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

Slow Progress in the Santos-Swinton IA Investigation

Ah, bureaucracy. And some of us actually want Government Run Health Care. An update now on my dealings with CSPD's Internal Affairs.

It is October the 8th, 2009. I received the following in the mail today, postmarked from Colorado Springs on October 5th:

"On 09-24-09, Mr. McBryde contacted Internal Affairs regarding some suspicions he had developed while following the Texas child custody/abuse case involving the FLDS at the Yearning for Zion ranch. The Ranch was raided by Texas authorities in April of 2008. Mr. McBryde's concerns involve Rosita [sic] Swinton and her connection to the Colorado Springs Police Department and in particular her past association with Lt. M. Santos and Lt. J. Anderson. Mr. McBryde requested that Internal Affairs look in to the case as he alleged that the relationship was more significant than previously reported. In particular he alleged the following:

1.) Ms. Swinton's relationship with Lt. Santos was more developed and long term,
2.) Ms. Swinton may have been a paid informant of the CSPD, 3.) The phone call made by Ms. Swinton to Texas was somehow at the Department's behest, 4.) Lt. Santos had intervened in a case involving Ms. Swinton in Douglas County, 5.) Lt. Santos did not recuse herself from matters involving Ms. Swinton and that she should have due to the alleged relationship."

The "Complaint Receipt Form" which has no number ( I had been promised one ) goes on only to list Lt. Magdalena Santos, Gold Hill Patrol-Shift II as the "Involved Employee(s)" or the subject. A few observations. Lt. Jane Anderson is also named, but somehow is NOT one of the subjects. It was alleged by me and was specifically alleged by my source and supposedly in the statement or deposition of Becky Hoerth that Janie WAS involved, which would make her a subject as well.

The Supervisor Receiving Complaint is said to be a Sgt. Lux (true) and not mentioned is the fact that I viewed Sgt. Lux as obstructionist and combative. Sgt. Lux no doubt is useful in minimizing department complaints from the outside.

The Division Commander Review was done by Lt. Kirk D. Wilson, with whom I have made some progress. That progress may only be to "go through the motions" and not accomplish anything, but even in a sincere investigation, one must "go through the motions." I believe in going through proper channels first. This approach then is appropriate.

The status is listed as; "A preliminary inquiry will be conducted to determine whether or not a policy violation may have occurred. Upon completion of the investigation, you will be notified of the results." In essence then, what is being done at CSPD's IA, is a "Preliminary Inquiry."

I will remark now on the body of he incident/allegation description.

"Mr. McBryde's concerns involve Rosita [sic] Swinton and her connection to the Colorado Springs Police Department and in particular her past association with Lt. M. Santos and Lt. J. Anderson."

As mentioned above, why is Lt. Jane Anderson not a subject of the inquiry?

"The phone call made by Ms. Swinton to Texas was somehow at the Department's behest..."

Not exactly. I suspect, and think there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Rozita was used by some branch of LE, up to and maybe including the FBI. Lt. Santos who USED to head up the Sex Crimes unit's Internet sting operations and now appears to have been demoted or moved sideways may have simply supplied Rozita to someone else that she worked with in documented Internet sex sting operations. I did not say that the phone call was made at the department's behest. If that occurred exactly as described, I would be one of the more surprised people on the planet. I don't think CSPD had it in their mind at any level above Lt's Santos and Anderson to "get" the FLDS at YFZ Ranch. They may have participated though in such an effort. Maybe they supplied Rozita's name and offered her as "voice talent."

"Lt. Santos had intervened in a case involving Ms. Swinton in Douglas County..."

Again, not exactly. That is my best guess. It is said that Becky Lynn Hoerth alleged that Santos and Anderson intervened on Rozita's behalf "three years ago." If that remark was made in April of 2008, that would refer to an incident in 2005. The only known incident in 2005, to me, is the Douglas County/Castle Rock incident, for which Rozita was convicted and had her sentence deferred. She was convicted by guilty plea.

It should be noted that the complaint was received two weeks ago. I received documentation of the complaint's receipt, today. I have followed up several times on this inquiry. I will be very disappointed to say the least if the investigation now moves or is shown to have moved with such speed that the preliminary investigation is conducted and closed prior to me even receiving the receipt. That would show planned bureaucratic foot dragging.

