surrounding the rape represent a "preponderance of evidence," sufficient to bring charges, but not sufficient to determine guilt. At trial, the standard would be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Judge Beacham has stated clearly that as yet, Ms. Wall's accusation, is not believable.

As to Allen? Like I said, when you don't know what you're being accused of, you can't exactly deny it. He's not believable either, but for entirely different reasons. He's grasping at air. Nail something down and he might be a witness as unassailable as the rock of Gibraltar.

I cannot emphasize enough that Judge Beacham is trying to disguise the fact that Elissa Wall hasn't made a case that she was raped and reported that rape in a timely way, based only on "preponderance" standards. He has also made it clear that Allen has raised a credible point as to the time frame already.

"Defendant asserts that 'Mr. Steed is accused of only one count of rape which is alleged to have been committed more than 4 years before the legislative extension took effect on May 2, 2005.' [Defendant's Memorandum, p. 10, emphasis in the original.] Plaintiff states that it intends to proceed on 'the first time Mr. Steed had sexual intercourse with Elissa Wall' and asserts that 'the first act of sexual intercourse occurred before May 12, 2001 but no earlier than May 4, 2001.'* [Plaintiff's memorandum, p.2.]

* (The Information alleges that the crime was committed "between April 14, 2001 and September 30, 2004.)

I can't be sure what is being said here, other than one set of facts say the "crime" may have occurred in April 2001, as early as the 14th, and another range of dates says it may have occurred between May 2nd, 2001 and May 12th, 2001. The legislative extension on reporting, passed on May 2nd 2005. If I understand this right, a "rape" date of April 14th, 2001-May 1st, 2001 (remember there is only one count) puts the "crime" outside the reporting dates for the "extended" statute. Crimes occurring 4 years prior to the "extension" are taken in by the "extension." Crimes more than 4 years prior, are not.

"The court is required to determine by a preponderance of evidence whether this prosecution is barred. Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-306. Consequently, the Court must be able to weigh the evidence, and that requires greater clarity than what has been provided to this point in time.**

Ideally the parties would present a stipulated set of facts , set forth in chronological order. If that is not possible in this case, the Court will require that each party submit his/its comprehensive statement of facts, in chronological order and with citations to evidentiary sources."

** (I suspect that one reason for this is the parties' familiarity with the history of and the testimony given in State v. Jeffs, of which this Court has virtually no knowledge.)

And so the Judge begs off and says "I don't know your prior case and you haven't made one here, go back and make one." Elissa.

Again, I would observe that the Judge is stating between the lines that Ms. Wall and the prosecution have NOT made a "preponderance" presentation that convinces him a crime took place within the reporting framework of the statute. So they get a second chance to do so. A second chance with no due date.

What if Allen holds off and makes no "comprehensive" statement of facts? Will Elissa ever do so? What if she holds off? What the Judge is doing seems to be casting this case into the void, that is, unless the trial proceeds now because the Defendant's motion is "no longer under advisement."

If one or the other party speedily files a chronology and then goes back to the court to compel a ruling, will the Judge rule on one set of facts, absent the other? Here is the order:

"Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED:

A. Each party shall submit a supplemental memorandum containing only his/its comprehensive statement of facts related to the statute of limitations issue, in chronological order and with citations to evidentiary sources.

B. Each party shall also submit documentation of the evidentiary source cited for each statement of fact.

C. When each party has submitted the required statement of facts and documentation, one of them shall file a request to submit for decision.

D. Defendant's Motion will no longer be under advisement until the Court receives the supplemental memoranda, documentation and request to submit in compliance with this order.

DATED this 26 day of March, 2010.

JUDGE G. RAND BEACHAM"

No doubt some will crow that Allen's motion has been "thrown out." What I see is that unless a trial date is now set, this is a big and infinite stall. Personally, if I were Allen, I wouldn't file my set of facts, until I knew Elissa had filed hers. I'd be afraid she'd look over my shoulder, and cheat off my paper.

Sadly, it would seem that we're now playing a game of who goes first again, with Warren Jeffs' trial now put off for 7 months.

Or maybe something will happen with the Lamont Barlow interview that sabotages everything, in Warren's favor. Ruling in Allen's favor right now, might just crack the jail cell door open for Mr. Jeffs.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Allen Steed wins a Little One.

