On not blogging and blogging again (Wazzup?)

It is fair to say, "I told you so."

On July 29th I said I was probably going to be "out of it" or take a "hiatus" for a bit. Of course the characterizations of that post began immediately. In some quarters it was said I "quit." Other people simply didn't read down the page. In the latter case I realize I'm not the beginning and end of their day, so I get it. Pretty much outside my immediate family, I'm not the beginning or end of anyone's day. In the former case, all I will say is "you wish."

As far as months go to take a dive into the idle side of the pool in blogging, August is a good one. Government never illustrates how important it is in our lives than in August when those bums decide to take time off. Having injected themselves into every aspect of our lives, when they take a vacation (no one can interrupt their plans, you see both how annoying they have become (that's the importance part) and how useless they are.

If you're moldering in Jail, you're going to keep doing that, if you need a Government agency which has made themselves a Machiavellian necessity, you're out of luck. In short it's clear in August how much Government dominates our lives and the news, and in some ways it reveals tragically how little they are really necessary. It's a great time to not be blogging and I wasn't.

Your Modern Pharisee will (God willing) successfully transition from an Automotive Finance Manager to "Something Else" by about the third week of this month. The end date for my training is a little murky. It sorta depends on my progress and the availability of work which my employer really doesn't want to discuss in detail with me. That's ok.

Once again to the great disappointment of my detractors, I have cleared the hurdles of background checks that were in this case the most extensive I have ever endured and come out smelling like a rose. No my dear opponents, there's nothing criminal in my past lurking around waiting to be found. It was kinda fun in retrospect to deal with the one issue of "my arrest" in Ocala Florida back in the 90's. It ended up with Florida saying "what arrest, there ain't no stinking arrest." Someone had listed a bogus arrest in a database by a company that has it's headquarters in....

....wait for it....

Dallas Texas.

Hmmmmm.... Maybe I didn't remember "my arrest" because it never happened.

Ya think?

You think, I'll wonder.

I keep warning that the focus of the Modern Pharisee will be shifting, and then I kinda don't shift. There are reasons.

For one, I love politics but it's so futile. I've promised to write on the topic, so I guess I should, but again, it's so futile.

For another, the pickings in the FLDS cases are now slim. The phase of appeal in Texas will begin soon as some of the plea bargains facilitated appeal, since they preserved the right of appeal. Men "convicted" of their crimes in those cases plead "no contest" and essentially agreed with the state that if the state were allowed to present certain evidence a jury would convict them and it was useless to fight that inevitability. They did however state that they'd like the benefit of appeals, and since the transcript of a plea bargain is short, those cases have gone straight to appeal. As with the cases of the children where one favorable ruling sent all the children back, one successful appeal of the warrant in any FLDS case will void every conviction obtained so far.

That brings me to the nascent status of Warren Jeffs as a victim or martyr or even hero. He could go either way at this point. Essentially a martyr is a victim of a particular narrow variety. Warren could just be another wave tossed victim drowning in his oppression, or he could be a martyr for his cause. I hope at least for the latter. Increasingly Warren S. Jeffs whose trail of dismissed charges and overturned convictions is looking like a man wronged.

Without meaning to insult his legal help, he doesn't have what is generally recognized as the best legal minds in the country helping him. They are good lawyers to be sure, and they may even be great lawyers. His religion's pilfered coffers don't offer the image of a man with unlimited funds hiring the best attorneys money can buy who in turn would produce an OJ/Johnnie Cochran type verdict. His attorneys' track records are poor in his case in the first few rounds. They lose, and then they fight back. Then they start winning.

The bottom line is that Warren can be portrayed, if portrayed skillfully, as being downtrodden, victimized, persevering and being willing to suffer martyrdom for a cause. That cause can be extended in it's relevance to all of us, again, if the portrayal of Warren and his travails are accurate and if they are sold to the media in terms of what he does for all of us. Warren Jeffs can be everyman fighting the limitless power of the state to bend laws and processes for the purposes of destroying both a man and the faith he represents. If this can be done, he is at least a martyr. If he can live through this, and win, he can be a hero. Ultimately most of us need heroes, not martyrs. Martyrs die for a cause, Heroes win and allow us to believe we can "fight the power/the man/city hall" and live to tell about it. Really, that's what most of us want to do. If forced to fight for a good cause we want to win or have our champion win and live so that we can go back to living our anonymous lives. Anonymous lives of personal freedom. That in a nutshell is what Warren and the FLDS represent at this time. A focal point for personal and religious freedom in a free country.

The last matter of housekeeping is the progress of the "new denomination." I am beginning to transition into a "pastoral" role but the denomination is not formed yet. The small group of people I am involved with want urgently to remain in the places we were planted and seek and pray to God that this be so. This involves submitting to the existing authorities in the churches we are attending if we are still in them. The process that a month ago could have taken a week or two weeks has stretched out into a much longer period of time, but seems to be entering an end game that will have a nucleus of persons in those churches, "unchurched." That will be when we start.

