Tulsa Time

Appologies to Danny Flowers.

Danny wrote Tulsa Time, which is most popular in our memories as a song either by Don Williams or Eric Clapton. Danny was born in Henderson North Carolina. I was born in North Carolina. I was just in Henderson a few weeks ago. But I digress. I intend to digress more than one time in this post.

This is going to be one of those catch-all/catch-up messages, intended to let you know what's going on in life with me, and more or less why I haven't been blogging. Trucking, (I am now a Over the Road trucker) has not lived up to it's promise as far as free time to write and blog goes. Probably an experienced trucker would have told me this had I asked. I asked (it appears), the wrong experienced trucker.

First of all, on my absence of comment on the FLDS and Warren. Warren signed the 120. I thought he was winning. Maybe all Warren is trying to do is stay out of the General Population in a Texas Prison as long as he can. Warren Jeffs has been made into the moral equivalent of a Jeffrey Dahmer. Warren, the media narrative goes, consumes the virgin flesh of young girls to satisfy his sick sexual appetites. Jeffrey ate people.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a trophy kill in prison. I sadly think Warren may be lined up for the same fate. I think Texas knows this. Given that Warren may not survive in prison, it may not matter how long he spends there. He won't be freed on appeal and the railroad style trial that Judge Walther would give him puts him in the crosshairs long enough to die. Perhaps this is Warren's thinking. Maybe his defense team knows something we don't that is a game changer. I don't think so.

The FLDS no longer talk to me and what is in the media is all I know. I've peaked behind the curtain on two ends. Rozita Swinton and "TxBluesMan." It doesn't seem to interest them. I'd be vitally interested in the FBI communications network that seemed to exist before Rozita was "discovered." So far the FLDS have only paid lip service to interest in that topic.

TxBluesMan had extraordinary access, sometimes posting court documents before the Judge seemed to see them or approve them. I seem to know who TxBluesMan is. That's interesting. The FLDS again give lip service to being interested in the topic. That's all though. Proving any conspiracy leading up to the invasion of YFZ may well let all the FLDS men go overnight. They don't seem to care. I don't know why. Maybe they have looked. Maybe I had good couple of leads that didn't pan out. I don't know.

On to what's happening with me.

I continue to pursue several paths that seem at least theoretically open to me.

In short, I propose a business/religion empire based on family and a spine of trucking.

How romantic.

I've "proposed" that anyone interested could contact me and the starting position of the business would be staffing one truck with two wives/drivers and me. That would mean you would get ten days off in a row, away from the cranky old Pharisee, and ten days with him. If I'm too much to take, maybe I wouldn't be in tiny doses.

Those of you who think the current Mrs. Pharisee doesn't know of this proposal are wrong.

A number of things would have to work out for the above to be the path.

The end result would be part ownership in a diversified business that had trucking as part of the enterprise. Driving the rest of your life is not part of the idea. Driving part of your life away, would be.

Follow the above link for more details.

Another path is the formation of a denomination, which continues to be my interest. This continues to progress. It is agonizingly slow. People are in addition, just too stubborn to admit that the best way to do things is simply to agree with me.

Odd, isn't it?

Then there is the sort of Methodist/Presbyterian circuit riding polygynist preacher. I need people to pony up for that one. It's quite simple. Support the effort monetarily and I will use my far ranging truck driving profession to show up on occasion, preach, take your money and deliver the sacraments, which for a reformed venue is pretty much baptism and communion.

The last is the least complex. I can make free time as a solo trucker. I do range about the country from one end to another. If I derived an income as a preacher the truck is just my wandering taxicab. It also would serve the denominational goal but from a slightly different angle.

I haven't mentioned the other path.

That's giving up, closing up shop, declaring bankruptcy, and shouting "Bah, Humbug" into some anonymous box canyon and retiring from public view. That would be after beating my head against the wall now for more than 20 years and coming to the conclusion, as I rapidly am beginning to seriously entertain, that no one at all, cares.

So what about Tulsa Time?

It appears that Tulsa does have it's own time standards. It is laid back. No one works in this industrial park on weekends, well one merchant does. Several of the commercial buildings are empty. They remind me mysteriously of the abandoned ABM site east of Conrad Montana. Melting snow drips. It's accumulated in places you would expect people to clear out. The ABM site was like that.

I hoofed it for about a mile round about my delivery site which won't take my cargo until tomorrow morning. There were no laundromats. There were no bars. There were no churches. There was a church TV station. There was a 24 hour a day pawn shop that redeemed gold and silver. It was busy.

Eventually I went back to the "receiver" of my freight and looked again for an outlet to plug into for my laptop. There were none. I continued to be nervous about the fact that there was what appeared to be an abandoned "tractor" (the term for the "truck" portion of an eighteen wheeler, it had expired plates and hadn't moved for a while and was backed up to the "dock"). The whole dock area showed only marginal signs of use. The snow was cleared away from the dock which was comforting, but I saw no signs of life at all. No security (it is Tulsa though) and no noises. Finally I did get an angle on the roof cooling unit and could hear it running. I felt better.

I have been sent to wrong locations before. It now appears this was not one of them. It's just sleepy. Tulsa time you know.

So I'm sitting on a loading dock of an adjoining business that does have plugs, and lighting, and listening to the snow melt dripping. It was 70 when I got here, it's in the 50's now. The snow is melting quickly but there was a lot of it to melt in Tulsa. It's still melting. Water is running everywhere.

This brings me to the digression (in part) of another reason I haven't been blogging.

There is the issue of no one giving a rat's hiney. It's hard to keep banging on the door when no one is home. It bruises your hands.

There is the issue of depression.

This is a depressing job when you're not moving or sleeping. I don't like hanging out in a truck. It is turning out to be very hard for me to compose a thought, and then follow through with putting it into print when the overwhelming thought is "oh, never mind," because when the truck stops moving, and you're not making the dough, and you're not sleeping, it's really really REALLY depressing.

I got into this business to be with a friend and to set about the activity of forming a new denomination.

I am now alone.

I never go home.

I miss my wife.

I'm not making enough money to justify doing this as a solo driver. I keep putting the pencil to it and can't make it work.