Brooke Adams is pointing to a ruling where it says Allen Steed's counter claim is not filed outside a statute of limitations.

She's also saying there were more rulings today. Every little bit helps.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Specter of Elissa Wall pleading the 5th looms

Either that, or she's going to risk multiple perjury charges. That's a prediction by the way. Predictions are not prophecy. They're predictions. I also predict that Michael Piccarreta will get his order for a Deposition of Lamont Barlow, and that's going to lead to someone recanting, or pleading the 5th, or perjuring herself/himself. Read the Motion:

The defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby replies to the State's response and Lamont Barlow's opposition to his motion of the deposition of Lamont Barlow.

The request for Lamont Barlow's deposition stems from the fact that Ms. Shannon Price contacted County Attorney Brock Belnap of Washington County, Utah, "and she told him that (Elissa Wall*) had lied during her testimony at the Warren Jeffs Trial" in the state of Utah. [See report of Washington County Sheriff Chief Deputy Jake Schultz, attached to Defendant's Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow]. Mr. Belnap then instructed Washington County Sheriff Chief Deputy Jake Schultz to interview Ms. Price and she provided further information about this alleged false testimony. Specifically, Ms. Price stated that "Lamont told her that (Elissa Wall's*) medical records had all been created in one day, to make it look like she had seen caretaker on several different occasions." [Id.].

This matter will obviously be admissible at trial as it relates directly to (Elissa Wall's*) Credibility, or lack thereof.

Indeed, Arizona's rules of discovery are quite broad and allow the parties to pursue any matters that might lead to admissible evidence. "It is not a basis for objection 'that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead the the discovery of admissible evidence. American Family Medical Insurance Company v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507,__, pp 12,217 P.3d 1212, 1217 PP 12 (App. 2009) [quoting Ariz. R. Civ. P.26(b)(1)(A)]. Moreover, the Arizona Supreme Court has made it quite clear that, in criminal cases:

"We believe that a trial court should exercise its discretion in favor of seeing that the accused is furnished with every fact necessary to prepare the best possible defense. The modern trend (in**) discovery proceedings is to have the winner determined by the facts, rather than by which side is the most ingenious in 'playing the game.' "

State v. Ford, 108 Ariz.404,409,499P.2d699,704(1972).

The state correctly notes that it "suggested to defense counsel" that defense counsel move for Mr. Barlow's deposition.

[State's Response, p. 3]. The State suggested this due to the fact that defense counsel had been unable to schedule Mr.

Barlow's interview, despite repeated attempts. [see attached email correspondence]. Accordingly, the defendant has filed the present motion.

The defendant concedes that Mr. Barlow was, in fact, interviewed as to all matters known at that time. The new interview or deposition of Mr. Lamont Barlow will center on the recent report by Ms. Shannon Price to law enforcement about (Elissa Wall's*) false testimony. These matters will obviously be admissible at trial and the rules of discovery clearly contemplate that these matters will be explored through pretrial discovery and interviews.

In his opposition to the motion to depose Lamont Barlow, Mr. Hoole now attempts to re-write history and presents a new version of facts that directly contradicts Ms. Price's statements. However, the defendant is not obliged ot accept teh new version of events that Mr. Barlow, after consultation with Mr. Hoole, now presents. Nor is the defendant obliged to accept the numerous "conditions" that Mr. Hoole is attempting to place on the interview or deposition of Lamont Barlow. It must be remembered that the Mr. Hoole represents not only complaining witness (Elissa Wall*), but also her husband Lamont Barlow, and also claims to have some type of privileged attorney-client relationship with Ms. Shannon Price's employer, the diversity foundation, whom Mr. Hoole claims is some sort of "client representative."1 Mr. Hoole now has a statement from an employee of a "client representative," Ms. Shannon Price, that indicates that the client he represents, complaining witness (Elissa Wall) committed perjury, and Ms. Shannon Price's comments now also directly contradict the statements of Mr. Lamont Barlow, yet another client of Mr. Hoole's. Given all of these obvious conflicts, Mr. Hoole's desire to limit the inquiry is understandable, but not acceptable.