As a consequence the new denomination will begin, again, God willing. It will begin as essentially a cloned version of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination with a rewrite of the Westminster Confession of Faith's chapter 24 and a sort of WCF convention call to address other perceived deficiencies of the Confession. The proposed new wording of point one in Chapter 24 will be: "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. It is it lawful before the LORD for a man to have more than one wife, but not for woman to have more than one husband, at the same time." The old wording was: "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time." Other unisexed language with regard to divorce will be changed and screeds against "Papists" will be deleted. Other than that the WCF will remain intact and the Book of Church order used by the OPC will be adopted. Everything will be examined ultimately, but that is the first order of business and the basis of our separation from existing denominations. As soon as the denomination is large enough, the "Convention" to examine the WCF and book of church order will be held.

This will become my primary task. My job will become for funds, not personal fulfillment (though I do like my new job) much as Paul was a tentmaker. I will follow and comment avidly with interest and commitment when it comes to FLDS cause. It think it has widespread impact in preserving and restoring our liberty if the cases go their way. I have committed to the FLDS to be in prayer for Warren's release and the overturning of the convictions of the men in Texas. I will offer them up in prayer to God that this be done, if it be his will. I think if it is not his will to do so, the days will be dark for all of us.

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

What Just Happened with Warren Jeffs (and is Sun Tsu smiling?)

I promised "more" later. This will be a long post, as I will quote all the motions and filings made in the last week. They're short, but there are a few of them. The press is neglecting to mention their content and therefore their meaning.

First, Matt Smith's motion to dismiss, With Prejudice, which I shall "Fisk."

"The State of Arizona, by the Mohave county Attorney, hereby moves the Court for an order dismissing the Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in cause number CR-20078-0743 and the Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in cause number CR-2007-0953, all the charges being Class 6 Felonies, for the reason that the two victims in these cases no longer desire to proceed with prosecution in the State of Arizona for the following reasons:

(1) The Defendant has already served more jail time in Arizona than he would receive even if he was convicted of all the crimes charged;"

Correct me on this first point (someone) if I am wrong, but this goes back to February when Judge Steven Conn first uttered these words. (I'm not wrong about the preceding, but may be wrong about what comes next): As we will later learn from these filings, Warren Jeffs was only in the physical custody of the State of Arizona, he was actually being housed in Arizona, for convenience of prosecution.

This would mean that when Judge Conn stated that Warren had already served enough time (back in February), he was taking rather proactive stance, choosing to regard time served (in legal fact) in the Custody of Utah, as time served in Arizona. This put a lot of pressure on Arizona since before they would have been able to imprison Warren for whatever length of time he was sentenced, provide he was convicted in Arizona. Something that will now never happen.

If true, Judge Conn had clearly signaled Arizona that he thought their case was something he didn't want to step on in his new shoes in their "hate plig barnyard." Put another way, Judge Conn was disgusted with the prosecution and had already begun to take sides. This is a drift you can see if you start at the beginning of the public filings at Mohave County's site, and read through them.

This is rather significant stuff for another reason, as yesterday's highly slanted article in TIME magazine inadvertently lets us know:

"In June 2005, days after being indicted in Arizona on the charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, Jeffs fled the Colorado City, Arizona, area, home to a large FLDS community. A warrant was issued for his arrest and he was placed on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. Fourteen months later, he was arrested outside Las Vegas, Nevada, and began his journey from court to court and jail to jail."

These are the "Crown Jewel" charges. The charges that led to Warren Steed Jeffs being placed on the FBI's ten most wanted list. There were no crimes, they have all been dismissed. These last two cases with prejudice, as requested by the prosecutor.

(2) "The State of Texas has much more serious charges against the Defendant that involve the Defendant being the direct perpetrator of the crime, and both Texas and the victims want the Defendant to face these more serious charges as soon as possible;"

This is the purest of spin. It's ugly too. I have stated (and will stick by it) that if we were the proverbial mouse in the corner, the conversation instead, went like this:

Matt (to the witnesses/complainants): "You're unbelievable."

Complainants: "Why thanks Matt."

Elissa: (Winks) "And I'm back on the market, I changed my Facebook Status to 'Single.' Want a signed copy of my book?"

Matt: "It's not a compliment, I'm dismissing the charges and won't file them again. I never want to SEE you again."

Complainants: "You can't drop they charges, we're dropping the charges, um, because, um, Texas wants Warren, and um, that's what we want, um, MORE, yeah, that's the ticket."

Matt: "I was hoping you'd say that, now get out."

(Ok, I filled in a few blanks, but you get my drift.)

Next point 3:

"The State of Texas has already started extradition proceedings against the Defendant;"

Um, Warren isn't in the custody of Arizona. Oh well, this is probably proof that Matt is a good lawyer, and knows who he is working for, he's going to try.

(4) "The Defendant, Warren Jeffs, had significant medical problems while incarcerated in the Mohave County Jail, and the State believes that he should be transferred to another facility as soon as possible;"

This smacks of sour grapes. But it's true Captain Obvious, if Arizona is not going to prosecute, it's time to stop spending money on everything but safe and secure transport, ASAP.

(5) "Some of the State's witnesses no longer desire to testify in the State of Arizona due to the above-mentioned circumstances;"

Um, could this be because they may be pleading the 5th in a related matter very soon?

(6) "It would be impractical and unnecessary to spend taxpayer money on this Defendant under all the above mentioned circumstances;"

Yes, we know, thanks again Captain Obvious.

Now, back to the real Meat of the Motion (Apologies to Henry Glover and Lois Mann):

"The State requests the dismissals in Cause No. CR-2007-0743 and CR-2007-0953 to both be With Prejudice."