I do have one or two ways to make "soloing" work better that I've been trying. We'll see.

I try to be honest about who I am and what my faults are. I try to set things in front of you all so that you know me as well as you can know anyone you haven't met, or may have only met briefly.

There are drawbacks. It's the issue of "Pearls before Swine."

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

They do rend.

Most of what I encounter to my posts on both of my blogs now, is that rending.

Alone, I must tell you, it is extremely painful.

There are those that trample. They lie. They rend. They twist everything you say and yes, it hurts a great deal.

I don't mind saying so as I continue to try to be honest about who I am and what I am. Just saying the above will let me in for another round of jeering and ridicule. The only vague interest I have in that trampling and rending is what bizarre twist will my words be subjected to when I hear them read back to me, modified.

So I'm here in Tulsa. I may be here until Tuesday. Clock-wise, as a trucker, I have about four hours left to spend before Tuesday. I cannot go too many places in four hours. I certainly can't go on from that place to another. I may visit the local service center for my "tractor" and see if they can diagnose some odd things that are occurring with old blue. We'll see.

I think if I want to write, and to blog, I need to get out of the truck. It helps a lot.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

You doubted me? Just read the latest.

Oh, you doubted me did you? You thought I was spinning a wild yarn of male bovine manure reading too much into the details of yesterdays arraignment of Warren Jeffs? Just read how the local rag immediately characterized Warren's arrival in Texas. I mean, they LEAD with the verbal version of the negative photo op, as if it means anything:

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Warren Jeffs, the leader of the polygamy sanctioning Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, walked into the Tom Green County courthouse for an arraignment with a gray sweater tucked into the chains that surrounded his waist, covering the top of the bright orange jumpsuit."

If you're BLIND you're going to get the message. If photos don't make that big an impression on you, you're going to get the message. If you read a text version or a print only version or some reprinted version of the story emailed to you without a picture.

You're going to get the message.

Warren was in a gray sweater (sweatshirt) and a BRIGHT ORANGE jumpsuit. About the only thing left to the imagination is WHO wears BRIGHT ORANGE?

Most of us reading the article know it's a PRISON INMATE.

You're supposed to look at Warren and think of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Not like Khalid wants you to see him, but as a criminal. And we all know that criminals are unshaven, disheveled and have just been rousted out of bed.

Granted, Khalid is guilty, he confessed. In addition Khalid does not have the rights of a US Citizen, because he's not one (Warren is). If you want to know the remaining stereotype that no racial group or gender will ever give up it's "good looking" vs "bad looking." We want to believe that the disheveled and slovenly in appearance look that way because it's a reflection of their true moral character. When we go out in public, we put on our best for the most part. If he ever goes to trial, Khalid will try to appear as he wants to be seen, so will Warren but neither man is how they appear at their best or worst. They are what they are.

An American, like Warren, is entitled to be pure as the driven snow in front of the law, until it is proven otherwise. We need to remember that, and not what the Government/Media complex wants us to believe.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Cost is NOT a factor, including your freedoms....

The Three Piggies and Warren

Does Government not care what rights or treasure of yours it takes to expand it's power? Does a former drill instructor make a really bad therapist?

The money, while it is probably a prodigous amount, is not important to the State of Texas.  Texas thinks it's probably some amount YOU would think is inappropriate, considering the lack of prosecutorial success (vs Warren) elsewhere.

How do we know it's too much?

They'd tell you if it was cheap.  (Either that, or they don't know, which ought to bother you as well.  Strickland says he doesn't know.)

It doesn't matter to Texas, they got their desired photo op. Not Warren as depicted in the last post, but Warren in prison sweats and prison orange with what looks like a bit of a 50+ five o'clock shadow, in irons, flanked by fat pigs dressed in their best.

Oh.

You think I meant something pejorative?

Those guys aren't a bit porky looking to you?

Considering Mr. Jeffs is more or less a cardiologists ideal by comparison, Texas did need to "weight" (sorry, no, not really) the photo op in their favor.  I've been driving through Texas a lot recently and they are the most cliché bound bureaucracy I know of. "Don't Mess with Texas" one Government billboard preaches, and yet another declares; "the Eyes of Texas are upon You."

So when it comes to whether or not Texas will spend infinite amounts of Tax Payer $$$ to get a picture of Warren looking his worst with a three overweight cowboy wannabes flanking him like he was going to shoot his way out of the "joint," or be rescued by "King Willie, the Thug," gangster style, they spare no expense.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, said they flew Jeffs into San Angelo from Utah at 9 p.m. Tuesday night and then drove him to Big Lake.

'Attorney General Abbott and his office his prosecutors have been handling the prosecution of cases related to the YFZ ranch,' Strickland said, as he walked into the courtroom Wednesday morning. '... Today 7 of 12 men have been convicted of sexually assaulting children. This case stems from that action.'

When asked about costs related to trying Jeffs in Texas, Strickland said he doesn’t have specific numbers, but that cost is not a factor.

'What I do know is, Attorney General Abbott is committed to protecting children in this state,' Strickland said. 'You cant’ put a price tag on protecting children and because of that, this case will be handled with prosecutors (from) the AG’s (attorney general’s) office.' "

The great difficulty is that they are not just spending your tax dollars (and with the "co-mingling" of Federal and State money that is Revenue Sharing, yes, it's yours too), they're spending your freedom as well.

Texas wanted to make this "statement" as you see above, and Texas wanted their picture. Now they've got it. In the process they ran roughshod over Warren's right to a "speedy trial" (it doesn't matter if he didn't want it before, he wants it now) and they got to treat him like a fugitive. No one in Texas wanted a Dapper Warren Jeffs showing up in wing tips and business suit, with stylish coiffure, fatherly appearance, etc, walking through the front door and surrendering to authorities, they wanted to fly him out and drag him around much like Achilles is supposed to have done with Hector after defeating him in battle.

Well, there you go Texas. And America? There went your money, though granted, it was mostly Texas dollars (except they won't account for it), and there went your freedom, with Warren. You have to decide: Does the prosecution of a man for crimes Texas probably can't prove warrant the setting aside of the rights your founding fathers insisted on having for each citizen PRIOR to signing our Constitution in favor of the rights of the State to extradite?

