A landslide of filings in Arizona

Michael Piccarreta gets busy:

First to Matt Smith he says "oh no, YOU have the burden of proof" in the evidentiary hearing that will be occurring.

Then he says "oh no Matt, this is not another interview of Carolyn Jessop" and then he challenges Becky Musser, Carolyn Jessop and Richard Holm as expert witnesses:

"Carolyn Jessop has written a whole book in which she characterizes Mr. Jeffs as a bad man and the FLDS as a bad religion. She, of course, characterizes herself as intelligent, wonderful and almost perfect. The defendant does not believe that any of this admissible but, at a minimum, the defendant needs to know how much, if any, of this type of evidence he will need to met at trial."

It is amazing how much the defense seems to be on it's heals in Texas, but so much in charge in Arizona. The difference must be the judge.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

New filing in Jeffs case

It can be found at Mohave county court's site:

Motion to determine Nature, Scope and Extent of proposed Expert Testimony. An excerpt:

"These disputed factual matters have nothing to do with any of the factual allegations in the two pending prosecutions and are, in fact, more akin to the type of 'he said, she said' allegations that permeate divorce court, or afternoon daytime talk shows."

In another portion, Jeffs' attorneys squarely acknowledge the Polygamy issue and at the same time suggest where experts might be found:

"The basic teachings of the FLDS are essentially the same as the basic teachings of the 'mainstream' LDS, with the exception that the LDS no longer follows its founders' belief in the practice of polygamy. However, the basic teachings are the same and come from the Book of Mormon and the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. None of the State's proposed witnesses have any special training or expertise in the LDS or the FLDS or the history of these religions and differences between them."

There is this all too true observation as well:

"This proposed expert testimony will not assist the jury because claims of subjugation of women (are) hardly unique to the FLDS. It is and has been a tenet of fundamentalist religions everywhere including the teaching of the Old Testament, the Koran, the current teachings of the Fundamentalist Baptists, and the 'mainstream' Mormon Church."

The motion concludes that the case is either "about religion or not about religion." If it is about religion, it seems to be the defendant's opinion, through his attorneys, that he is then protected by the First Amendment, and cites the few available and recent cases before Supreme Courts in Montana and Minnesota.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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

Rebecca Musser to be deposed September 30th

So ordered and signed by Judge Steven Conn.

The depositions will occur at the offices of Wright Stanish & Winkler, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 701, Las Vegas, NV 89101

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Large number of notices at Mohave County Court site RE: Warren Jeffs.

My apologies, I am at the emergency room with my wife who has a foot injury. You'll have to read them yourselves.

Follow the link.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Spin, Spin, Spin goes the Media

It really doesn't matter which side of the Warren Jeffs/FLDS oppressed, Warren Jeffs/FLDS foundationally evil you fall on, this is classic spin.

Without linking to, or providing a copy of the actual order, Jim Seckler and the Mohave Daily News spins the coverage marvelously, portraying a complete and utter defeat for Rebecca Musser and Texas as only marginally positive for Warren and his attorney Michael Piccarreta.

"(Steven) Conn granted Piccarreta's motion Wednesday to formally interview Musser. The judge did not address a request for the county attorney's office to pay for Piccarreta's expenses to travel to Texas if the deposition is held in that state."

The judge's language from the bench was indeed grumpy. He reserved a little backhanded slap for both sides, dismissing any idea that he was interested in the back and forth and then jumping with both feet on the notion that anyone could ignore his previous order for Rebecca to be deposed without formal request. Having eschewed such formal request to his order, the judge then becomes as mightily grouchy as you can get from the bench and still maintain the Court's decorum. At this point, Judge Conn embodies the Court, and he is offended. In other words, Judge Conn doesn't care about this at all:

"Musser was to have been deposed in April but according to prosecutors, Musser who lives in Idaho, had back surgery."

WHY did the court not address the issue of travel expense? Michael Piccarreta does not have to travel:

"The Court will not address in the defense counsel's Reply the request that the State be ordered to pay expenses to go to Texas to depose Ms. Musser because the deposition will take place at a time and place of (Michael Piccarreta's) choosing."

The Court does not care if Ms. Musser had back surgery. The Court also does not care to pay travel expenses because essentially the Court stated that Rebecca would have to come to Michael Piccarreta's office, if that is the venue that Michael Piccarreta chooses. Michael also gets to pick the time. If Rebecca doesn't like that and Texas doesn't like that, oh well. Of course if you read the Mohave Daily News article, you'd think he was bound to go where it was that Rebecca wanted him to go.