Prejudice is "opinion." If Matt had dismissed "Without Prejudice," he would mean he wants to take this up again, but the time is not right. He however, moves to dismiss With Prejudice meaning he never wants to hear about this case again and furthermore, he's asking the Judge Conn to solemnify that opinion, so that no one else can either. Like Texas' evidence collection methods were earlier ruled "Guilty," and Matt concurred, Matt Smith is now saying that Warren is "Not Guilty." Without trial. The motion could delete all the numbered reason Fol-de-Rol in between and just be condensed to this last statement, and the case numbers being dismissed. If Matt wanted to sink Elissa's ship, he could just say she didn't want to testify anymore.

"Defense Attorney, Michael Piccarreta, has been contacted and does not oppose this Motion or Order."

Der.

"RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2010.

BY COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTHEW J. SMITH"

This is significant, because a hearing involving "unbelievable" witnesses was to be held the next day, and Hoole and King (Elissa's representation) were bailing on him. Matt waited until the last minute, just as he did in February, and caved. Good for him. He does work for somebody. He owes them the effort, but he caves completely, just as he did before when the jig is up. Shades of Sun Tsu.  (The General says that best strategy ends up with your opponent, surrendering without a fight.)

There is of course the page attached to this motion, the actual order, which is the real deal, and Judge Conn signs it, but not before removing an offending piece of text:

Upon motion of the Mohave County Attorney, and good cause appearing; IT IS ORDERED dismissing the charges of Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in Cause No. CR-2007-0743 and Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in Cause No. CR-2007-0953 With Prejudice, and exonerating the bond, if any, and quashing the warrant, if any, in this matter. SFC (initialed strike out by Judge Steven F. Conn)

DATED this 9th day of June, 2010. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STEVEN F. CONN"

Though your Modern Pharisee is not a Judge or Lawyer, this was either superfluous language, or an attempt to remove Judge Conn from the case. Since the court is done with a defendant when the Bond is exonerated, Warren would have been literally afoot in Arizona, with Texas wanting him. Arizona could have then detained him for extradition. At least that's the way I read it. Judge Conn is no dummy and was having none of that. He makes this clear in a separate order:

"The State has filed a Motion to Dismiss in each of these cases asking that all charges be dismissed with prejudice. Counsel for the Defendant, unsurprisingly, has indicated that he has no opposition.

The Court signs the Order Dismissing Charges as to each cause number.

The Court enters this separate Order to address what may appear to be a separate issue regarding extradition to Texas. The Court does so because the State indicates in its Motion to Dismiss that the Sate of Texas has already started extradition proceedings against the Defendant and because counsel for the Defendant has submitted in each of these cases a pleading entitled Non-Waiver of Extradition to Texas. The Court believes that under A.R.S. 31-481, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, extradition proceedings cannot be initiated against the Defendant while he is in the State of Arizona and that he could not waive extradition to the State of Texas even if he wanted to. Under the Agreement the temporary custody which Mohave County assumed over the Defendant was only for the purpose of permitting prosecution on the charges contained in the untried Indictments which formed the basis of the detainers. Once those untried charges have been resolved, he must be returned to the sending state, in this case the State of Utah, and he cannot be held to answer a Fugitive Complaint filed in the State of Arizona alleging that he is a fugitive from the State of Texas. Any such proceedings will have to be inititiated through the State of Utah.

IT IS ORDERED directing the Sheriff to transport the Defendant back to the appropriate correctional facility in the State of Utah pursuant the Interstate Agreement on Detainers."

Several times, I have read articles that said, while Warren was in Arizona, that he was in custody in Utah, serving a sentence there. Judge Conn seems to be concurring with the notion that Arizona's custody is only physical, and he says, that Warren is on Loan from Utah, and he has to go back, per the Law. Warren can't even opt to waive extradition to Texas. That's a Utah decision, as they have had him all along, legally. Again, I point to the curiosity that Judge Conn said Warren had already served enough time in Arizona.

According to the Judge, apparently, Warren was serving it in Utah. It is not unprecedented that inmates in one State, serve that time while physically in another State. I will omit Piccarreta's filing about extradition, it's redundant in view of the Judge's concurrence. It is linked in the above ruling by Judge Conn.

Next, Michael Piccarreta's last word:

"Defendant, Warren Jeffs, does not object to any dismissal provided it is with prejudice. Defendant does object to some of the reasons provided by the State as the State has directly omitted the fact that one of the complaining witnesses has been implicated in the creation of false evidence that was introduced at Mr. Jeffs' trial in Utah. In addition to involvement in the creation of the false evidence, the complaining witness and others may have been involved in an ongoing cover-up and conspiracy."

Now we're talking. Is Judge Conn a member of the "Tin Foil Hatters" by allowing this on his record without comment? He took umbrage at Matt Smith's Faux Filings, he takes none here. Piccarreta clears his throat for the FLDS and for Warren Jeffs and states for the record that there probably is conspiracy involved. Who and what this conspiracy involves, that's a matter to be discovered, but there is a conspiracy.

"Defendant believes that the prosecution was ethically obligated to dismiss the cases with prejudice and believes that the prosecutor fulfilled his ethical duties by so doing. An additional reason for the dismissal was that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction in either of the cases especially in light of recent developments. Defendant has and will oppose any attempts to extradite him to the State of Texas due to the constitutional infirmities and the legal inadequacy that may occur in the Texas criminal justice system."