I think you know my answer. What's yours?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Now the right to a Speedy Trial is to Jeffs Advantage

So he asks for one.

There are a tangled morass of issues now. Texas "supposedly" wants Jeffs, I say "supposedly" because we haven't heard of a new filing for rendition/extradition yet. At this point I expect them to try. The Feds "supposedly" want Jeffs. I imagine Utah and Texas and the Feds are conspiring (in altogether legal fashion) on what is the best strategy to keep Warren legally locked up for as long as possible, ultimately with him ending up in Texas in Barbara Walther's court.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Defense attorney Walter F. Bugden filed the request on Tuesday, hours after the Utah Supreme Court reversed Jeffs’ conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. The high court said Jeffs was denied a fair hearing because of faulty instructions given to jurors.

Bugden said that Jeffs has been 'incarcerated for many months' and has the right to have the case reheard as quickly as possible.

Judge James Shumate, who presided over Jeffs’ first trial, on Wednesday set a hearing on a retrial for 9 a.m. in St. George."

The FLDS strategy is to get the trial business done and over with in Utah prior to going to Texas or maybe even getting Warren out of jail (if only for a bit) while awaiting trial in Texas. Figure at some point in here there will be a bail hearing for Warren in Utah. I don't know what event comes first. Just figure it's possible that Warren could walk the streets, at least for a little bit, before meeting the witch in Texas.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Something's up, maybe a plea deal: Keith William Dutson Jr. gets a Continuance.

I'm not a subscriber to the Eldorado Paper, but they're bannering the information.

And just before a Holiday Weekend. Interesting. It could mean anything from arguing about a venue change, a plea deal, or something has happened to make Keith's conviction less likely. It could even mean that they're rearranging scheduled trials because the extradition of Warren Jeffs to Texas from Utah has been successful.

Like I said, it's typically buried late on a Friday afternoon before a national Holiday. When no one is watching. That USUALLY means it's not something Walther wants us to know a lot about.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Trial Transcript Comparison (UPDATED)

Ron in Houston, whoever that is, claims (essentially) that I'm not very bright when it comes to my observation regarding the time it took to produce Raymond Jessop's trial transcript. Oh really?

While I realize the cases are different, it is likely that the trial transcript of former Congressman William "Cold Cash" Jefferson is a bit more complex. From an article appearing in the "Times-Picayune."

"A federal appeals court Friday rejected a request from the court reporter in the corruption case of former Congressman William Jefferson for a one-year extension to produce the trial transcript required for the appeal to move forward.

The court reporter, Michael Rodriquez, missed a March 23 deadline to produce the 6,500-page transcript from last summer's eight-week trial, and recently asked that he be given until May, 11, 2011, to produce the document.

'It is my strong belief that the extension of time requested would be sufficient to complete the transcripts requested in this case,' he wrote the court.

In a two-line order, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., gave him until June 23 (UPDATE:  As of 07/02/2010 the transcript is now filed for William Jefferson), warning of financial sanctions if he asks for more time.

'Further requests for extension and waiver will be viewed with disfavor by this court,' the court order said.

Jefferson, who turned 63 in March, remains free, pending resolution of the appeal of the guilty verdicts returned by a Virginia jury last August on 11 of the 16 counts charged by the Justice Department."

I guess it's who you know, and who you used to be. Raymond Jessop isn't a former US Congressman, William Jefferson is.

I also can't sort out a comparison between the Jessop trial and the Jefferson trial when it comes to why William Jefferson has an appeal filed, but no transcript, or even why it is that "Cold Cash" Jefferson can be free, pending an appeal, and Raymond is in a Texas Prison.

Nevertheless, Raymond Jessop was convicted on November 6th, 2009, his transcript showed up in about 8 months, and William Jefferson's conviction was in August of 2009, and his transcript had an imposed deadline by the appeals court of March 23rd, 2010. A deadline that was missed.

A 6500 page transcript. William Jefferson was CONVICTED on August 11th, and sentenced about the same time that Raymond Jessop was. I also can't tell you if the sentencing was included in the transcript. Nevertheless we have the better part of August, until March 23rd of this year, about EIGHT and a HALF months for a 6500 page transcript to be produced, and an angry Judge demanding that it be produced, and crankily extending the deadline to about a week ago, for William Jefferson. Even less time if you account for the sentencing of William Jefferson took place after Raymond Jessop was sentenced.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

On FLDS Appeals

When do you suppose that in this day of speech recognition software, HD Video, and general automation of everything in the office, that the transcript of Raymond Jessop's trial (and subsequent conviction) was finally given to the defense, so that they could appeal.

If you said "hasn't happened yet, you'd have been right, up until this month. It's finally in the hands of the defense, as of this month. Remember when he was convicted? November, of last year. Barbara, you wouldn't be dragging your feet for any reason, would you?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Verdict Soon on Abram Harker Jeffs? Yes, after a short Deliberation.

Typically, it didn't take long, and he's been convicted of Bigamy I hear.

The Defense was spirited by comparison to previous trials, but not enough. I believe the FLDS needs to be pushing the concept publicly of Jury Nullification, but they're not. In addition, the short defense presentations amount to an admission of guilt in terms of perception. Here's last night's San Angelo Standard-Times article:

" 'You’ve heard all the evidence you’re going to hear' for the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther told jurors before dismissing them for Monday evening.

Jurors looked at documents sacred to the FLDS throughout Monday afternoon as the prosecution tried to place Jeffs and the alleged victim at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Schleicher County at the time of the alleged offense.

The alleged assault of the 15-year-old girl when he was 34 allegedly occurred around May 12, 2006.

'I think this is the first time the jury has laid eyes on a priesthood record,' lead Prosecutor Eric Nichols told Texas Ranger Danny Crawford while Crawford was on the stand testifying to what each document was and what it said as the redacted documents were projected onto a screen for the jury."

Actually, copies of the Priesthood Records got out, and Eric knows that. Perhaps presenting them here is now a way to say that people have them now, because he used them in Trial. Right Eric.

To his credit, Brandon Hudson took a few jabs at the evidence in trial, and the fact that some witnesses are being paid. We can be sure we don't know the full extent of the payment issues between Texas and it's various "experts."