Slightly color the complaint to make it less credible. Like me alleging that the call was made at CSPD's behest. Make my allegations less qualified. In general, pretend not to "get it."

There are also other interesting remarks made by Lt. Wilson that need attention:

What does the wording "he alleged that the relationship was more significant than previously reported" imply? No relationship was previously reported outside CSPD. Lt. Wilson himself said that internally the relationship was "common knowledge."

I can say with certainty prior to my blog reports on the topic Rod Parker of Salt Lake City did not know. Neither did Michael Piccarreta. No FLDS member knew of the "previously reported" relationship. I suspect strongly that all find that relationship no matter how extensive, very interesting now. Was that relationship "previously reported" to Texas? If so, Texas knew and did not see fit to tell FLDS attorneys that their probable phony phone caller, that Texas refuses to investigate, whose computer records may show extensive LE contact, was that closely tied to Law Enforcement.

By doing this, supposing that contacts were widespread, Texas has now set themselves up for a Watergate style cover up. They may not have contracted for the break in, but they covered it up later. I don't know about you, but if LE held on to computers with potentially exculpatory evidence on them for 18 months and refused to investigate LE/caller connections and didn't tell the defense about them, it almost doesn't matter anymore if they were innocent of contracting for the call. You can no longer say with credibility that you are turning over all the evidence in the matter. You withheld evidence. There may be felonies involved now, where there were none before.

A post script. Lt. Wilson says "alleged relationship" but the only thing "alleged" for his purposes is the quality or color or extend or kind of relationship that existed. The relationship is not alleged. Lt. Wilson himself used the phrase "common knowledge" to refer to the relationship of Santos and Swinton. He does not now get to imply that I allege there was one. According to him, there was one, and it was "common knowledge" at the Colorado Springs Police Department.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Colorado Long Shot

Which could be called the Musser/Long/Doran/Flora/Whoever longshot as well.

Witnesses hostile to the FLDS such as Rebecca Musser could very well provide evidence for the defense. Musser is supposed to have testified in Las Vegas on the last day of September. I haven't heard whether she did actually testify, or not. I always assume that hostile witnesses are communicating amongst themselves and it's probably no accident that Musser succeeded in putting off her time before the defense until two days before Walther ruled on the evidence. Assuming Musser was provided with a transcript of her testimony, or even if she simply has a good memory, she could have been "debriefed" and the prosecution (Walther et al) could have decided nothing earth shattering was given to Piccarreta and company.

Pre Trial hearing.

Motion to Suppress denied.

Rules as to what will be admitted as evidence are as far as I can tell, "rules of the court" for trial purposes.

Bottom line?

They cannot be appealed prior to the completion of the trial. The reasoning behind this long standing rule of jurisprudence (assuming I have it right) is that you're not harmed if the evidence included fails to result in your conviction. In a sense, so what if it was illegally obtained and you go free? No harm, no foul. Only in the case that you are convicted would a higher court be interested in the evidence rules used in a lower court.

It has been my opinion all along that what Walther has wanted to do in the trials, is expose the media, the potential jury pool and potential appeals judges to all the negative publicity possible, all the salacious details, and put a 40+ year old man in front of an appeals court, convicted of a crime involving pedophilia, and say "There, reverse that."

Of course, I have hoped, and at one time I was actually marginally hopeful that Walther would back away from the case, but she didn't. I have never been in any sort of delusional state about what her game plan has been since the get go.

Of the girls/women supposedly molested or in danger of being molested by the FLDS men in question, only Merrianne Jessop is in theoretical need of protection from her informal husband, that being Warren Jeffs. Warren, for the time being at least, is safely tucked behind bars, and he can't get at Merrianne, for now. Even if the tide begins to turn wildly in favor of the FLDS, the prospects of him being sprung in the next 2 and a half to 3 years is pretty small, so we can consider her safe if we are worried about actual adults molesting actual children by the definitions of law. It's not going to happen unless Merrianne is "unfaithful."