To expedite things there may be another compromise on venue and who is present. There's the whole issue of Jurisdiction, but the Court in no way approved of Rebecca's bad behavior, and insofar as it was possible for the Court, they made that clear. Rebecca had better not travel into Judge Conn's jurisdiction, without complying with the Court's order.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Steven Conn to Rebecca Musser: Oh yes you WILL comply with the order of this Court.

The Judge sounds a bit miffed:

"How the issue got to this point is not real clear to the Court, although it is probably better understood by counsel. Some of the conclusions the Court reaches are based upon the following assessment of the court files. On February 3, 2009, defense counsel filed in both cases a Motion for Deposition of Witness Rebecca Musser, asserting that she was a material witness who had agreed to a personal interview but had refused in that interview to answer certain questions. The state filed on February 2, 2009, a Response which for some reason the Court can only find in CR-2007-0743 and not in CR-2007-0953. In the Response the State agreed that Ms. Musser was a material witness but asserted that she was now willing to answer questions that she would not answer previously. The defense filed a Reply in both cases on February 9, 2009, indicating that counsel would attempt to set up another personal interview and that motion could be held in abeyance. The Court entered a Minute Order dated February 12, 2009, deferring ruling in the defense motion unless requested in writing to do so.

At a hearing on March 30, 2009, according to the Minute Order from that hearing, there was discussion about a Deposition Order that had been submitted for Ms. Musser and an apparent acknowledgment that the Court had not yet ruled on the prior request for a deposition. The discussion at that hearing, however, appeared to focus not on the question of whether she would be deposed but when she would be deposed. It appears that the State had no objection to changing the date on the Deposition Order and that the Court did so and signed the Order. Inherent in that discussion would seem to be an acknoweldgement by the State that a deposition was appropriate under the rules and under the circumstances of Ms. Musser's participation in the interview process. For reasons wich the Court cannot explain, other than the fact that it bore only one cause number, that Deposition Order with amended date was filed only in CR-2007-0743 amd mpt om CR-2007-0953.

The date by which Ms. Musser was to have been deposed, April 30, 2009, has now come and gone. Although consel may disagree oin their respective assessments as to how this came to be, they seem to agree on 2 things. Ms. Musser has not participated in a further personal interview and she has not been deposed. She appears to be no closer to doing any one of these things that she was 5 months ago. The Court never amended its Order directing her to be deposed April 30, 2009 and does not recall ever being asked to do so.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Defendant's Renewed Motion for Deposition of State's Witness Rebecca Musser.

The Court will sign the appropriate Order upon presentation by defense counsel. The Court will not address in the defense counsel's Reply the request that the State be ordered to pay expenses to go to Texas to depose Ms. Musser because the deposition will take place at a time and place of his choosing. If he chooses to do the deposition in Texas, then that is his problem. The Court will address any further request for sanctions only in the event that Ms. Musser fails to appear for the deposition at the time and place tha the Court will dictate on the Order prepared by defense counsel."

Rebecca is ordered to comply.

I'd say Rebecca, has been spanked. Time and place of Piccarreta's choosing.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren's Attorneys have had enough of Rebecca Musser's evasions

No, you'll come here and be deposed.

"It must be remembered that authorities from the state of Texas caused all of these problems to begin with through their voluntary decision to provide evidence from the Texas searches to officials in the state of Arizona who were in the midst of prosecuting Mr. Jeffs, when Texas officials were under no obligation to do so, and when the defendant had specifically advised officials from the state of Arizona of the serious potential problems any such exposure would generate. Texas law enforcement authorities then compounded these problems when they instructed Ms. Musser not to answer relevant questions relating to the defense, thus necessitating the motion to depose Ms. Musser. It does not take a genius to figure out that the idea of holing Ms. Musser's in Austin, Texas, presumably did not originate with her. This is part of the difficulty when you have a listed witness who is also an informant for law enforcement in another state. Given the machinations of the Texas authorities thus far, the defendant submits that the court should not be inclined to do them any favors by ordering Ms. Musser's deposition to take place at their convenience.