Indeed, it is obvious that there are issues of fact that will have to be explored and will have to be resolved, ultimately, by the jury concerning the problems with (Elissa Wall's*) credibility. Moreover, the defendant is not willing to accept the assertions by the state and counsel for Mr. Barlow that the allegations of (Elissa Wall's*) perjury are limited to simply medical matters. Ms. Shannon Price's report to Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap was not limited. As noted above, "she told him that (Elissa Wall*) had lied during her testimony at the Warren Jeffs Trial." Mr. Belnap then instructed Chief Deputy Schultz to interview Ms. Price, and this is where some of the statements were made about fabricated medical records. The defendant is entitled to fully explore all of these matters, and to further explore the issues of whether there have been any attempts to influence the testimony of any witness, including but not limited to, conversations with third parties.

In addition, the somewhat far-fetched versions of events that Lamont Barlow now presents with Mr. Hoole's help will, itself, be a factual matter for the jury to resolve. Mr. Barlow now claims that it was Mr. Jeffs' attorney in the Utah case, Mr. Walter Bugden, and not (Elissa Wall*) that provided false information in the Utah trial about (Elissa Wall's*) medical condition, and Ms. Price "simply misunderstood" what Lamont barlow had told her. [Barlow's Opposition, p. 2]. The problem with Lamont Barlow's new story is that Ms. Price never said anything bout who may or may not have provided false information about (Elissa Wall's*) medical condition at trial, she stated initially to Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap that (Elissa Wall*) lied during her testimony. She later told the deputy that"Lamont told her that (Elissa Wall's) medical records had all been created in one day, to make it look like she had seen a caretaker on several different occasions." [Schultz Report]. This is obviously a quite separate, and also quite serious, matter. Again, while Mr. Hoole's desire to wish this matter away is understandable, the defendant is not required to accept this new version of events, and is not required to accept any limitations on his ability to fully explore this new matter.

Again, this matter will be brought out at trial as neither Mr. Barlow nor Mr. Hoole can prevent the defendant from question all of the witnesses involved about these matters during the trial. Obviously, this matter can be dealt with more efficiently at trial if, as the rules of criminal discovery clearly contemplate, the issues are narrowed and the factual matters are fully explored during the pretrial discovery. Accordingly, the defendant categorically rejects the proposed limitations Mr. Hoole is suggesting for Mr. Barlow's interview. In addition, the defendant specifically objects to Mr. Barlow's interview being conducted in St. George, Utah, at Mr. Belnap's offices. Indeed, the defendant's request to depose Mr. Barlow in Salt Lake City was specifically designed to accommodate him and his attorney. Ms. Shannon Price will interviewed in Salt Lake City where she lives and works, the prosecutor and defense counsel will be present in Salt Lake City for this interview, Mr. Hoole's offices are in Salt Lake city, and it was thought that Lamont Barlow did reside or currently resides in Salt Lake city although counsel is not certain. Mr. Hoole will presumably be present for Mr. Barlow's interview and he is certainly free to bring to the interview whatever transcripts he wishes.

This is av very serious matter when the executive director of Diversity, an entity that has worked diligently to harm Mr. Jeffs and other FLDS members, feels compelled to advise the previous prosecutor of Mr. Jeffs, Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap, that (Elissa Wall*), the same accuser in this case, had lied during the Warren Jeffs trial. She later provided additional information regarding statements from Lamont Barlow and creation of a false document relating to (Elissa Wall's*) medical records. Lamont Barlow, after consultation with his and (Elissa wall's*) counsel, provides an affidavit claiming she is mistaken. Defense counsel is entitled to explore this very serious matter and also to explore what, if any, communications any of these parties had with third parties discussion these issues. The witnesses' positions can be clarified during the interview process so that the matters can be presented properly at trial. It would not be fair or appropriate to deny the defendant the right to investigate such serious allegations made against the key witness and accuser of Mr. Jeffs and certainly should not be limited by artificial restrictions proposed by their lawyer who is highly motivated to limit the disclosure of information.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this court to order the deposition of Lamont Barlow to take place on March 16, 2010, at Parsons, Behle & Latimer, One Utah Center, 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, following the interview of Shannon Price. See proposed order attached to Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of March, 2010.

(1. Arizona, of course, does not recognize through rule, statute, or decisional law, any such privilege for a "client representative," outside the context of some sort of organization or entity. As noted in the defendant's pleadings concerning depositions Diversity Foundation's founder Dan Fischer and Mr. Sam Brower.)