This is Piccarreta saying "Thanks Matt," and "Nice Try."

"Further, due to the ongoing religious intolerance and religious animosity direct toward the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints by the State of Texas, the fairness of the Texas criminal justice process cannot be assured."

"There ain't no Justice" (TANJ) in Texas, they're religious bigots up to the level of the Statehouse. Well, that's the way I read it.

"There are additional legal and factual inadequacies in these cases against Mr. Jeffs which defendant beleives led to their dismissal with prejudice, but the defendant supports the County Attorney's decision in fulfilling his ethical duties and obligations in dismissing these prosecutions.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of June, 2010. WRIGHT STANISH & WINKLER PICCARRETA DAVIS PC"

No really, thanks Matt, have a nice day.

What really happened? The lead cases that led to Warren's inclusion on the FBI's 10 most wanted list have now completely collapsed. Frankly I don't know of any Fugitive on that list, that when apprehended, was not convicted (barring their death before prosecution). It's an odd category, and I'll have to research it, but it seems unprecedented or at least rare to me.

That collapse is directly tied to Warren's "successful" prosecution in Utah. Elissa Wall wants him in Texas, for dang sure. She might escape or delay perjury charges in Utah if Warren is busy in Texas. Warren is going to back to Utah, and this matter will be continued there, even if we are delayed in knowing the truth because Arizona threw the case over the side to protect her.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Arizona drops all charges.... (UPDATED)

Or so I hear. (And I heard correctly.)

I predicted this.

"Furthermore it looks as if the charges now might be dropped, Judge Conn is rumbling the prisoner has been in jail longer than he would sentence him for his crimes." - Modern Pharisee February 8th, 2010.

I was roundly ridiculed for this prediction, but it is fairly simple to understand. Regardless of the reasons being given, once Matt Smith and Arizona looked at YFZ evidence, and it was suppressed, every argument Arizona made was subject to the objection that it resulted from looking at YFZ evidence. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, but it does take a clear eye.

Right now I am at Little Big Horn (no, really, I am, this picture was taken there today). Will Walther be a symbolic Custer? Thanks "Toes" for linking to the order. It was hard to do with my "Palm" dying on power, out in the middle of the prairie.

She also points out the other little ditty, which was that Judge Conn said no to Texas. Warren is going back to Utah, where he will likely either be released, or extradited from Utah to Texas. We'll see.

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

Hoole and King about to crack open like an egg?

Roger Hoole (about to be Huevos?)

To paraphrase a bit, to make an omelet, you gotta scramble some Hoole (& King).

This week there have been some interesting filings in Mohave County. First Warren Jeffs' Attorneys filed a motion to have Hoole and King reveal financial dealings with the prosecutions witnesses. At this point, I have to again emphasize that I find prosecutor Matt Smith to be an honorable man. Smith assisted (as is his duty) the defense in requesting information on the 12th last month, and again in a second request to Hoole & King on the 28th (page 3 of the PDF) that Hoole & King disclose money paid to a witness (Jane Blackmore) that are now assumed by all, to have lied under oath. At any rate, no one (Judge Conn/Matt Smith) is protesting the language of Michael Piccarreta's motions, that Jane did lie under oath. Jane it would seem has now come clean and is scrambling to be able to come into the United States from Canada, and not be arrested and thrown in the clink, for perjury.

Hoole & King for their part, were to have replied by a deadline of Tuesday last week, and guess what? They didn't. Page four of the PDF of the motion declares that the defense and the prosecution (Matt Smith) have discharged their good faith efforts, and it's now time for the court to step in. The evidence that this is a cooperative effort of both defense and prosecution, not just in form, but in spirit, is that Judge Conn immediately takes up the motion, and grants it, and sets a date next month (not in September, the agreed upon date for resolving motions). Judge Conn states that; "(I)t seems clear that (the defense) want(s) to be heard on this motion before September 3, 2010."

On the list of those for whom expenses be discloses are Jane Blackmore, Rebecca Musser, Richard Holm, Carolyn Jessop and "any other State Witness." In some cases I imagine Hoole & King has no choice. In others, if they don't present the expenses, it may simply be that those witnesses may not appear for the prosecution.

Clearly Jane Blackmore has said something that leads Piccarreta to believe that the monies paid out to various witnesses or potential witnesses against Warren Jeffs by Hoole & King have gone beyond merely the reimbursement of expenses and have gone into the area of funneling money to those witnesses. Either that, or this is a court sponsored fishing trip. In the latter case it is the lying by witnesses and the reticence (to be polite) of Hoole & King to provide information the defense is entitled to have, that has led to the issuance of that fishing license.

A good defenses is going to take every advantage of every opportunity to peak into the sock drawer of the prosecution and it's friends. If they find something on a state sanctioned trip that they weren't looking for, that helps, this is America. The defense is always provided more latitude and given more in the way of rights than the prosecution.

Bottom line, if there is something to find inside Hoole & King and it's various clients associations with each other, and with Hoole & King, the defenses is now going to find it, or the case is going to collapse. The ruling on the "Unlawful" nature of the raid in Texas was one strut kicked out from under the prosecution's chair in February, and Matt Smith making the mistake of "looking" at YFZ evidence has severely handicapped him. Losing a list of witnesses because they won't appear or because they have perjured themselves is another leg out from under the stool.