The rest of the defendants are "married" or consorting with women now, all of whom are of age, and none of whom wish to escape their "brainwashing." The primary reason their unofficial husbands are being prosecuted is that those husbands seem to have children with those women. Those women certainly have children with somebody. I have little doubt that the men charged are in fact the fathers. The state is attempting to break up a father and his child, separate the mother from the father, and destroy the family unit to make a point that is essentially, "we don't like the FLDS" because until the FLDS showed up, the laws in Texas were actually a bit friendly towards the practices of the FLDS, which was one of the reasons Warren set up shop there.

This also brings up the question of the difference between a real pedophile, in terms of psychological makeup, and a technical pedophile, namely the sort that these men will be, if they are convicted.

"According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty." - (Wikipedia)

I contend that based on their other patterns of behavior, and fertility with women of greater age, that you couldn't call this the difficulty of most of the defendants. You could only say that they fit the legal definition.

"In law enforcement, the term 'pedophile' is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent)." - Wikipedia

What I am doing here, in a sort of eliptical way, is leading up to a point about what is, and what is not going on here. We're dealing with people who will be legally classified as pedophiles, not people who are predisposed to a disorder (for which there is no treatment) that is refered to as pedophilia. The equivocation that follows this case around, in the press and in the publicity generated by the prosecution, confuses. It is meant to. It is meant to put pressure on the public conciousness to keep slavering drooling cruel old men off the young virginal bodies of girls, who have no brains, no volition and no ability to resist their organized plundering of those girls sexual bounty.

I word it that way because I am convinced that part of the "horror" surrounding the case is actually a vicarious thrill and a sort of perverse jealousy that may indeed be more akin to the medical definition of pedophilia that we are supposed to believe is present in the FLDS. We want to see pictures of the young girls kissing Warren, with their faces blanked out. We want to see pictures of his daughter, Teresa Jeffs, young, attractive, spunky. Because WE want them. I say "we" but I think the difficulty is largely with FLDS haters, not me for instance. I consider Teresa Jeffs a beautiful strong willed young woman, and another man's wife, and of another faith, and have no interest in her for the reasons of prior claim (marriage) and faith. Same goes for Merrianne Jessop.

The above discourse I think describes the set stage for the trials. For the FLDS to win, they must win by "not guilty" verdict, which may flow from "jury nullification" or win on appeal which will be performed under the pressure of equivocating technical legal pedophilia with the actual sexual predilection. Remember though, it will be a lot harder to turn a well publicized "pedophile" loose, even by right application of the law, than it was to turn children back to their mothers.

US Law.com - "Late last year, a California Appellate Court ruled that a Defendant was not entitled to a new hearing on a suppression motion at the retrial, unless the defendants could present additional evidence that would justify a different ruling. A court will not question the discretion of another magistrate, or their position on the credibility of witnesses or evidence that was presented at a suppression hearing. If a magistrate has already heard your case, and ruled against you, it’s generally a closed issue.

However, in some cases you may be able to bring a second suppression motion if it is based on 'newly discovered evidence.'

To be considered newly discovered evidence, you and your criminal appeals lawyer will have to show that at the time of the original hearing, the defense was unaware of this new evidence. If you can convince the judge on this point, then the judge has the legal discretion to permit you a new hearing.

USA vs Hassan Karim Muhammad - "However, '[i]f new facts come to light at trial, the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion may consider anew the suppression issue.' Id. In United States v. Simms..."

New evidence is what will ultimately (I think) be the best chance of early freedom for the FLDS men on trial. The best chance for their wives to be reunited with their husbands, the best chance for their children to have contact, with their fathers.

That new evidence may come from depostions of Sam Brower, or Rebecca Musser or others, or perhaps revelations about Rozita Swinton and her associates. There are a lot of questions still out there about Rozita, how she has managed to travel around the country, access expensive out of state medical care and even exist for the past year and a half. There are now a lot of questions about what she's been doing for the last 15 years of her life, and if it involved a close association with a local Law Enforcment agency, that may be shown to have protected her.

The above two quotes show that the evidence question can be reopened with new evidence. I hope that what I have investigated and found, mostly in the last two weeks, and all the way back to January of this year, will prove useful to the defense. If it is shown that there was some sort of protection of Rozita, a sort of negligent encouragement of her bad behavior, or even perhaps a contracting with her to produce a "cry for help" then the game may be changed. Almost certainly it will be in the case of an intentional manufactured "cry for help."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Judge Walther Rules (Not a Surprise) to allow the evidence (UPDATED)

Detractors will say I predicted otherwise, and I did. I always qualified my remarks to say I was guessing and that I wasn't that sure. Walther will now go down with the ship.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The decision will allow jurors in the upcoming trials of 12 men from the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to see some of the documents.