Sentencing is next. I imagine that will not take long either. The Bigamy conviction provides a platform for appeal of the length Abram's sentence, if it long, like the others. There will be appeals on the bigamy convictions on their constitutionality. Perhaps after sentences are adjusted, the convictions will be overturned just in time for a "timely" parole based on the average sentence of other "First Time" offenders.

My current thought is that after the heat dies down and FLDS men have spent some time in jail, there will eventually be a reversal of the evidence inclusion. My hope is that it's sooner than that.

Willie Jessop weights in today's edition of the Times:

"FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop said afterward he believed the state at last publicly has made the case a religious matter.

'For the first time, they’ve admitted it’s about religion,' Jessop said.

Jessop also stressed deprivation of rights, in the raid and in the trial, as an issue of prime concern.

'Disregard your first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights, and anyone is in danger,' Jessop said. 'We need to have judicial notice of what’s happening.' "

This case, if not reversed, as I have stated for over two years, is a danger to us all. The only victims at YFZ in the eyes of the law are technically victims, there was and still is no "outcry," there are no defections from "Stockholm Syndrome" sufferers suddenly "waking up." The supposed "Victims" are now all adults. Those underage "supposed" victims whose "assailants" have not yet been convicted will be adults soon. I think there's only one anyway, and it may be proved she was not a victim.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

See? I ruled AGAINST the prosecution (let's go home) UPDATED

Walther gets in her ruling for the defense.

More or less by ruling against the prosecution's request to move the trial. At least for today. We don't have a jury yet and we won't have one today it seems. (The updated story says yes we do.)

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The motion to move the court came while Nichols argued that after calling 325 people as jurors, only 31 people were found eligible, and at that rate of individual questioning they were approving one out of every 10, meaning they would not find the necessary 36 people after interviewing the remaining 37 that had been seated from a second pool of 100 people called in addition to those of the original 325 who had excuses.

The defense argued for remaining in Eldorado.

'There is no reason to simply cut loose the people we have today,' defense attorney Brandon Hudson said.

Walther denied the state’s motion, so the individual questioning continued."

Walther knocked off early Friday, and will seem to quit on time today.

I wonder.

When we're not pressuring the defense and wearing out the Jury, Walther seems to be able to get home for dinner. When the trial starts though, it has been her pattern to stay late. Could this be a tactic?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Yet another lesson in Semantics, Abram Harker Jeffs Trial begins

As I have observed before (here or elsewhere), it's what you call it. The San Angelo Standard-Times isn't trying to prejudice the Jury, they're just naming the statute violated. (I note that when I just tried not name the motion granted at Wikipedia, I got run off.) The headline on the story reads:

"Sexual assault of child trial set to begin today." The story goes on to mention Abram could get 99 years and recalls the basic outline of the raid narrative:

"Evidence gathered against the FLDS men came from an April 2008 raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Schleicher County. Law enforcement personnel searched for a woman who had called saying that she was being abused at the ranch. The authorities now believe the call to have been a hoax.

More than 400 children were put into protective custody from the ranch during their search, but they were returned weeks afterward at the order of an appellate court.

Authorities collected trailer-loads of evidence, papers, records from various buildings on the ranch. The state also collected DNA evidence, which has been used at each trial to show that the accused men fathered children by their underage victims.

FLDS defense counsel has tried to suppress the evidence gathered from the ranch on grounds that the search warrant was improper. Defense lawyers also have tried to quash indictments against the FLDS men because they say the grand jury selection process didn’t represent Schleicher County’s Hispanic population proportionately."

And again, the phrase repeated in the media like a mantra; "Authorities now believe the call to have been a hoax." Once in a while a reporter slips up and says "the call WAS a hoax," but no one will do the reporting.

It's like make-up. De-emphasize that which you don't find attractive, accentuate your best points. Anyone reading the San Angelo Standard-Times article, who is also part of the unsequestered jury, will "know" that Abram Harker Jeffs is charged with pulling his phallus out of his pants, and beating a baby girl with it. The fact that she is now an adult, didn't assist in the prosecution, and won't isn't in the headline.

The reasonable speculation that the call may have actually been arranged, is also not in the article.

If Abram's trial goes much longer than any of the others, I will be surprised, though I am hearing rumors of some new wrinkle. Most of the "wrinkles" so far have been set ups for later appeals.

How, as a God Fearing Juror, can you NOT convict a man charged with using his penis as an assault weapon against a "child?" That's why they named the crime the way they did. It's inflammatory and prejudicial. Ask "Booger Red."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Another Nolo - No Trial for Lehi (UPDATED)

There will be no trial for Lehi Barlow Jeffs:

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Lehi Barlow Jeffs, 31, took a plea deal for eight years in prison for sexual assault of a child who was bound to him in a nonlegal marriage when the girl was 15 years old. The assault itself, based on the birth of her child, was alleged to have occurred on Sept. 18, 2006.

Jeffs also plead no contest to bigamy, having had three wives, one of them legal. He was sentenced to eight years to be served concurrently with his other sentence."

It is probably that Lehi retained the right to benefit from appeals regarding the evidence, should Barbara Walther be reversed (Bill Medvecky says yes).

"(Michael) Emack also keeps the right to appeal based on the motion to quash the grand jury indictments alleging that the grand jury system in Schleicher County underrepresented Hispanics."

From the Standard-Times, January 22nd, 2010.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wiki Edit Wars, the Armistice

I figured it would end this way:

"On February 5, 2010, Arizona Judge Steven F. Conn approved a stipulation from the previous day 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. Based on the agreement of the attorneys, Judge Conn issued an order adopting the stipulation. Jeffs' first of two trials on charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor is scheduled to begin November 2, 2010."

Since, in general, bloggers are considered less reliable sources than the print media, or the broadcast media, visibility, is everything.

In the "Main Stream Media," there is only one reference I know of to the YFZ Evidence being suppressed in Arizona. That is at Brooke Adams' "Plural Life" blog. This is an extremely insignificant reference. It is an official blog of the Salt Lake Tribune and though Brooke is a "Real Live Reporter," it barely qualifies as a Main Stream Media reference.