*In the PDF found at Mohave County, there is no name appearing here. It is almost certainly that of Ms. Wall.

** In the PDF found at Mohave County, the word is actually "is," and I have substituted "in," believing it to be a typo.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Looking Good for Allen Steed

I didn't report on it at the time, but as the day (rumored) for Judge Beacham's decision approaches, I thought I might weigh in now.

This is an opinion of course, based on the facts, and I'm not the judge. In the past when I've made similar statements, I've been lambasted by the less than honest for making unqualified remarks. These remarks, are qualified.

The St. George Spectrum - " 'How does the state file information in September 2007 that they allege happened in May 2001?' (Allen Steed's attorney) asked.

(Jim) Bradshaw chipped away at the prosecution's contention the report was first made in January 2005, when Wall's boyfriend sat down to breakfast with Mohave County (Arizona) Attorney's Office investigator Gary Engels at a Hurricane restaurant and informed him of the allegations, arguing Engels is not certified as a law enforcement officer and the discussion did not constitute a formal report."

It's pretty simple, what the defense is arguing; there is a law, there is what is known as a legal report of a crime, there is a time limit. The applicable law that governs this case for reporting states a time limit for a specific kind of report. That report was not made in that time frame.

The ugly truth is that if Jim Bradshaw is right, particularly on the time frame issue. Regardless of what actually happened, there is a limit and it's been exceeded if what the prosecution calls a report, is not a report in the Court's eyes. The gavel bangs and it's "next case." The very fact that this hearing was held is proof that the defense has a credible contention. Even the prosecution, concedes this:

"(Brock) Belnap acknowledged that if the court does not regard the comments made to Engels and his subsequent vague e-mail to Belnap's office about a child bride as a report to law enforcement, then the case was not filed in time to fulfill the statute.

'If that is not sufficient, we would have to concede it is not sufficient,' he said.

The burden rests with the prosecution to prove the statute was fulfilled."

It really is refreshing to get out of Texas. Both Arizona and Utah seem to possess less hell bent for leather minds. Less "damning of the torpedoes," less "full speed ahead," or "come hell or high water." In Texas you get the impression folks think they're going to "make it happen." That's pretty macho. In St. George, Brock is honest about his chances.

I don't know the Judge in this case, but you figure he is looking over his shoulder at who will be second guessing him on appeal. He could ignore the facts and rule the way he wants to, but it will come back to haunt him, and he knows it.

"(Fifth District Court Judge G. Rand) Beacham said he would issue a written decision on the arguments at an undetermined time.

'I just have to satisfy myself that I have corralled the facts,' he said.

Belnap said a ruling in the Steed case will not directly affect the Jeffs case, although 'they would be free to make whatever arguments they wanted.' "

Belnap acknowledges that though strictly speaking, the lack of a rapist doesn't legally preclude the existence of an accomplice, it will get dicey for holding Warren's conviction together, if Allen Steed is not convicted. Charges not reported in the correct time frame means there will never be, a rapist.

It will look ridiculous to the public. It will not look like justice. It is also a case of special circumstance, and Warren can't be said in this case, no matter what the law says, to have conspired to commit an act that didn't take place, particularly if the primary couldn't be convicted because the crime was never reported in the first place.

It doesn't look to me, like reporting took place. The frothing opposition says to me often, that I'm an idiot, that the law doesn't require a perpetrator, for there to be an accomplice. Well kids, the law says a report has to be filed in a proper manner, in the proper time frame, with proper documentation to the proper kind of person(s).

It doesn't look like that happened. I say Allen Steed wins. Probably right here, and right now. If not, he'll win this later.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

New Year Revolution

The focus of this blog, will be shifting slightly. Really, what more is there to say on the FLDS/YFZ matter? Nothing I can predict. The CSPD connection to the FBI and the call and the caller awaits press interest. To them, it is "timely" or "topical" and as every delay occurs in what might be the oldest misdemeanor case (still being actively pursued) in El Paso County Colorado, they do get MORE interested. It would seem to our "news hounds" (who like sleeping on the porch) that this degree of delay is, interesting. Once more a reporter has feigned some interest in why a woman who is charged with one of the most minor misdemeanors has an attorney who has successfully delayed the charges against her from 2008 to 2010. How do you plea bargain nearly nothing to anything but nothing? But they're going to wait until it happens.