The documents come from an April 2008 raid on the FLDS-owned Yearning for Zion Ranch.

The first sect member to face a criminal trial pleaded not guilty Friday to sexual assault of a child.

Raymond Jessop entered his plea Friday before Texas District Judge Barbara Walther in San Angelo. He's set for an Oct. 26 trial in Eldorado. Defense attorneys had asked Walther to exclude the documents because the search warrant was based on fake domestic abuse reports."

From this report, it would seem that Walther is overloading the defense, by making her decision at the last minute, thereby forcing the FLDS to sift through a document dump with less than a month to go, until the first trial. Hat tip to "Jam Inn."

By saying it was not a "surprise," I mean it wasn't after recent developments. Walther would not have scheduled trials and waited this long, if she wasn't going to rule in favor of including the evidence.

The Houston Chronicle - "FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop said he was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling. The defendants will use the argument for the basis of an appeal if convicted, he said.

'I have no doubt this thing will be ruled illegal in the long run,' he said of the search."

And there might be more evidence, stacked against the evidence by then.

Next move? Judge Conn in Arizona will probably now be asked to rule on the evidence separately.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And now the State of Texas files in the Motion to Suppress

Ok, count me as confused. First Texas files a grocery list of bare "facts" and a laundry list of case law with no explanation.

Then the FLDS files, now Texas files again? Is this the Ghost Written opinion of Walther?

Also, after reading the filing, it seems that the state of Texas asserts that no one has standing to dispute the evidence. They also seem to think if they order up a search warrant on an annonymous tip that Osama bin Laden is in your home, they can take anything they find there and try you with it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

One of the Chief Reasons I back the FLDS.

You blather and you blather, and you know you blather when someone says it better.

"The key to understanding the American system (of government) is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it."

This is attributed to Rick Cook by "The Smallest Minority." Hat tip to The Barking Moonbat.

What's being said, (assuming it wasn't as obvious to you as it was to me) is that you will be left with the laws and precedents you used to "get" the FLDS if you end up "getting" them. They won't go away. It's like removing all the safeties on your Torpedoes, as seen in the movie "Hunt For Red October."

"You Arrogant Ass, You've Killed US."

Ah, those unintended consequences.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Confused Time Magazine STILL getting the facts wrong.

Yesterday, John T. Floyd did a swing through the history of the YFZ case that was a primer for the novice, and one that drew believable conclusions.

Today, Time staggers drunkenly through the same facts, or stumbles blindly around them.

"Defense attorneys are trying to keep this evidence from being used in the trials because of the bizarre back story now surrounding the search warrant. The warrant was based on tips from a Colorado woman who was posing as a former member of the compound and who is now facing criminal charges for filing a false report.

But Charles Bubany, a professor who teaches criminal procedure at Texas Tech University School of Law, says the admissibility of the evidence likely will boil down to whether the judge had a reasonable belief that there was criminal activity taking place at the ranch regardless of the after-the-fact discovery of the false report. The same judge who signed the search warrant and greenlighted the raid, Texas District Judge Barbara Walther, is presiding over the criminal cases."

I would invite you to compare the two articles, John T. Floyd's is referred to below, and make your own judgment.

The writer, Hillary Hylton makes fundamental errors. One of which is to imply that Rozita Swinton is under criminal charges for filing a false report. Exactly where? Last time I checked it was only in Colorado, where they await the outcome of the Texas cases to see if they have to bust her down for a violation of the terms of her previous plea bargain, in Colorado, for additional crimes in Colorado

Also, the writer makes no examination of the facts surrounding the attempt to suppress the evidence, and claims Walther is deciding on whether or not she, Judge Walther, had reason to suspect criminal activity was occurring at YFZ. The problem is that up until Rozita's bogus "Cry for Help," the FLDS had given no indication they were involved in criminal activity. Something Sheriff Doran pointed out in testimony in May.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

John T. Floyd weighs in on the Motion to Suppress, and just about the whole case.