For this reason the only location for the revelation of this simple fact is Wikipedia. Shortly after the raid I made my first edit (I have been a member since 2006) to a Wikipedia article about the YFZ Ranch stating that the evidence has been suppressed in Arizona, checked back on it a few hours later, saw it still there, and didn't think much about it.

A month later I returned and found it changed to an outright lie.

Since then I have been trying to negotiate behind the scenes (as if that is possible) with "BlueSooner" (TxBluesMan), RonLawHouston (RonInHouston) and someone named "Hope4Kids" whose moniker I could swear I've seen in some form at their favorite site.

Since you can barely find through Googling "suppression" in conjunction with YFZ, the news about the Arizona ruling at anything other than what are considered "partisan" blogs (yes, that would be how new viewers would see me), it goes completely unnoticed by the casual follower of the story that (shock), some judges don't think the raid was conducted in a lawful fashion.

The various editions of the story went back and forth with me trying to find some way to present the term "unlawful" (as it was ruled that way) on the page without offense. I settled on simply quoting the name of the granted order and linking it to the official court record at the court site. Of course, that wasn't going to work. The way the "Blues Crew" characterizes the legal activity in Arizona, it was just a considerate concession of the prosecution, merely a "stipulation." Nothing more. The fact that it was a complete and total surrender on the part of Prosecutor Matt Smith doesn't daunt them one bit. This is a "spin" war in the mind of the reading public, as long as the turf of Wikipedia can be successfully defended against the insertion of the words "Unlawful," or "Suppressed" into the YFZ Record, no one will really know it happened.

Thus ends the battle for now, at least until a week from now, when the page is reopened for edits. I may have been as a result, barred forever from editing a Wikipedia page. So it goes. Before I edited the YFZ page I hadn't contributed anything to the online reference so I have exactly what I had before in regard to Wikipedia, nothing except a reference guide.

My promotion of the site may plummet though. Not that they will miss my 3 or 4 hits generated per day for Wikipedia, but nevertheless, if it goes as it continues to go, I'll just find some other way to get material to reference, instead of at Wiki. Unless they're the only ones.

Wikipedia represented a sort of "last best chance" for the FLDS to get the truth out, not a spin, the absolute truth that when outside of Walther World, the evidence and her decisions don't stand up. That's significant, but no one knows about it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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!

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wikipedia Edit Wars, and YFZ (or, why the FLDS is losing)-UPDATED

Popular perception in opinion and political wars, is everything.

The following is an example of subtle vandalism, and evidence that someone is watching, and erasing as we go.

Wikipedia - "On February 10, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith agreed not to use any evidence seized from the YFZ raid at the upcoming trial of Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

Except, that's not the original edit, and entry. It's been changed.

Those who know how Wikipedia works know that such reference material is largely a "substantiated perception" of an event, not a historical record. Wikipedia becomes very useful in documenting what most people believe, seasoned strongly with what evidence is available, to back that up. Though timely and readily available, Wikipedia is often subject to a sort of vandalism similar to the "unpersoning" mentioned in a previous post on this subject.

The above referenced quote from Wikipedia is a subtle lie. It is also vandalism. I know. I wrote the original edit that stated specifically that Judge Steven Conn ruled YFZ evidence inadmissible and the raid unlawful ("illegal"). While this is an opinion, it is also fact, and it also can be documented from the online record on the case. Someone has come in, and changed the entry to show what FLDS enemies want us to believe about Judge Conn's ruling. They want us to believe that it was a Stipulation on the part of the prosecution, that it wouldn't use YFZ evidence, something Matt Smith tried to pawn off on the defense and Judge Conn, and something Judge Conn scathingly rejected.

It was a Stipulation alright, but to the motion of the defense, that the evidence be suppressed, because the raid was unlawful (read also, "illegal"). Then the equivocation began that because Matt had offered a "Stipulation" before, and because the word "Stipulation" was being used, that it was the same thing. Matt in fact, reversed field, came before the court, and agreed that the defense was right, and the matter on which Judge Conn INSISTED he would rule, was in fact, ruled on. When the defense cries "foul" that the raid was unlawful ("illegal") and demands that the evidence be "suppressed" in the form of a motion, and a Judge who is already dubious about that evidence has in his hand a "Stipulation" from the prosecution, as to that defense motion being valid, and he insists on RULING, it shouldn't come as a surprise, that he does rule.

And Judge Conn DID. GRANTING the motion of the defense. RULING that the evidence was UNLAWFULLY ("ILLEGALLY") obtained and suppressing the evidence.

The way the Wikipedia entry now reads, you'd think Judge Conn agreed to this offer (Stipulation) on the part of the defense.

"COMES NOW, the State of Arizona, by the Mohave County Attorney, and hereby agrees to stipulate to not using any evidence seized from the State of Texas including any materials seized specifically by Texas law enforcement during the April, 2008, search of the 'YFZ Ranch'. The State agrees at this time in order to avoid an Evidentiary Hearing in this case in February, that it will not use any evidence seized by the Texas authorities from the YFZ Ranch in its' case-in-chief, during cross-examination of any called defense witnesses or as rebuttal evidence. IN summary, the State will agree not to use this evidence for any purpose whatsoever in either of the two cases pending against the Defendant, Warren Jeffs. The State believes that this should take care of the pending Evidentiary Hearing and there should be no need to proceed with said hearing at any time.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 21st day of January, 2010.

MATTHEW J. SMITH
MOHAVE COUNTY ATTORNEY"

Judge Conn ANGRILY rejected that notion.

"The Court does not know what, if anything, to read into the fact that this offer is being made in the form of a pleading filed with the Court rather than a communication with opposing counsel."

Imagine the preceding "offer" (which Conn labels as being misidentified as a "pleading") had been read and understood in Court. Conn is handing the piece of paper BACK to Smith and saying "What do you want me to do with this nonsense?" He doesn't want an answer, the remark is rhetorical. Conn goes on to say:

"This Court, of course, has no authority to make the parties stipulate to anything."

Interpretation? "Matt, if you didn't want an evidentiary hearing on YFZ evidence, you should have sought out Michael Piccarreta and made a deal with him that he could believe in, not to use the evidence. If he was convinced you were sincere, he wouldn't have bothered to make his motion, but you didn't.