The shift will be towards legalization, and to that end, I may fold up and throw away the "Vermont Polygamy" blog, and merge it into this one. Two major story lines were a bit much to ask of one blog, but now it seems I have only one major story line, and it isn't our friends in the American Southwest. Does this mean I am abandoning them? No. But there's not much to tell really.

The FLDS trial story goes like this: They did it. DNA proves it. Americans are afraid of/hate polygamists as it strikes at the core of their egalitarian ideal. They want it to be about abuse, sexual deviancy, repression and perversion. They want it mostly to be "icky." So the state of Texas proves paternity with DNA, ogles mutually with the jury the age difference, the inequity and the excess they perceive in the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint practice of polygamy, they leer at young bodies pawed over by older men, and the larger the age difference, the longer the sentence. The trial and the sentencing are supposed to be about legal pedophilia which is really statutory rape, but they turn into disaffected former member rants about religion and female/male roles and polygamy. The horrified voyeuristic jury goes out to deliberate, and wishes only they had the option to kill the defendants. It's not going to change, it isn't going to get any better.

For their part, the FLDS seem to be running up trial balloons of potential defenses and lining the court record with book marks to be used later in appeal. I feel bad for every FLDS male caught up in this mess. A failure to reverse the verdicts on appeal will result in Allan Keate dying in jail. Your Modern Pharisee loathes prisons, and has a Biblical reason for that loathing. In my experience, prison is an ungodly punishment (never being ordered by the scriptures), it is dehumanizing to guard and guarded alike, and The Bible recoils in horror from the concept of prisons, equating them to hell itself.

The biggest stories coming down the pike are whether or not Rozita will be delayed again, what will happen with Allen Steed, what will the new wrinkle be in the Michael Emack trial, how will the evidence challenge go in February for Warren Jeffs? Judge Conn is a real Judge, perhaps a tad too liberal for my tastes, but he's not a cartoon judge like Barbara Walther. He writes well, he is honest, almost admitting the court lost something or lost track of it in his last ruling. He is disdainful of tricks such as Arizona acting as a proxy for Texas, and claiming that they "don't foresee using YFZ evidence."

So I'm on to legalization. Oddly, it is fellow polygynists who are some of my worst enemies in this regard. A conversation recently with an unnamed member of the FLDS yielded a rather startling insight, provided I understood that member correctly. They don't WANT it to be legal, they want an exception for religious reasons, which may ultimately explain some of the legal maneuvering, or lack thereof. If I understood it correctly, they'd just as soon it stayed against the law, but that the law recognize that those who practice it for religious reasons be given a pass.

It makes a sort of odd sense. Honestly, I don't see how you can BE a Latter Day Saint of any stripe, and not embrace the "principle." The most disturbing fact about the FLDS to the LDS is, that the FLDS are more faithful to the teachings of Joseph Smith than the LDS are, and the LDS are very uncomfortable with them for that reason. For the FLDS, if I am hearing it correctly, they don't see any reason to defend the practice among those who are not FLDS. It should be for religious reasons ONLY, and as with all credible religions, the FLDS see themselves as the "true" religion. I don't see why that should surprise us. They're not going away. Attempts to make the FLDS conform to standards that society sees as "good and moral and righteous" won't work. It's wrong in the first place (unconstitutional) and fundamentalists don't change. This is something theological liberals, agnostics and atheists don't get.

On my side of the street, among Christians (sorry Saints), there is a militant desire to not only practice polygamy, but to have it be a private contract. There's more hope here than with the above mentioned FLDS/LDS offshoot point of view. Most non Mormon Christian polygynists want to run the clock back about 100 years, and simply have marriages be an agreement between private parties with the state playing no role at all in who thinks who is married to whom. That's a pipe dream.

As we watch the most massive expansion of Federal Government in our history, we have to be honest. Obama Care is going to want to know everything about you. Register you as married, not married, living together, match DNA on everyone, parent and child, license who can have children and so on. Oh yes, that is coming. So if anything there will be more and more demanding interest in your family situation than before. When there was no national health care, maybe you could have gone for private civil contract as marriage. It was dicey because of the income tax system. After the Obamanation of Nationalized Health Care, you can forget that noise.