I really don't know where to begin. The article does not deserve comment, it deserves to be read. Here's just a tiny taste:

"Factual misrepresentations and misinformation are the thread that now bounds the FLDS case."

John ranges through the whole case in summary form and touches on the entire injustice of it, in all areas including the appearance of the FLDS before the Texas legislature. He hits on the cost, the comparative statistical frequency of child abuse and the duplicity of Ranger Brooks Long. Just go read it.

By the way, now that the arguments are in, and a Criminal Attorney has weighed in on the topic, I call all the "ANTI FLDS" bloggers who imply or claim they are legal eagles and lawyers and experts to be refuted. Simply put, until they tell us who they are, they're just loud cowards.

I no longer recognize "TxBluesMan" or "FLDSTexas" or "Ron in Houston" as having any standing or any valid opinion. John T. Floyd is a criminal law attorney, he's made this judgment armed with all the facts available on the record. He's qualified. I'll listen to qualified opinions thank you.

Own up, or go home, trolls.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And this says I'm completely wrong.

Barbara Walther sets the trial dates for the FLDS defendants.

Which probably makes all my guessing wishful thinking. They cut Merrianne Jessop loose because they don't need her anymore.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "During the conference, (Judge Barbara) Walther said the pretrials would be held at 10 a.m. in San Angelo. Between now and the first trial, attorneys are looking at ways to get a jury pool from Schleicher County while having the trials in San Angelo.

Walther has yet to rule on the defendants’ motions filed in May to suppress evidence taken from the Yearning For Zion Ranch near Eldorado. An April 3, 2008, raid on the ranch led to the removal of more than 400 children from the ranch and the seizure of documents and other material."

Walther is going to the mat on this one. It would seem. I can't see how she would set trials for men against whom there is no evidence.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Last FLDS Child Custody Case officially ENDS

Merrianne Jessop is no longer under court supervision, though officially she has not been "returned" to her mother.

KSL - "The battle for children from the Utah-based Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch in Eldorado, Texas, was over Thursday when a judge signed an order effectively ended court oversight of a 15-year-old girl. She was the last of the 439 children taken into state protective custody when Texas child welfare authorities raided the ranch last year.

'The court has stated that they will no longer continue to review the placement, progress and welfare of the child,' said Valerie Malara, a lawyer representing the girl's mother, Barbara Jessop. 'The attorney ad litem is dismissed out of the case, CASA's dismissed out of the case, and the state is out of the case as well.'

The order, signed (today) by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, places the girl in the custody of her aunt. Her parents, YFZ Ranch leader Merril Jessop and Barbara Jessop, will have visitation. The aunt, Naomi Carlisle, can determine how much that will be."

This really means she is back with her family. Is this another tremor before the quake? The last shaky appearance of there being any danger to children, and thus any cause is being swept away, the day before it is rumored that Barbara Walther will rule on the "Motion to Suppress."

Since it is clear now that NO CHILD was in danger on the Ranch, ever, and there was no "cry for help" and "no danger" at the time of the raid, how can it be that anyone supposes the evidence seized under that pretense could stay in the possession of Texas?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Calling the Motion to Suppress

Recuse is out. So what will Walther do?

Rumor has it she will rule this Friday. I'm going to call it ruling for the motion to suppress, just based on some intangibles leading up to the ruling. I could very easily be wrong, but I've been at the track so long on this one, it would be dishonest for me not to say what I'm thinking.

It may be the ultimate in foolishness to read anything into blogger TxBluesMan suddenly quitting, but I admit that influences me. To think he wouldn't hang around to crow victory with it so close strikes me as odd. He has also been privy to a few tips, either because he is a great internet researcher, or because he has connections and he just up and quit.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

That's one Great Cake! Ghost Writers in Walther's Court?

I speculated a while ago that Judge Walther would recuse herself in the Motion to Suppress. I wasn't real confident of that but it was at the time the top "Best Guess" I could come up with based on the facts at that time.

It would now be at the bottom of the list instead of the top. I suppose it could still happen but every day that goes by where Judge Walther does not bow out, that begins to look less like an intelligent guess and more like wishful thinking. If Babs ever writes a memoir, maybe she'll mention considering it.