In addition, if you found the evidence suspect, why did you go to Texas to look at it, and confuse the issue? Judge Conn again:

"The defense motion was filed more than a year ago."

This is critical, because it identifies for us, the reader, WHICH motion it is, of the defense, to which Conn is referring. Matt Smith initially fought that motion to suppress, made on September 3rd, 2008. There were no other motions made about the evidence, as Conn indicates, "more than a year ago."

"The Court would have hoped that if an agreement were going to be reached eliminating the necessity of a hearing on the motion such agreement could have been reached a long time ago. The Court has had the impression that the State was not exactly sure what their position was as to evidence seized in the Texas search."

Translation? "You're wasting my time Matt, and you don't look like you know what you're doing." Conn goes on to rip into the State of Arizona for wasting the valuable time of the Court:

"The Court has set aside a week on its calendar to resolve this issue."

Conn restates to Matt (who already knows this, so it is a LECTURE), what the purpose of an evidentiary hearing IS, a "Trial of the Evidence."

"The Court intends to conduct the evidentiary hearing as it would a jury trial, clearing its calendar and devoting its daily calendar to this hearing until it is completed."

(You haven't just inconvenienced ME (Judge Conn) Matt, and this Court, but everyone who has business before it.)

"The Court has already made dozens of scheduling decisions in other cases, many involving parties who wanted to schedule trials or other hearings as soon as possible, based on the assumption that the week of February 16, 2010, was unavailable for scheduling purposes."

Now the more subtle "codespeak." What Conn says here is; "Matt, if you're going to agree to the motion of the defense, or if the defense withdraws it's motion, I'll cancel the hearing. Otherwise, it's on like Donkey Kong bub."

"(If) the Court is advised unequivocally that this hearing is unnecessary, it will assume that it is going as scheduled. It is much easier to cancel a hearing at the last moment than to try to reschedule it. However, the Court hopes that the parties will have enough respect for the Court's scheduling concerns that if this hearing is going to be vacated upon mutual consent the Court will be so advised as soon as possible."

Conn is being superficially polite as well, since it is not Michael Piccarreta that is causing the problem, but Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith.

Now the stage is properly set. For Conn to back off, and accept the "Stipulation" offered that he ridicules brutally above, he would have to make an embarrassing about face. He just said "Like HELL" to Smith's piece of paper, that he derisively dismisses as a "offering."

Why the sudden offer of a "Stipulation" by Matt Smith? Piccarreta was plunging ahead full speed, issuing subpoenas to Sheriff David Doran (Texas), Texas Ranger Brooks Long (Texas), Deputy Allen Pashano (of Arizona), and Probation Officer Bill Loader (Arizona), two days before.

It has been derisively snorted that subpoenas to Texas LE would be ignored and worthless, but this is what both Texas and Arizona have been trying to avoid. If Doran and Long don't show up to go under oath, the motion to suppress will carry. If they do, it was widely speculated that they would being in an awkward position, having a lot to answer for under oath. A real danger to both men and to all the YFZ cases.

It is thus believed on both sides of the YFZ controversy, that the Texas witnesses (Doran and Long) would not show up. If they did, the FLDS would have a virtual gold mine to work with. They're not coming, (I speculate and the opposition agrees) so at the moment the subpoenas were issued, Arizona loses the evidentiary hearing, and it's all over. The "offering" that Conn refers to was a desperate last ditch ploy on the part of a brave Matt Smith, who is willing to make himself look foolish for Texas in front of a Court in which he must appear again, and again. In front of a Judge he does not wish to convince, that he, Matt Smith, is foolish.

Michael Piccarreta then draws up another Stipulation. This is also critical. The previous "Stipulation" filed in the form of a "pleading" before the Court, scathingly dismissed by Judge Conn as an "offering" with which he did not know what to do is off the table. THIS "Stipulation" is crafted by Warren Jeffs' attorneys, and says quite simply that Matt Smith now unconditionally surrender, and stipulate to Warren's motion of September 3rd, 2008. The motion to suppress.

"Plaintiff, State of Arizona, by and through its attorney, Matthew J. Smith, and defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his attorneys, Michael L. Piccarreta and Richard A. Wright, stipulate as follows:

1. That defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search that occurred at property belonging to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) near El Dorado, Texas (YFZ Ranch) beginning on April 3, 2008, and continuing thereafter is granted.

2. That evidence obtained thereby is suppressed and the State agrees that it will not use any evidence obtained as a result of the search of the YFZ Ranch, directly or indirectly, in his case-in-chief, during cross-examination of any called defense witnesses, as rebuttal evidence, or for any purpose whatsoever.

3. That, in light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property, currently set for February 17 and 18, 2010, is hereby vacated."

This "Stipulation" is WRITTEN by Jeffs' Law Firm, specifically states the raid to be "Unlawful." It was signed first by Jeffs' attorneys and in essence, pushed across the table to Matt Smith who signed it in a surrender as unconditional as that of Japan on V-J Day.

On page 26 of the Original Motion, it says this:

III CONCLUSION

"For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this Court to issue its order suppressing all the evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the unlawful searches of FLDS church property in Eldorado, Texas.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of September, 2008."

WRIGHT STANISH & WINCKLER PICCARRETA DAVIS PC

The only person now, who can stop the raid being ruled unlawful, is Judge Conn, and he doesn't:

"The parties have filed a Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court signs the Stipulation and adopts the terms thereof."

The terms are that of the defense, and involve granting the motion to Suppress (above), and suppressing the Evidence, obtained in an unlawful search, never to be used in any way directly or indirectly.

And so history is marred, vandalized if you will. If you read the altered Wikipedia entry, you'd think Matt Smith just "agreed" not to use the evidence, as he offered, and was rudely rejected by the Court.

The Evidence was SUPPRESSED in Arizona. The raid was agreed to be UNLAWFUL by Arizona. That has sweeping future implications for that same evidence, and it's use already in convictions obtained in Texas. That fact was part of the original entry on YFZ at Wikipedia, and now the lie is promulgated that Matt Smith simply "isn't going to use it," promoting other various causes such as "Warren is guilty as sin and Arizona doesn't need the evidence from YFZ to prove it."