A national health care system will want to "save money" by tracking genetic diseases. They will establish paternity at some point regardless of what you want them to do. Just like at YFZ that will be used to prosecute some "crime," which if nothing else right now, is polygyny itself. Those of you who want to keep marriage off the books, you've lost that battle. I'm sorry. I sympathize and would have preferred that myself.

Here's why you should LEGALIZE polygyny. For the near future, you don't have to actually take advantage of the legal registration of your marriage, but the fact that it is legal, will take the heat off you. There is a creepy FBI connection that keeps getting larger in the YFZ case, particularly if some connections are solidified with the prank caller. The FBI seems to be in love with sex crimes these days, looking for creepy stalkers, old men and pedophiles. Whether right or wrong, they're looking to score in that regard. There are only two degrees of separation between FBI task forces on sex stings, and Rozita Swinton. They seem to be looking in on every high profile case of sexual abuse they can find:

ABC News - "Government documents released today show that the FBI assisted Santa Barbara, Calif., officials in their attempt to get cooperation from a person who could have been a key witness in the 2005 case child molestation case against Michael Jackson: the boy who accused the pop star of molesting him in 1993."

Freedom of information act requests were filed apparently, before Michael was cold, and now we know the FBI was up to their necks chasing down Mr. Jackson. It seems they are looking through every peephole.

Don't take it the wrong way, I'm hardly defending the Gloved One. It's just interesting to see what the FBI is, um, interested in. The only way to make them disinterested is to legalize polygamy, then they have no reason to peer through the keyhole of a man living in a house with five women. Right now, they have. Tony Alamo and Michael Jackson and the FLDS tell us they're going to keep right on doing it.

If you are a "private practitioner" of polygyny, let me warn you about what happened in Texas and how it affects you. When you are investigated for whatever crime you are investigated, bigamy and polygamy will be on the menu. You may try the strategy that FLDS men did. It won't work. What happened in Texas was Child Protective Services simply threatened to terminate parental rights. "Ok," you say, "My wife is a GOOD woman, and it won't matter if the state sees me as a father or not, my wife will stay loyal." Then she will be charged with something. Contempt of court for not testifying, bigamy herself, and so on. Now we have a mom in jail, a non Dad, and an abandoned child. It worked it Texas, and it will work with you, and it's now in the FBI playbook. They'll pass it along to each local jurisdiction and repeat as often as necessary.

Don't forget Project Megiddo. I'm sure the FBI hasn't. I see them acting on that template even today. They see religious polygynists as essentially breeding grounds for right wing terrorism, and frankly, the rhetoric I have been treated to by some of my brethren makes me wonder if they're not right about that. I can see some of my acquaintances holed up like Freemen in Jordan quite easily. I KNEW Randy Weaver, and liked the guy, he's not what you think he is, but he is just a tad too militant. He made himself a target, so did "Freeman" leader LeRoy Schweitzer, who is in maximum security prison until 2018. Fighting the "man" may be a romantic notion, but you usually fight the law, and the law wins. If you want to be a modern day John Brown, knock yourself out. A married man is to be concerned with pleasing his wife. Getting thrown in jail for idealistic reasons, isn't attending to that duty.

So it must be legalized. To that end I have ramped up rather unexpectedly my quarrel with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and I'm making an appeal. FIND SOMEBODY to champion the cause. I've offered myself several times. I'm going to be living in a home with four legislators in it, and I'm in walking distance of the Capitol in Vermont. I'm a registered lobbyist FOR the cause in the state of Vermont. I could register in New Hampshire, and very soon, Washington DC will be a tempting target for legalization, having merely to clear the hurdle of congressional review for their own "Gay Marriage" law. I could devote full time to this pursuit and could easily spend $100,000.00 just running around between legislatures in various states and pigeon holing various legislators. I've collected less than $100.00 and am only registered in the State of Vermont to lobby. You can look here at what attending only one "event" entails.

Make up your minds out there, because I have no need of self styled John Browns and unlike the FLDS who I will continue to champion, I'm not just doing this, for them. Unless they can manufacture some ecumenical love for legalization, ultimately, they're just today's "cause célèbre" and there will be others. The moving finger will write and move on past them.