After this expedition by the defense, it will clearly be a balancing act for Matt. The question will be, does he want to keep it up after Judge Conn told him about 4 months ago, that he's probably going to sentence Jeffs to "Time Served," even if he does get his conviction?

Will Matt be interested in warehousing Warren Jeffs for Texas in an Arizona Jail if the conviction in Utah falls apart (Elissa Wall's seeming perjury). It seems more and more clear that the foot dragging is designed to keep Warren behind bars, until the evidence already thrown out in Arizona as "Unlawfully collected" is used in Texas to convict him when he goes on trial there.

Another thing. Will Warren be out on bail by the time he's tried in Texas?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wiki Edit Wars, Pt 3, in which Ron (Fluffer) admits, he's spinning the page.

Oh, I was crazy to say "Ron in Houston" (whoever/whatever the heck that really is), was the culprit. But what's this?

"As I said, the documents you link contain no stipulation by Matt Smith that the raid was 'unlawful.' That is simply your spin as a polygamy proponent and one who feels you must control the 'substantiated perception.' This page is on my watch list and every time you change to try to add 'the raid was unlawful' I will revert the page." RonLawHouston (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)"

But I thought I was wrong. Guys (gals, fluffers, committee, whatever), make up your minds!

And though I am also wrong about the use of the HPL (Houston Public Library) system, and a static IP (that's fixed terminal, hardwired to a "LAN") by Ron, and only at best "half right," Fluffer is posting now from what appears to be an offshore site to mask location. Though this post will appear April 9th, it was composed April 8th, and the above "correction" appeared notated as occurring 1:45 (UTC). That means Fluffer is in England, or using net camouflage. I'm wrong too about that, but now Fluffer is taking care to hide more thoroughly?

Enough of the gratuitous insults. The YFZ Ranch page used to read this way, after I successfully navigated Wikipedia notation protocols and created a referenced (with active linkage!) blurb about the suppression ruling in Arizona.

"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that '1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed (and) 3.) That the raid was 'unlawful.'[53] Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day[54] [55] stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted[56]. None of the evidence may be used 'directly or indirectly' in Arizona. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

It now reads this way:

"On February 4, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith signed a stipulation of the defense that '1.) That defendant's motion to suppress evidence (from YFZ be) granted, 2.)That evidence obtained thereby (be) suppressed [53] Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day[54] [55] stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted[56]. None of the evidence may be used "directly or indirectly" in Arizona.' Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

Ron the Site Fluffer is also Ron the Spinner. Lying is the order of the day. Fluffer is claiming that I said that Matt Smith said the raid was "unlawful." I did not. I said Matt Smith AGREED to a STIPULATION of the defense that said the raid was "unlawful." Ron is simply engaging in bald faced lying about what I said, and about what the orders, and motions say. Point three of the February 4th, 2010 stipulation written by the defense is SIGNED by Matt Smith, without reservation or qualification and contains the word "unlawful" to describe the raid. The Stipulation declares prosecution and defense agreement that the September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted. On page 26, the word "unlawful" is used. Judge Conn agrees without modification of the language of either document, to the September 3rd, 2008 motion.

Matt Smith AGREES to language that says the raid is "unlawful." Judge Conn accepts that language. Reporting that such language was used, is accurate. The liars on the other side cannot abide by people learning in a precise way, what the truth is. And that is, that the evidence was dismissed from Arizona courts, with extreme prejudice, as the result of an "unlawful" action, because Judge Conn states clearly, "The court signs the stipulation and adopts the terms thereof."

He might as well have said to Michael Piccaretta; "What YOU said."

 Oh, he did.

I would also note that the opposition has now caved to the reality that the evidence was in fact suppressed in Arizona, despite all the lying claims that it was not by their "ex spurt" legal team. They are now fighting the battle over the word "unlawful."

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

Warren's Motion to Suppress GRANTED (UPDATED)

Two Three filings in Arizona.

Steven Conn:

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

The Court does not know whether eliminating the possibility that evidence seized in the Texas search could be used in these cases makes these cases any more ready to go to trial than before. The Court has certainly had the impression that that possibility was a major obstacle to getting these cases resolved. The Defendant has now been incarcerated in the Mohave County Jail for almost 2 years, which is ironically the maximum prison sentence he is facing in either of these 2 cases.

IT IS ORDERED directing counsel to file individually or jointly with the Court by no later than February 22, 2010, some pleading advising the Court what hearing they fell should be set next and when

IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk to bring these files to the Court's attention no later than February 24, 2010.

The other order reads as follows:

Upon stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search that occurred at property belong 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. The 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 The hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, currently set for February 17 and 18, 2010, is hereby vacated.

DATED this 4th day of February, 2010.

The way I read this, the State of Arizona's case was lost from the start, and attempted to pretend convincingly they wouldn't use the evidence, then said they wanted the evidence hearing, then tried to avoid the hearing with a meaningless stipulation, and Conn would have none of it.

The evidence is not "stipulated" as not being used, the evidence is RULED inadmissible by consent of both prosecution and defense. It is SUPPRESSED, just as effectively as if it had been argued admissible and the argument lost.