You can find a similar acknowledgment at the Texas Blog "Grits for Breakfast," that clearly recognizes exactly the same thing, spelled out above.

So why does this mean the FLDS are losing? Because when popular perception is wholly distorted on the raid, it is simply easier for Judges to ignore the law, and rule in a way that makes the populace happy.

The populace believes that the FLDS convicted are bad men, is forgetting about Rozita and doesn't know that once you get outside of Walther's courtroom, the evidence used so far in FLDS convictions, has been thrown out.

When it gets to the appeal, Judges, who are supposedly not political, will find it all too tempting to be, political. When that happens, no one will care. They have already forgotten. Wikipedia is important, because it shows that someone with an ax to grind has a vested interest in making sure that the truth stays forgotten.

That's because "they" believe it will influence the final outcome, and they are right.

UPDATE: I attempted to edit the Wikipedia page on YFZ, but the edit lasted about 5 minutes, and was "corrected" back to the misleading entry. The edit had cites linking to the Mohave County Courts site, documenting with exactly quoted language from the motions, what had in fact occurred.

The dates are still wrong, the implication of the article is still that Matt Smith "Agreed" not to use the evidence from YFZ, despite the fact that he gave up, laid down, and allowed it to be ruled inadmissible (suppressed).

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sentences Harsh - YA THINK?

We go much closer to home to see the latest sentencing silliness as the San Angelo Standard - Times asks "Were these sentences too harsh?"

"On Thursday, 32-year-old Daniel Ozuna was sentenced to life in prison by 391st District Court Judge Tom Gossett for indecency with a 7-year-old child by sexual contact. Ozuna already was serving a 5-year sentence for a similar crime.

Lesser sentences can come from situations when there is not a large age gap, such as between a 19-year-old and a 15-year-old person, Morris said.

Morris also said that if the parties consented, the sentence may be more lenient, even though consent is no defense for the guilt-innocence phase of the trial.

'It’s not a defense, but it’s certainly something (jurors) can consider in punishment,' (Gerry) Morris said."

And what is this business about "consent?" While we have seen stories written over the last two years about "what the child wants" from the "ad litem" perspective and what children cannot consent to, suddenly, it seems we have two "consents" now. The consent that a child cannot give, on which the whole "sexual assault of a CHILD" is based, and then the fact that, "oh, yeah, they gave their consent," meaning they gave every indication in language and body that they granted consent, except, they weren't old enough for those words to mean anything.

What incredible hypocrisy. Are we to believe now that chilren actually possess a "consent" that should be considered and a lawyer can now argue that the kid "loved it" and that is a reason to go easy on the perpetrator? First we base the law on the idea that a "child" is a person below a certain age, and that a "child" cannot give "consent."

How about the fact that Mr. Ozuna was already serving a 5 year sentence for a similar crime? Similar in my mind means another child in the single digit age category for which Mr. Ozuna was sentenced to only FIVE YEARS.

And now the point your Modern Pharisee has been making for two years about polygamy and "sexual assault" of "children:"

"The penalty becomes a first-degree felony if the defendant is legally prohibited from marrying, purporting to marry or living with someone under the appearance of being married.

A first-degree felony is punishable with five to 99 years or life in prison and the fine of up to $10,000."

Why then was Lauren Cosgrove not charged and sentenced as a 1st degree felon? Lauren was "legally prohibited from marrying" her 13 year old victim, not because Texas prevents 13 year olds from marrying 30 year olds but because she was married already." Her lawyer, in case you forget, argued that her 13 year old victim "wanted it" and got standing with his peers for bedding an older woman and in this age of equal rights, that "it's different for boys than it is for girls."

The polygamy of the FLDS involving children is not wrong because it involves children. Clearly, even the law recognizes (though seldom fairly applies) the fact that adults can marry "children." The law further declares that "children" magically gain the intelligence to give consent, once they have been legally married.

Kid without a marriage certificate? = Can't give consent.

Kid WITH a marriage certificate? = Can consent to any act with anyone.

Difference? A piece of paper. Basically, the equivalent of a car registration. A point your Modern Pharisee has also made.

Thus the case can be made that it's POLYGAMY they're after, not really "sexual abuse of a child," because if it wasn't polygamy they were after, it would be legal, and a polygamist could legally marry the "child" they were "assaulting" and produce the appropriate papers necessary not to go to jail for life. If it wasn't polygamy they were after, Janet Parker would be in jail right now, and so would Rebecca Ann Bramlett. If you want to "do it" with a 14 year old. Go get a piece of paper.

How sick is it that you can marry the 14 year old girl and have an affair with a 30 year old and nothing happens, but if you are married to the 30 year old and have an affair with at 15 year old, you go to jail for life?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It was Witness Interference, and "Bad Acts"

That got the book thrown at a sex predator in Texas. Even though the victim "enjoyed it."

The Denton Record-Chronicle - "Lauren Cosgrove, 30 (now 31), of Sanger, also was sentenced to two years in prison on a charge of tampering with a witness. Though she had been court-ordered not to contact the boy, he testified that she picked him up outside his house in December 2008 and convinced him to write a letter saying he lied about what happened between them.

She also gave him a handwritten note professing undying love for him.

The sentences will be served at the same time, and Cosgrove will be eligible for parole in 2 1/2 years.

The jury also found her not guilty on a charge of indecency with a child."

Five years. Yup, divide 5 into 75 for a predator that tampers with a witness. Hmmm, if you are a man that means you will serve 15 times as long.

I'm sure you're asking with YFZ a year old and that scandal fresh in their minds if the prosecutor and jury took that into account:

"Prosecutors Rick Daniel and Cary Piel were satisfied with the sentence, Piel said.

'I asked the jurors in voire dire about the double standard,' Piel said. 'Who’s to say if this had been a man and a 13-year-old girl he would have gotten more time? But we are absolutely satisfied.' "

We can now answer that question. There are apparently several differences between YFZ and Ms. Cosgrove's case. One of them wasn't her marital state.

