Showing posts with label Jerry Strickland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jerry Strickland. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

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

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Douglas County Drops charges against Rozita

I don't know how you can "drop" a charge that a person has already plead guilty to, but according to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Rozita isn't going to face the music in Castle Rock:
The Gazette - "As part of the plea, authorities in Douglas County have also agreed to drop charges stemming from a similar false reporting incident in 2005, (DDA Frederick Stein) said."
Mr. Stein also characterized the verdict as "fair." What's he going to do, say he was taken out back, had his arm ripped off and he was beaten nearly to death with it? It's one of those "Too Heavy, Too Light" questions.

There are a number of errors in the article, not the least of which is Rozita's age (she's 35 now) and her middle name is misspelled. She snuck in through a side entrance after El Paso county lied and stated her case had been "called off" that day.
"Swinton was barely audible in the courtroom as she said a few words during the 30-minute hearing to indicate that she knew she was waiving her right to a trial."
Her attorney had the audacity to suggest that she did a good thing:
" 'I believe the phone call in Texas resulted in the prosecution of some people who were sexually assaulting young women,' Foley said. 'If anyone felt that Ms. Swinton was involved in that, that’s a good thing.' "
He's portraying his client as a heroine, and daring anyone to sentence her to anything, and perhaps reminding Texas that he may know something.

I was apparently wrong about her employment status, though she has hobnobbed about the country a bit over the last year and a half, she still works it would seem, for State Farm Insurance.
"Foley said the case took longer than most misdemeanor cases because of his client’s medical issues. She was evaluated by doctors in advance of the plea and prosecutors had their own experts review those reports.

Foley described his client as 'a real sweetheart' who has held a job with an insurance company for the last 10 years. He said she declined comment on the case."
And she is to stay in Colorado:
"(Rozita) is not allowed to leave Colorado without the court’s permission."
An attempted murder, that's one way of looking at it, attempted murders actually, over about 500-600 people at YFZ, had it ended similarly to Waco. A real sweetheart alright.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jerry Strickland says David Foley is full of Smoke (and YES, Rozita will serve NO time)

We're not finished with the investigation, says the Texas Attorney General's office:
"Jerry Strickland, spokesman for the Texas Attorney General, told the Houston Chronicle today that the state's inquiry 'into Rozita Swinton and other aspects of this case is ongoing.'

Swinton, of Colorado Springs, was considered a 'person of interest' in connection with calls to a hot line alleging abuse at the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch in West Texas."
Oh, I believe David Foley, as he has not lied to me yet. How long does it take, JERRY? It's been almost TWO YEARS.

This interesting little tidbit is also included:
"Swinton was also sentenced to 45 days in jail but given credit for time served, so she faces no further jail time."
She didn't show for trial, Foley entered her plea (apparently) and she won't be showing up in jail.

The Salt Lake Tribune added this detail:
"The judge also limited her to one landline telephone and one cell phone and ordered her to give both numbers to the district attorney's office."
I wonder if she will continue to be able to use a computer, to access the internet? According to her "MySpace" pages, she was on yesterday.

Still unanswered? What happened to her deferred sentencing arrangement in Douglas County for her 2007 conviction of false reporting?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 14, 2008

37 FLDS kids to wait a little longer for an answer

I talked to Patrick Crimmins again today. It now appears that the "Final Report" on the FLDS children and the 37 still under suit won't be until the end of the month. I suppose this could change, since the "Two Weeks" scenario has changed and it doesn't appear now that we'll have a report in that time frame.

Patrick was curious about the interest which now seems to be coming from several quarters on the 37 children and why everyone seemed to care about any of them being pregnant now. CPS of course is not prosecuting any criminal cases but I explained to Mr. Crimmins that while we out here in the rest of the world couldn't be absolutely sure, it would make sense that if there were any "children with children (of their own)" or "pregnant underage girls" at the time of the raid that were seen at YFZ, then it made a lot of sense to us that CPS wouldn't nonsuit those children. This was something he did not contest. If view of that I said, information about the composition of those remaining 37 children was of interest.

I also allowed that since the number was now "manageably low," it was something everyone could get their minds around. Some examples of telling evidence would be that there were no girls left in the 37 children. Combining that with the belief that CPS would keep underage pregnant girls or girls that were mothers under suit, we would know that there were no "children with children (of their own)" or "pregnant underage girls" at YFZ that day. Following a little further with this line of thought, no one could see what wasn't there, unless of course they were psychotic. Since we'll assume that no officers of Texas law or CPS workers are or were psychotic that day, we can just settle on the reality that they saw nothing.