CONTRAST THAT with Barbara Walther's ramrod hearing, foot dragging and later predictable political ruling that the evidence was admissible. She's wrong. Without a Judge in your pocket, you can't win the case on YFZ evidence. Matt Smith knew that, fought valiantly to avoid that fight, but was up against a knowledgeable attorney that would have none of it.

THE EVIDENCE IS SUPPRESSED. Furthermore it looks as if the charges now might be dropped, Judge Conn is rumbling the prisoner has been in jail longer than he would sentence him for his crimes.

It's starting to look like Arizona was simply warehousing and harassing Warren. All of this comes on the deadline for appeals filing in Texas for Raymond Jessop. How timely.

Brooke Adams is now reporting it as well.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Ba Da Boom, what went between Conn's Rebuke, and Smith's "Stipulation."

Piccarreta writes well. It's not in the dense legalese that makes motions hard to understand.

Response to Stipulation. Just when I thought it was getting dull, it get's interesting again. I am so loving how all of this makes my personal detractors (who shall remain nameless in their infrequently visited haunts) look idiotic. Matt Smith Strategy, my hiney, LOL.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's official, Raymond Jessop to file his Appeal

Two different sources are telling me it's done, it's done.

You heard "maybe" here last week. The notice of appeal has been sent so the actual appeal will follow soon. Within a week.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Arizona Hearing to go Ahead on YFZ Evidence, Conn Scolds Smith

I don't think the Judge is happy with Arizona playing games.

Judge Conn Scolds Matt Smith and keeps the hearing going:

"The State has filed a pleading entitled Stipulating offered by the State in which they offer to not use in evidence at trial in these cases any evidence seized at the Texas property in April 2008 and suggesting that the Evidentiary Hearing now scheduled on the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in that search on February 17, 2010, is no longer necessary. 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. The Court recalls that the defense had expressed concerns that information derived from evidence seized in Texas might be used in this case even if that evidence itsself (sic) were not used in this case. This Court, of course, has no authority to make the parties stipulate to anything. The defense motion was filed 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.

The Court hopes counsel can understand its predicament. The Court has set aside a week on its calendar to resolve this issue. 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. 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. Unless and until 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 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.

IT IS ORDERED affirming the Evidentiary Hearing date of February 17, 2010, on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Piccarreta loses 3, wins 1

Judge Conn had hinted earlier that he thinks Sam Brower and Dan Fisher have responded adequately to the defense. Your Modern Pharisee has stated earlier that Michael Piccarreta was probably overreaching, but what do you do? Do you NOT ask? A good defense counsel asks for all he can ask for, until he's told no. But Carolyn Jessop? She is not out of the defenses reach:

More to follow soon, I haven't finished reading the order. The prosecution is ordered to turn over impeachment material. This whole issue could come up again.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Piccarreta goes Public, he "smells a rat." Judge Conn will look at YFZ Evidence Exclusion.

Are you sure it's not a Fish(er)?

The Mohave Daily News - " 'I smell a rat,' Piccarreta said. 'Elissa Wall has received so much money. I want to show that she's biased against my client.'

(Judge Steven) Conn said he will take the motion (to depose Dan Fisher and Sam Brower) under advisement."

This is a sign of growing confidence on the part of Warren Jeffs' attorney, who normally plays his cards very close to the vest.

"(Judge Conn) will also set another hearing in February for another motion to exclude evidence seized during a 2008 raid on a FLDS compound in Texas. Other motions to be addressed is a deposition of Carolyn Jessop, a well-known critic of the FLDS, and a motion to list expert witnesses that Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith plans to call at Jeffs' upcoming trial."

Michael Piccarreta stands a good chance of getting everything he wants in terms of depositions. If he does not, start striking witnesses from Warren's case.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Carolyn Jessop clearly has something to hide, and it's in her Tax Returns

Carolyn Jessop won't cooperate.

In a new motion posted today (and filed Wednesday) on the Mohave county site:

"The parties then agreed that the completion of Ms. Jessop's interview would occur on November 6, 2009, over the telephone. On November 4, 2009, the completion of Ms. Jessop's telephonic interview was re-scheduled for November 24, 2009, at the State's request. Ms. Jessop promised to disclose her tax returns showing the financial benefits she received from the publication of her book in advance of the completion of her interview. However, on November 20, 2009, the State advised defense counsel that Carolyn had called off the completion of her interview."

The summation of all of this is that Carolyn opened the door to her tax returns, pleading she could not explain herself without them. Since she has testified previously that they are an integral part of her explanations, she cannot now refuse to discuss or show them.

The bottom line? Carolyn can indeed stonewall forever as has been pointed out by anti FLDS pundits, but what hasn't been said? The state will have to strike her from the witness list, if she doesn't pony up. Natalie Malonis' letter? Balderdash.

The Thanksgiving Day weekend? Very busy indeed.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Plot Thickens in Arizona

Matt Smith has made two (a) motions that he may actually win in the Arizona case against Warren Jeffs*:

This is one of those points about which I know so little of what has already transpired combined with my less than amateur ability with the law, that I can't really call the outcome. Calling it like a ball game though I'd say that all Matt Smith has won so far is a "wait until Texas rules" play with Judge Conn, something he now no longer claims. That's good. Make it look like your idea Matt since you wouldn't win a protest of the evidentiary hearing anyway. This also now makes it look like Matt's earlier disclaimers regarding use of YFZ evidence, were smoke. Only Judge Conn can stop the evidentiary hearing in Arizona as both the defense and now the prosecution have no objections.