Apparently to get 15 times the sentence your victim must be older (Ms. Cosgrove's prey is still a minor) and now an adult. Ms. Cosgrove's target was 13.

There must be an element of religion. Free standing sexual abuse by a woman in power over a minor male child is no threat to us, though it appears to occur frequently in Texas. You must add the potent element of a closed society trying to preserve a religion the Government wants to stamp out.

To get 15 times the sentence your case must be higher profile. Texas gets embarrassed when attention is called to it's laxity over sexual assault of a child. The jury pool must be tainted with false claims of things that never happened at YFZ so that when they try you, they stop short of killing you only because that punishment is not available to them.

To get 15 times the sentence, your victim must be female.

"(Defense Attorney Donna)Winfield told jurors that if given probation, Cosgrove would not be a risk, and that the boy enjoyed the attentions of an older woman and was not traumatized.

'It’s different with boys and girls,' she said. 'I don’t believe he’s going to be scarred for life.'

Translation - "Oh come on people, we're putting a woman in jail for giving a 13 year old boy bragging rights around the neighbor hood, he's now a certified STUD. She ROCKED HIS WORLD. He's totally DIGGING on her."

Your victim must now be an adult, so that you can threaten her. That way she won't speak her mind during the trial in her husband's defense.

You have to be a polygynist.

The floor is open to discuss other differences that must be present for you to get 75 years, like Merril Leroy Jessop.

If you've spotted other differences, feel free to comment.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

75 Years for Merril Leroy Jessop

It's like they're squaring the sentences as they go.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "The sentence for Merril Leroy Jessop, 35, is the stiffest yet handed out in the criminal trials of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Under Texas law, Jessop has to serve half of his sentence before he is eligible for parole."

FLDS men "marry" (albeit not legally) the girls they "assault," love them and their children and take care of them for life. Merril is going to die in prison unless appeals succeed while the manifestly perverse Janet Parker walks among us. Her joke of a sentence didn't even make the news. Sandra Borrego pled guilty to 22 counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a child for whom there was a complaint, and got 6 months (that she has already served) with a chance to clear her record.

75 years. Contrast that with the three cases the Modern Pharisee has highlighted over the last few days. Zero time, 6 months, and do you want to bet that Alison Mosbeck will get off lightly by comparison? (UPDATE-a fourth woman's attorney claimed her 13 year old victim "enjoyed it" and her client got 5 years. She also engaged in witness tampering.)

The $10,000.00 fine is a joke that only hurts the woman and the children that Texas is supposedly protecting from him.

My only question at this point is, when will the FLDS pull out all the stops and try everything legal? If the appeal doesn't work, these men will die in jail and their children will be scarred for life, if they aren't already. Their wives will be deprived of consort, of the children that the FLDS believe give them standing in the next life.

Make no mistake, if it was an option, they would have stuffed Merril Leroy Jessop's genitals in his mouth and hung his lifeless body from the tallest local church.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

You think the wheels of justice turn slowly for the FLDS?

Consider the case of Alison Mosbeck. The then 33-year-old history teacher at Dueitt Middle School (now 35 or 36) and mother of two (no word on children in the intervening time period) resigned October 29th, 2007, the same day she appeared in court on charges of having sexual relations with a boy who is still a minor. Previously Ms. Mosbeck had been on "administrative leave."

The Houston Chronicle - "(Harris County Assistant District Attorney & Crimes Against Children Division Chief Denise) Oncken said Mosbeck allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old student between fall 2006 and March 2007. They had intercourse at least three times, prosecutors said."

The "alleged" crime originally occurred in late 2006, after the crime committed on or about August 20th 2006 that Merril Leroy Jessop is being sentenced for. Merril's "victim" is now and adult and had to be considered a "hostile" witness for the prosecution, so much so that they had to collect DNA against the will of all involved to come up with the charge and successful prosecution of Mr. Jessop. I emphasize that Ms. Mosbeck's alleged victim is still a minor.

Alison will finally go on trial next month. Since that time it would appear that Ms. Oncken has been promoted and now John Jordan will be prosecuting the case. If prior cases mentioned here at the Modern Pharisee are any predictor of outcome, after her trial, Ms. Mosbeck will serve a fraction of the time that Michael Emack "plea bargained" to get.

"If convicted, Mosbeck, a mother of two children, faces a possible sentence ranging from two years to 20 years for each case, Oncken said. She also is eligible for probation, Oncken added."

It looked like, at the time, that Harris County Assistant District Attorney Denise Oncken was open to the idea of probation.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Today at 9 a.m. the jurors will hear closing arguments and deliberate on Jessop’s sentence."

I suspect they will be sending another "message."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED - Guilty of Sexual Assault of a Child, Texas Sex Predator gets 6 Months

Yup, only 6 months and a chance to wipe her slate clean:

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times - "A former dance teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old student pleaded guilty Tuesday in exchange for probation, six months in jail and the opportunity to avoid a conviction.

Sandra Borrego’s guilty plea came shortly before jury selection was to start Tuesday morning. She pleaded guilty to 22 counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child."

What hypocrites Texans are. Michael Emack got 33 years, a virtual life sentence. I shudder to think what Merril is going to get. The age difference between Sandra and her young victim is greater than that of Merril and his bride. Sandra is 41, the boy she "assaulted," barely a teen.

By the way, they say they don't believe me, but they do. (Rise to the bait little fishy.)

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jessop Guilty! (in time for lunch)

Like I said, it wouldn't take long.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Merril Leroy Jessop) kept a pleasant face while 51st District Judge Barbara Walther read the jury statement and pronounced the word 'guilty.'

Jurors heard closing arguments this morning and left at 11:30 a.m. to deliberate.

Attorneys were summoned back to the courtroom at 12:30 p.m. upon hearing that the jury had reached their verdict."

It was never one of my favorite songs, but it does keep going through my head:

"And the judge said, 'Guilty,' in a make-believe trial, slapped the Sheriff on the back with a smile (and said) 'Supper's waitin' at home and I gotta get to it.' "

Bobby Russell - "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia."

Brooke Adams has "Tweeted" that the "enhancement" was voted to apply, and thus Merril faces 99 years in prison.

More →

Sphere: Related Content