I have the distinct feeling that a long "fish or cut bait" moment is rapidly approaching in my life. It won't be long until my passion spills out into the aisles of my own church, and I can't tell you what will happen then. I can guess that I will go underground, debating it for the record within the church, or I will be cast out of that church altogether. Frankly, I will be content to go underground and leave the battle to others. For the near future though, it's legalization, to some degree the internal church debate, and regular seasoning of FLDS information, as it hits the fan.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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

Allen Steed Still on the Calender

Just a reminder, a week after Thanksgiving:

03:00 PM 1-HR ORAL ARGUMENTS S27 071501596 State Felony
STATE OF UTAH ATTY: BELNAP, BROCK R
FILTER, BRIAN G
VS.
STEED, ALLEN GLADE ATTY: BRADSHAW, JIM C
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

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.

Brooke Adams has the PDF at her blog.

I guess the FLDS will sue. Eventually.

Bruce Wisan of course, has counterclaimed against both of them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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

Ben Winslow Reports on Warren's appeal

 

At Fox 13 in Utah.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Allen Steed and the Statute of Limitations, December 3rd.

It's starting to sound like a Harry Potter novel, isn't it?

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Allen G. Steed, 28, was charged with rape in 2007, days after testifying as a defense witness in the criminal trial of Warren S. Jeffs, president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Steed's attorneys argue the charge, tied to Steed's marriage to Elissa Wall in 2001, was filed too late to be valid and was not properly reported to law enforcement. They have asked 5th District Judge G. Rand Beacham to dismiss the case.

Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap argues that the charge is covered by an eight-year deadline -- called a statute of limitations -- that was adopted before the previous four-year statute of limitations had expired. Lamont Barlow, Wall's second husband, disclosed the rape allegation in a breakfast meeting with an Arizona investigator in 2005."

Whatever happens it would seem to be an open and shut case. Either it was reported to the proper authorities under an applicable statute or it wasn't. These cases though are highly politicized and there is certain to be a lot of pressure on the judge to say it was reported in a timely fashion. This is the sort of thing that frequently is ruled on politically at the first level, and later reversed.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Allen Steed? He seems to be winning.

Again, with the disclaimer that I ain't no lawyer. Read it yourself.

Allen moves to have the charges dismissed, part deux.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren's "Creative" Rape Conviction to go before Utah's Supreme Court

We're one court reversal away from this house of cards beginning to fall apart.

The Deseret News - "The hearing will be Nov. 4 at the J. Reuben Clark School of Law on the BYU campus. The Supreme Court routinely visits BYU and the University of Utah so students can see how the high court operates, but the business that is conducted during these visits is not the mock-trial variety, but genuine appeals."

Hat tip to "Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart."

Allen Steed is claiming a statute of limitations issue, and has yet to be tried on top of that. Warren is appealing his conviction, and Barbara Walther continues to foot drag on the evidence ruling in Texas. It will be 30 days this weekend since the state and the defense were "all in" on the issue with the judge.

Could it be there is some "persecution" angle that is real in these cases and eventually the smell will become to large? I have always believed the constitutional basis for the evidence collected at YFZ and the conviction of Warren Jeffs to be creative, to put it politely. The higher these decisions go, the more likely some judge or group of judges will be to reverse them altogether.

Remember, the history of this string of persecutions is not good for the persecutors. "Toes" worries about the venue. I worry only about the time frame it takes to reverse this nonsense.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rozita's Pre Trial and Trial Dates (UPDATED)

In Colorado Springs, a Pre Trial Conference on October 28th.

Trial is set for November 10th. This places the trial probably after rulings on YFZ evidence and quite probably after a decision is made on Allen Steed's claim that Elissa didn't report her "rape" in a timely fashion. (Since Allen's date is now set for December 3rd, I smell another delay.)

I continue to think that her attorney plays this so that no one looks bad, if she's simply turned loose with some sort of deferred prosecution. What Rozita did is not that bad (in terms of legal classification) but Texas refuses to prosecute her for her false reporting there, and mostly likely will not. Colorado doesn't know that though, and doesn't want to be shown as letting her off easy. David Foley, her attorney, knows that if all the FLDS cases are progressing without impediment, he can probably just get her turned loose.