What Matt might win is twin motions denying Jeffs further access to Ms. Elissa "Redacted" Wall and her income from her book and movie deals and Carolyn Jessop and her tax returns. You have to figure that if Michael Piccarreta is on a winning streak, getting what he wants, that at some point he will knowingly overreach what is rightfully the province of the defense, and ask for something he'd like to have, but really shouldn't have. He wouldn't be doing his job, if he didn't.

There is a bit of absurd comedy in all of this. Elissa's name continues to be "redacted" from motions as she is a "victim," yet the names of her published works (of fiction?) continue to be used in conjunction with her "whited out" name, making it completely transparent. Arizona might as well paste over her name with clear Scotch Tape.

Then there is this crowing and self aggrandizing "elbowing" her way into the spotlight of Natalie Malonis as the representative of Carolyn Jessop. I'm linking to it only to document her grandstanding. I by no means encourage you to click on the link, unless of course you don't believe me. I in fact debated with myself for quite a while before I resolved post the link, not wanting to contribute any site traffic numbers or publicity to the blog where this letter appears:

"November 16, 2009


Mr. Matthew J. Smith
Mohave County Attorney
315 N. 4th Street
PO Box 7000
Kingman, Arizona 86402

Via Facsimile 928-753-2669

RE: Arizona v. Warren Jeffs, CR-2007-743

Dear Mr. Smith:

In connection with the above-referenced case, I am writing on behalf of Carolyn Jessop as a designated witness for the State of Arizona. As you’re aware, I represented Carolyn in her Texas child support case against Merril Jessop. On behalf of my clients in whose cases Sam Brower was engaged, I also participated with Lee Novak and Roger and Greg Hoole in preparing a response to the Defense’s motion to depose Mr. Brower. I will soon be submitting my pro hac vice application in Arizona so that I may appear in December for oral argument on the issue on behalf of clients, such as Carolyn, whose confidentiality could be compromised if Mr. Brower’s deposition is allowed to proceed.

Carolyn has requested that I contact you and communicate her intent to withdraw from voluntarily participating as a witness for the State in its case against Warren Jeffs. Although Carolyn was initially willing to provide testimony for the State, such willingness and cooperation with the State has been transformed into an unreasonable and unnecessary burden. As lead attorney for the prosecution, it appears that you are doing little or nothing to shield your witnesses from harassment and unreasonable exposure by Mr. Jeffs’ attorneys. Per your request, Carolyn has voluntarily made herself available on two occasions for more than four hours of interviews by Mr. Piccarretta; she has produced sensitive and private documents relating to her financial dealings; and she is now being asked to submit to a third interview for Mr. Piccarretta’s continued fishing expedition. Mr. Piccarretta’s right to interview witnesses is not unlimited, but there has been no apparent gesture on your part to place any outer limits on Mr. Piccarretta’s continued access to witnesses. Additionally, as far as Carolyn is aware, you did not request or secure any type of protective order or non-disclosure agreement in connection with her financial data disclosed to Mr. Piccarretta. She feels that you have failed to take reasonable actions to protect her privacy interests and to shield her from unreasonable exposure by the defense.

Carolyn is also testifying for the State in criminal proceedings in Texas. Based on your conduct and apparent open-door policy with Mr. Piccarretta, Carolyn is concerned that her Texas grand jury testimony may be requested by you and supplied to Mr. Piccarretta or other FLDS attorneys or supporters, thus exposing her to even greater harassment, ridicule and scorn (If you’re not aware, Carolyn endures a constant barrage of public invective from those who wish to hide the FLDS practices). It seems as though even Judge Conn has taken note of your passivity in the face of an onslaught from the defense – noting in a recent order that the State had not filed any type of response to Mr. Piccarretta’s motions for depositions of non-party, non-witnesses, although several responses were filed by various other attorneys on behalf of those whose depositions were unreasonably sought. This type of habitual lack of response and seeming acquiescence and exaggerated courtesy extended to defense attorneys portrays you as unwilling to protect and defend Ms. Jessop, and perhaps other witnesses as well.

Having carefully evaluated the circumstances and potential for negative exposure and unwelcome consequences to Ms. Jessop, she has made the decision that she no longer wishes to participate as the State’s witness in this proceeding, although she remains supportive of the State’s efforts to bring justice to Warren Jeffs. Naturally, Ms. Jessop is aware that the State could subpoena her and order her to appear and give testimony, contrary to her expressed desire and intent, and she hopes that the State would not place her in that position.

Carolyn has requested that any further communications on this or related issues be made through me; she does not care to be coaxed into changing her decision and is concerned that would be the result if she were to communicate with you directly. In view of Carolyn’s decision to withdraw her voluntary participation, she also withdraws her agreement to give any further interviews to Mr. Piccarretta or make any further voluntary disclosures or production of documents. Please communicate this information to Mr. Piccarretta, as necessary.

Please know that Carolyn remains very appreciative of the stance you have taken in bringing the first indictments against Warren Jeffs and being the frontrunner in bringing justice to this group. Unfortunately, as circumstances have evolved, it has become too onerous for Carolyn to remain involved to the same extent on a voluntary basis. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need for further discussion.