At this point I'm going to have to say that Judge Walther will rule against the motion to suppress. I base this on evidence that Barbara is a skillful small town political operator, not a great jurist. This is not a slap by the way, it's just an observation. While I still believe she will not win in the end, she has been skillful, powerful, unflinching and brutal when necessary, almost without hesitation.

So what does a politician do when they don't have a legal mind and they wish to write an opinion on inclusion as opposed to suppression of evidence when there is so clearly a good case to suppress the evidence? Mind you I did not say "overwhelming" or "winning" case, I said "good."

Texas has not supplied Judge Walther in their filing with boilerplate to sign. They've supplied her with a list of case law and a set of facts and said "Here Babs, cook up a ruling!" It's as if you walked into a kitchen with a picture of a pie and the ingredients all set out on the counter and you've never baked a cake before. You whip up mean omelets but baking is not your calling. You've got a picture of a pie, and they're asking for cake.

Texas has to be seen as wanting the evidence to stand, and not be overturned on appeal. They seem to have confidence that Walther will rule in her favor but I can't believe what they think Walther can bake a cake. In the movie "Calender Girls," Chris Harper's (Helen Mirren) problem is solved by going out and buying the item in question, and passing it off as hers. She wins the blue ribbon by the way.

I'm of the opinion that Walther is down to two choices which may seem obvious to you but since the third choice, "recuse" (punt) seems off the table, she can only rule against, or rule for the motion to suppress. In the second case she need only agree adding a few embellishments with the Gerry Goldstein/FLDS motion. It's well written. Case closed.

Ruling against the motion means she has to bake that cake into a winner, and she can't. To me, that means Texas has delivered the ingredients to her kitchen, but someone else is going to cook up the winner. Either that, or we're on a fast track to a reversal. Judge Walther has a worse record with the FLDS and higher courts than Judge Sotomayor has with the Supreme Court of the United States, and that's no small accomplishment.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Presumptive Crap Sandwich - The State in the Motion to Suppress

I've read most of both motions/filings now in the FLDS motion to dismiss.

The State most makes a list of "Findings of Fact," 54 of them each about a short paragraph long. There are then 15 more "Conclusions of Law" most of which are equally brief and look as if they were assembled by a law clerk.

Whereas the defense makes great effort to cite examples and testimony and links all to law cases that are carefully explained, Texas does not. Either the fix is in and the State knows it and expects Walther to just sign the order, or they've lost, and they know it. From my vague understanding of law they cannot carry forward new arguments to the next appeal so they either expect to win it here, get to trial and dare anyone to overturn a child molesters conviction, no matter now unjust, or they just plain know they've got no case.

The State's filing is a sandwich of bad, brief explanations that look like a half hearted paper worked on the night before it was due, barely better than an outline. It is book ended by Orders, ready made for Walther to sign, denying the motion.

Here ya go judge. You know what you're SUPPOSED to do. They've even got Judge Walther's name already typed below the signature spot. They expect her to sign it, they don't care what anyone thinks and they're assuming she will not recuse herself.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Two important observations on the FLDS Motion to Suppress

One, it was established by testimony in the hearing before Judge Walther in May that Dale Evans Barlow was not at the Ranch, and that Ranger Long knew this, and still swore out an affidavit that Dale was at YFZ.

It was also established that the "Caller" also recanted on March 31st, her last communication with the New Bridge shelter that she was not to be believed. Both fact sets were NOT communicated to Judge Walther even though they were known to Brooks Long when he swore his affidavit. Doran testified that this sort of information should have been communicated to Walther.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Briefs Finally Filed in FLDS Motion to Suppress

What I found interesting was this line in the article in the San Angelo Standard Times:

"It was not clear when Walther will rule on the motion to suppress."

Remember I have guessed that Walther will probably recuse herself. Also, I mentioned that the filings would be late, but no news was leaking out as to why, though it appeared more time had been asked for.

"It was unclear (today) why the documents came in well after the original deadline set by the judge."

The State's filing is HERE, and the defense, HERE. The defense PDF is searchable, the State's is not.

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

Weighing in on lightweights who weigh in on the "Motion to Suppress"

I wasn't going to dignify (or was it vilify?) the latest from a certain blogger, but that's ok, someone else did I like, did.

Check "The Practical Theonomist."

More →

Sphere: Related Content