The San Angelo Standard-Times -
Following is the schedule for trials:
* Raymond Merril Jessop, Oct. 26, sexual abuse of a child.
* Allan Eugene Keate, Dec. 7, sexual abuse of a child.
* Michael Emack, Jan. 25, 2010, sexual abuse of a child.
* Merrill Leroy Jessop, March 8, 2010, sexual abuse of a child and bigamy.
* Lehi Barlow Jeffs, April 26, 2010, sexual abuse of a child and bigamy.
* Abram Harker Jeffs, June 7, 2010, sexual abuse of a child and bigamy.
* Keith William Dutson, July 26, 2010, sexual abuse of a child.
* Wendell Loy Nielson, Sept. 7, 2010, three counts of bigamy.
* Frederick Merril Jessop, Oct. 11, 2010, conducting an unlawful marriage ceremony involving a minor.
* Leroy Johnson Steed, Dec. 6, 2010, first-degree felony sexual assault of a child, second-degree felony bigamy, third-degree felony bigamy and third-degree felony tampering with physical evidence.

I have included a trial schedule update to show how Rozita's trial coincides with that of the FLDS defendants. As you can see, Rozita has a pre-trial conference scheduled two days after it should be known, at the latest, how Walther will rule on inclusion of the YFZ evidence. Rozita's trial is sandwiched in between Raymond's and Allan's.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What you wanna bet it's delayed again?

Shoot YOURSELF in the leg, go to jail for two years and lose a lucrative income. Kill dogs (done regularly overseas for dinner), lose lucrative job, go bankrupt, lose even more lucrative endorsements, go to jail for two years. Threaten 439 kids and narrowly miss killing them?

Write blog posts about how the FLDS are brainwashing children and abusing them. At least, the blogger puporting to be Rozita does.

All of this suggests that this scheduled probation violation hearing, at least didn't go against Rozita. Look down the page about half way, she's right next to Plaxico (What 2nd Amendment rights?) Burress.

You really can't depend on the Colorado Springs Gazette which has taken a yawning attitude towards it's currently most famous adoptive daughter. They've done two stories on her, both sourced from the AP in the last year. Some local reporting.

It now looks as if the Ruling of the Suppression of Evidence is probably going to come this Friday. (Why Mr. Pharisee would it be this Friday? Because it's a long holiday weekend and it'll get buried!) Either that or as has been suggested by Anti FLDS forces, Walther will rule on the evidence suppression in each case individually as they come up in trial. This is important because of my predictive rule on FLDS related cases:

"If Allen (Steed) plea bargains, (Warren Jeffs') rape conviction ceases to be wet concrete and sets. If Warren is snugly in jail on felony rape for a while, panic eases for the prosecutions in other venues because he won't be going anywhere. Avoidance is less necessary for Texas with regard to Rozita, and they may choose to dismiss her 'minor' misdemeanor case as Utah and Arizona already have, without much investigation, Rozita then can say she didn't violate her probation with the call to YFZ in April of 2008 and she doesn't have her deferred sentencing deal processed, and goes free. So expect David Foley to try to delay things again. It's his specialty in Colorado Law."

Allen legally flipped off the prosecution this year, just like he did a year ago, but this time upped the ante, chosing to go for outright dismissal of the case based on the statute of limitations.

Since nothing, no report at all, came out of the probation violation hearing last week, I'm guessing (that's guessing, not absolutely stating) that we have another trial delay on tap for Monday. Seriously, was this ever a real trial date? Starting a trial the week BEFORE the Labor Day Weekend?

Only a few things only can come out of such an inconvenient date. Another delay, or some form of deferred sentencing agreement, dismissal or plea bargain. It is kind of hard to plea bargain down the extremely minor charge Rozita already faces. But again, Rozita has brought a gun to a knife fight, continues to manuever in the court system better than Bernie Madoff did and will probably delay this all, again.

Texas must resolve it's issues, before Rozita can resolve hers. Utah must resolve their issues too. So must Arizona.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Allen Steed's Filing

Want to read it? It's pretty easy to understand.

A report to the police about a crime is a well defined act by precident and law in Utah. Jim Bradshaw brings his copy of the "report" to the court, and simply says "It wasn't done." Read it here.

With only two sites having the PDF and your Modern Pharisee not being modern enough to upload it himself, I refer to the one posted at the Tribune.

More →

Sphere: Related Content