Another curious offering by Mr. Crimmins was his insistance that two girls gave birth while in custody prior to be released by CPS. That means several things. One, there were only TWO pregnant underage teen "candidates." There has been much talk of a third girl who may have been pregnant but was so underdeveloped, so few months along, that only a test could determine her pregnancy. This now seems to be a complete myth, there was no such girl at all, at any stage of pregnancy. So Crimmins either offered me the information cynically, thinking I didn't know the two were later declared to be "of age," or he simply didn't know, himself. That, if true, would represent an amazing sort of bunker mentality where CPS is not even communicating enough internally to know the facts relevant to the decisions they were making.

I think it's safe to say Patrick knows it's a question now as it has been offered to him by others, and by myself. It won't be responsible of him going forward to offer that there were any pregnant underage girls to any member of the press, because we now know he knows there weren't any. Another safe conclusion is that of the remaining children, only the "children with children (of their own)" remains on the table, and that, only technically.

I would speculate now, based on past behavior that when they got down to 37, someone somewhere in Texas called a halt to the nonsuits. I speculate also that this is the reason for the sudden tight-lipped exodus of Charles Childress. If I hadn't asked the question, someone else would have. With only Merrianne Jessop in custody, having been placed their again by CPS and clearly NOT pregnant and clearly NOT having children of her own, someone would have asked about the second warrant. Some of the dimmest members of the press would have had a light go on and say "what exactly DID you see at YFZ then?" Childress leaves under this scenario because he is a bit like Pilate, declaring he could find no fault, Texas simply couldn't have that. I strongly suspect that few if any suits will be terminated prior to the last meeting of the Grand Jury. The decision to keep the children under suit is being made outside CPS and has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the children, or the facts of their cases.

I would like to observe that in our two conversations, Mr. Crimmins has been as forthcoming as his position allows him to be with the possible exception of the "two girls" remarks he made. He's been very generous with his time as well. I'm not a member of the Main Stream Media so his courtesy and devotion of time to my questions represents a laudable transparency. I just wish Jerry Strickland would behave the same way.

I was able to leave a specific message for Mr. Strickland with one of his associates regarding the questions I have outlined above, concerning "pregnant underage teens," "children with children (of their own)," and the connection with the second warrant. We'll see if I get an answer. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 07, 2008

"As Time Goes By," Further Evidence of Internal Conflict at CPS

The fact that Charles Childress quit and the nonsuits stopped should instruct. Childress hinted at internal friction by stating he "couldn't say anything" about his resignation. It's now been more than ten days and I've been informed some sort of definitive report is due in the approximate time frame of Next Friday, or soon thereafter. Figure Next Friday.

Patrick Crimmins demured, sometimes showing a bit of irritation when I called him earlier this week, and referred me to Jerry Strickland at the Attorney General's office when I asked about the demographic crossection of the remaining children. Jerry Strickland of course, has not returned my phone calls and emails.

More and more the recent developements look like a circle the wagons event. They're down to their last few bullets, and those may be duds. I'll be on the phone and on Jerry's cell phone, which I have, beginning Monday. I urge the media to ask who among the 37 remaining children is pregnant (almost certainly a zero). Who among them HAS been pregnant (also, almost certainly, a zero). Who among the remaining 37 are girls 12 and over?

Again, not to be a broken record, but the thrust of these questions is to sharply focus the media and public on the FACT that Texas lied when fabricating cause for their second warrant. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

The Silence of Jerry Strickland

I have emailed and called the Texas Attorney General's office. Three times. I've emailed Mr. Jerry Strickland. He has not seen fit to return my calls.

Ok, it's not like I'm the Salt Lake Tribune or the Austin American-Statesman.

Jerry will not answer these questions;

  • Are any of the remaining 37 children pregnant?

  • Do any of the remaining 37 children have children?

  • How many of the remaining 37 are girls 12 or over?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 03, 2008

The Modern Pharisee interviews Patrick Crimmins - CPS Report due in two weeks.

I talked to Patrick Crimmins this morning. I asked the following questions:

  • Are any of the remaining 37 children pregnant?

  • Do any of the remaining 37 children have children?

  • How many of the remaining 37 are girls 12 or over?
Patrick said that he could not respond. He said it wasn't their concern about what Law Enforcement "saw" at YFZ. I explained KNOWING that there were no pregnant teens or "children with children" among the kids "still under suit" would form the basis of questions I would ask the Attorney General's office, to which he repeatedly referred me. I went over this point more than once with Mr. Crimmins in an effort to gain some information. All I learned was that there report would be out in "a couple of weeks."

I asked if that meant November 17th, he said no, but then repeated twice that the report would be out "mid month." Look for it on Friday, November 14th, 2008. That's a good time to dump it and run.

I left a message for Jerry Strickland, at Mr. Crimmins suggestion. More →

Sphere: Related Content