The defendant disputes the State's contention that "Becky is cooperative." [Response, p.4]. Defense counsel has made numerous requests over the summer for Ms. Musser to name a date and time at which she would comply with this Court's ordered deposition even telephonically if Texas law enforcement was not present in the room while all other counsel were on the telephone. Although it is true that the undersigned counsel Michael Piccarreta was spending most of the summer months in Oregon, during that period of time he was trying to arrange for either a telephonic deposition of Ms. Musser or for travel to Boise, Idaho, specifically to accommodate Ms. Musser so that she would not have to travel at all. Indeed, even while in Oregon, counsel works daily on his cases and returns to Arizona for a week each month. Yet Ms. Musser refused to provide parties with a firm date for her deposition. Apparently, Ms. Musser acquiesced to the Texas law enforcement authorities that they be present in person for her deposition. It is no the presence of Texas law enforcement officials that requires Ms. Musser, counsel for the defendant, and counsel for the State to travel, despite the fact that the State of Texas is not a party to these proceedings. Defense counsel submits that all the above facts show that Ms. Musser has not been cooperative and her request to be deposed in Austin, Texas, at the request of Texas authorities, is simply unreasonable and renders her uncooperative within the meaning of Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure."

From the latest court filing in Mohave County.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And Arizona (Matt Smith, the Prosecutor) DOESN'T want Rebecca Musser Interviewed (still).

It would be my preference that not all prosecutors want to win all their cases. Certainly the "Innocence Project" has evidence for why that should be.

If the case never comes to court because of something discovered before trial, wouldn't that be good? Matt Smith however, routinely opposes the interview of key witnesses to at least the THEORY of Warren Jeffs innocence.

I mean, if there's nothing there, there's nothing there, right? Is Matt Rebecca's champion or a prosecutor? Read his response.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Now Warren's attorneys want Rebecca Musser (still).

It's proving very difficult to depose certain people, if you're Warren Jeffs, but this attorneys keep at it.

At the Mohave County Court site.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rebecca Musser and Sam Browers depositions scheduled

Sam Brower goes under Piccarreta's scrutiny on April 15th.

Rebecca Musser? She will be deposed April 30th.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Still no court date for Allen Steed. The INCONVENIENT TRUTH of the Warren Jeffs persecution.

The forgotten man in the "Rape" of Elissa Wall is the man who actually had to have raped her, for Warren to be guilty of anything.

Allen is the ex husband or ex unwanted love interest, however you want to look at it, of Elissa Wall. After a flurry of motions last fall, in which Allen's attorneys appeared to gain the upper hand, it looked like a trial was going to be scheduled, and then the whole thing went dark. No trial, no pretrial motions. Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Who is Allen Steed? Quite simply he is the only candidate for the primary act of rape that has to have been committed, for Warren Jeffs to be guilty of Rape by Accomplice. The only person with whom Elissa claims to have had "non consensual" relations on two occasions is Allen.

The reasoning goes like this.

Warren arranged the "marriage." Elissa did not want to marry Allen.

She and Allen had sex on many occasions but on two of them she did not want to. This forms the basis of her rape allegation against Allen.

Since Warren coerced Elissa to have sex with Allen in the form of a relationship the FLDS call marriage, those two encounters were rape. Remember that under Utah Law, Elissa was too young to marry Allen but Elissa was not too young to consent to relations with a man of Allen's age. Utah's law was written to state that sex can be consensual for a 14 year old if her partner is no more than 5 years older than she is.

Elissa does not contend there was a case of mistaken identity, namely, that some other man entered her bedchamber who she thought was Allen and forced her on two occasions to have sex with her. Thus, Allen is the only possible primary Rapist. If he did not rape her, no one did.

Warren must be said (as he has been) to have coerced Elissa into a situation where she did not feel she could effectively resist Allen. There is no record of Warren stating that Elissa had to submit to sexual relations with Allen if she absolutely refused to do so. Any preacher I know of would tell a wife that in general, she should consent to relations with her husband. Unless this advice is now going to be construed as accomplice to rape, Warren does nothing wrong in stating the obvious. Normal healthy marriages have sex taking place between husbands and wives.

In short, Warren only encouraged Allen and Elissa to have sex as part of a relationship he regarded as marriage and that both Allen and Elissa regarded as marriage. There was no mysterious third party that could have committed the rape of Elissa Wall, nor was there any plan on Warren's part for someone to rape Elissa. It's not like he planned a rape for which no one showed up.

Bottom line, no matter how you look at it, either Allen rapes Elissa or he did not. If he did not, then Warren couldn't have been even said to have conspired to do so. He would not be an accomplice to an act unplanned, and never done. He's not waiting in the getaway car for a criminal that chickened out on him. There is no crime, there is no plan to commit the crime, there is no getaway car. NOTHING happened.

Yet Warren is locked up in jail in Arizona awaiting trial on charges that are becoming weaker every day. The potential jury pool is being hopelessly conditioned to believe he is a slavering sexual animal and criminal. In the end, he may be convicted of something on the basis of his horrible reputation, while the reputation he has is manufactured by an act that will, it seems, shown to have never even been thought of, outside the minds of the prosecutors. Without Allen as Rapist, there never was a crime in the first place.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Piccarreta says he won't depose Rebecca Musser, if she cooperates. (Interview may already be over)

This motion was filed yesterday,

in Mohave County.