Kind regards,

Natalie E. Malonis"

I continue to maintain that Natalie has nothing but idiots for clients, the clearest evidence of which is, Natalie is their lawyer. I have been the target of one of Nat's self important missives. It was only worrisome because Ms. Malonis has the ability to file motions, and has access to the court and has proved to be a loose cannon in the past.

* (see post immediately above)

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's on, in Arizona

The next stage in the evidence fight will not be an appeal in Texas (though that may certainly come soon) but a straight ahead assault in Arizona:

"In previous proceedings before this Court, counsel fo Mr. Jeffs expressed misgivings about the ability to obtain a full and fair hearing concerning the Texas raid in the Texas courts. Those misgivings have now been borne out as the Texas judge who authorized the issuance fo the warrant, District Judge Barbara Walther, has, not surprisingly, now affirmed herself and affirmed the validity of the search conducted under the warrant."

Read the request for evidentiary hearing. Warren Jeffs' attorney Michael Piccarreta goes on to say:

"Notably, the district court's order does not contain any factual findings about the false information set forth in the affidavits in support of the warrant, i.e. that the purported caller did not exist and her alleged abuser was not there and had not been in Texas in decades."

He further states that Texas relied on the affirmation of Brooks Long that he sincerely believed the caller existed, as that caller described them self This argument, he claims is circular because it's self evident on the basis of the affidavit, that the affiant believes what they are saying.

Piccarreta cannot resist applause lines and goes for them frequently. This one I really like:

"An investigator of the level of Barney Fife would have recognized the call as a hoax if he had spent an hour or two of proper investigation."

Warren's attorneys also go after Elissa Wall in a separate motion and the absolutely surreal action of the court to redact the motion, removing the name of a published author, because she was a minor at the time, gives the head quite a spin.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Gerry in Overtime? FLDS Evidence response overdue?

Gerry Goldstein hasn't filed his argument in the FLDS evidence suppression hearing, and by my reckoning, he had until about the 17th or 18th of this month, at the latest to do so.

From what I'm hearing, some conversation has been going on between Goldstein and Walther's court and it involves all 12 defendants coordinating. From the linked article in the San Angelo Standard Times, I'm not sure if Texas had three weeks and Goldstein 30 days, or if they ran back to back or if one filed first and then the other. If they ran concurrently, time is officially up. If the State filed first, Gerry had three weeks from about the 17th or so, and that would make it all come together around about week of July 6th. Next week. Roughly.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Prima Facie Evidence that there was "No Cause" for entry of YFZ

Most if this occurs as a reply to one of my previous posts. I thought it might be an important enough thought to make it a post itself.

There must be a standard for entry into a home other than "I'm really really really sure something bad is going on in there.

Let's review. We have a caller who alleged certain crimes who needed coaching to reach the level of being believable.

We have Doran and Long both saying that they think she might be lying about her age and name. They have to be expressing real doubt because of the next point.

Their doubt is not expressed as has been suggested, because they think she may have lied to the hospital, because they did not call the hospital. Thus they attest to having doubts that are contemporaneous with her call, about her truthfulness regarding Name and Age. That means they don't really believe her.

Doran withholds evidence, namely, Rozita's phone number. He has not been forthcoming so we don't know how long he withheld the evidence, but we do know that before the raid was over he had her phone number and called it, because his phone number is on Rozita's phone.

Long Lies. He said there was an investigation of "Sarah's" visit to the emergency room, he said so in testimony to the Arizona court.

Thus law enforcement is shown to have manipulated the facts during the raid an after the raid. They lied during the raid and after the raid to cover it up. They cannot be trusted. Common sense tells us we have found but the tip of the iceberg.

For freedom to exist, cause must exist to abridge freedom. Crimes often go undetected and unpunished because no cause exists. The very fact that Long and Doran (and who knows how many others) lied to manufacture cause says THERE WAS NO CAUSE because if there was cause THEY WOULD NOT HAVE LIED BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED. The lying and withholding of Doran and Long are prima facie proof that no cause existed.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why will the evidence eventually fall?

Michael Piccarretta "Gets it."

He has a case, that's key, but this is too:

The San Angelo Standard Times - "Noting that Walther signed the warrant for the YFZ search, Piccarreta said he’s skeptical that she’d essentially reverse that decision by granting the suppression motion.

Piccarreta said granting the suppression motion will be an easier task for Mohave County Superior Court Judge Steve Conn, who has no political capital at stake regarding events in Texas. Piccarreta said there’s no dispute that the YFZ search was a product of Rosita Swinton’s misrepresentations and lies that she was a teenager impregnated by Dale Barlow of Arizona at the YFZ ranch."

It's political. Michael might be wrong though.

"Piccarreta said he expects an appeal if Walther rejects the suppression motion."

I'm still holding out the real possibility that Walther will recuse herself. Walther does know her limitations. I get continuing impressions of that based on her behavior in the various hearings that have been going on. She's given herself enough time to "show" her work, or better yet, show Goldstein's work to others. I still figure she'll be bowing out. In which case there may be yet another "evidentiary hearing" or the evidence may be ruled out.

Nevertheless, Piccarreta is confident enough to proceed with everything all over again in Arizona, which means he's not just saying he thinks there is only one good answer for appearances sake. He doesn't just believe it because he's so close to the problem. Piccarreta thinks he can do it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content