"The defendant, Warren Jeffs, replies to the State's Response to Motion for Deposition of Witness Rebecca Musser. As indicated in the original motion, Ms. Musser was instructed by representatives of Texas to not discuss matters relating to Texas. As long as she is willing to answer questions relating to matters involved with Texas law enforcement -- including her role in the Texas search warrants and execution thereof, and conversations with these representatives -- in a full and frank manner, counsel is agreeable to conduct another interview regarding those matters and will do so in good faith. Counsel has asked the State to arrange a telephonic interview in the immediate future. This Court is requested to hold this motion in abeyance pending completion of that interview. If the Texas authorities instruct Ms. Musser to participate in continued gamesmanship and not answer questions, counsel will ask the Court to order the deposition and seek sanctions. On the other hand, if Ms. Musser cooperates, this motion to depose will be withdrawn. Counsel will advise the Court of the status of the motion to depose after completion of the interview. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of February, 2009."

My guess? The motion has been withdrawn already, and the interview has been completed. He didn't get his deposition, and that's because he didn't need one. Rebecca has now cooperated. We'll see.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

There has to be something Rebecca Musser knows, Piccarreta insists he wants to Depose. (UPDATED, in a DEPOSTION, she would have taken the 5th)

Hot off the wire. Becky Musser was NOT cooperative the first time. Now Piccarreta wants the force of law.

Located HERE.

"The defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, pursuant to Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, respectfully requests this Court to order the deposition of witness Rebecca Musser.

Rebecca Musser is listed as a witness for the State in the above-captioned matter. She was at one time married to Rulon Jeffs, the father of the defendant. She is (REDACTED - the sister of Elissa Wall?) an accuer (accuser?) in one of the proceedings. She testified in the state of Utah about the same events involving the defendant and (REDACTED NAME) that form the basis of the current charges. She is obviously a material witness regarding the offenses charged against the defendant. In addition, the State intends to have Ms. Musser testify, as an expert, about the practices and culture of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) in both cases.

She is also a material witness regarding the search of the FLDS property in Texas, which is the subject of the defendant's motion to suppress. Ms. Musser was present on the church property while the search was being conducted and as a witness to the execution of the search. Ms. Musser is also listed as (an) informant in one of the Texas search warrant affidavits. Moreover, it is the defendant's understanding that Ms. Musser was also provided a guided tour of the Yearning For Zion church property in Texas by Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran.

However, in her interview on December 11th, 2008, Ms. Musser refused to answer any questions having to do with any sort of connection to law enforcement officers and/or activities in the state of Texas. Texas law enforcement authorities (with the acquiescence of the State of Arizona) have ordered Ms. Musser not to provide any information about any law enforcement activities in the state of Texas including but not limited to the raid of the YFZ church property. In her interview, Ms. Musser repeatedly state "I am not at liberty to discuss anything about Texas." [Interview of Rebecca "Becky" Musser, December 11, 2008, p. 7].

At the interview, Assistant Arizona Attorney General Timothy Linnins injected: "She is legally prohibited from talking about her - any involvement she's had with any investigation in Texas by statute." [Id., p. 6]. However, despite numerous requests from counsel for the defendant, no such statutory authority has ever been provided to the defendant. Counsel for the defendant attempted to explore the matter further:

Mr. Piccarreta: what is the basis for this refusal? In other words -

Ms. Musser: I am not at liberty to discuss any of that with you, sir.

Mr. Piccarreta: What I'm trying to figure out is if there is an individual or entities who have requested you to do this, you know, or told you to do this or recommended you to do this.

Ms. Musser: Can we just say - do you not understand that you can't - I'm not at liberty to say?

Mr. Linnins: If I can just clarify. I will go ahead and take the rap on that and say under - that we are taking the position that she is not discussing any of that today. She cannot discuss any of that today and - I mean, you can keep going on, but she can't tell you who, what, where, when why, anything. I mean, she is prohibited from doing that."

Translation? This is Rebecca Musser taking the 5th, but since it's an interview, she, and Arizona conspire to cite this unnamed law or agreement that prevents her from speaking about a subject. So Piccarreta wants a deposition, so he can compel her to testify, or give the reason why, or take the 5th.

[Id., p.9]. (footnote - Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith, who was also present at the interview, indicated that ms. Musser might answer questions about the events in Texas at some point in the future, but that has not occurred. [Id., p. 10].)

Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the court to order the deposition of any material witness who "will not cooperate in granting a personal interview." "Where the witness attaches such conditions to an interview that makes the situation untenable for defense counsel to discover needed material, the witness is being uncooperative within the meaning of the rule." Kirkendall v. Fisher, 27 Ariz. App. 210,212,553,P.2d 243, 245 (1976). Ms Musser's refusal "to discuss anything about Texas" clearly renders her uncooperative within the meaning of the rule. Indeed, there seems to be a pattern arising out of the actions of the Texas authorities to keep pertinent, relevant, and exculpatory information from the accused in this case.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this Court, pursuant to Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, to order the deposition of Ms. Musser to take place at a date and time convenient to the defendant, considering that counsel for the defendant has already taken the time and expense to travel to Salt Lake City, Utah to interview Ms. Musser (and others).

You can see that while Becky is portrayed as being "cooperative" in Arizona's previous motion complaining only an interview was necessary, she was in fact not cooperative, and Piccarreta doesn't want to play that game anymore. So, she will, assuming he gets this motion, as I assume he will, have to travel to a place at a time, that works for Piccarreta, not Becky.

We also get a glimpse into other depositions. It appears that in general, Piccarreta is not getting answers to his questions from Long, Doran and Connor, and others. So he's going to haul them into court, and into other depositions and he's going to get his answers.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I didn't care so it didn't matter

Forget the bootlicking of the Obamessiah, the press will generally believe anything CPS puts out.

So when Willie and Merril plead the fifth? CNN is there to lap it up. When it turns out there is possibly a video of Sheriff David Doran ignoring evidence at the YFZ gate? It get's play in a few papers, but not much. I don't care for instance that Merrianne and Barbara may be texting plots to escape (legally) her captors. I wouldn't be surprised if the stories were exaggerated, I wouldn't care if they were true, I'd probably care a little bit to be honest, if they were utterly false, I'd laugh my gut off. My butt is too skinny, so since I get to choose, it's my gut.

You can't find stories about evidence exclusion in the national news. You won't find stories that Becky Musser now can testify about the raid. The Deseret News (no Colorado papers or broadcast stations that I know of) mentioned that all of Rozita's cases got postponed again and no one, but absolutely no one is talking about the fact that Allen Steed (who?) doesn't even have a trial date. He is not, by the way, a fugitive.

It's also hardly surprising that when an affidavit that was used to arrest Rozita (backtracking now) turns out to contain a bald faced and material lie, and I find out about it.

Yawn.

They didn't care so it didn't matter.

I figure we (the supporters of the FLDS and the FLDS) went from contestants in the game to winners in the game this week, so I don't care so it doesn't matter to me, ultimately, either. It gets to the point though where it's so obvious that I'm on the other side of the fence from the national conciousness, so far on the other side of the fence, so WAY OUT in the field with reference to that fence, that I care about that, and that does matter.

A stranger, in a strange land. That I care about, and that does matter.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Arizona says Rebecca Musser should be interviewed by Warren's attorneys, not deposed

In December 2008, Becky Musser was interviewed by Warren's attorney, Michael Piccarreta. At that time she was bound by Texas not to testify to matters still under investigation by the Grand Jury in Texas. That Jury has discharged it's duties so

Rebecca may answer now. To refresh you on who Becky is, she is the older sister of Elissa Wall, the "proxy rape victim" of Warren Jeffs, whose actual rapist either is Allen Steed or Elissa was not raped at all. Ms. Muller was also married to the late Rulon Jeffs, Warren's father. She consulted Texas and Angie Voss, leading up to the YFZ raid.

"COMES NOW, the State of Arizona, by the Mohave County Attorney, and hereby moves the Court to deny Defendant's Motion to Depose Witness Rebecca Musser pursuant to Rule 15.3 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The State agrees with the defense that Rebecca Musser is a material witness that has been listed by the State as a prosecution witness at the upcoming trial of the defendant. However, Rebecca Musser has not failed to cooperate in granting a personal interview in the case. In fact, Rebecca Musser traveled from Boise, Idaho, to Salt Lake City, Utah, to be interviewed by the defense on December 11, 2008. The interview lasted two and a half hours and consisted of 86 pages of transcribed questions and answers. The witness did not refuse to answer any questions concerning this case except for questions involving what happened in Texas, particularly with respect to the Texas search warrant which was executed on the YFZ Ranch. At the end of the interview Mr. Piccarreta told the witness that he would still like to "chat" with her about the Texas matters assuming that Rebecca Musser got permission from the Court to talk about these things.

Rebecca Musser was told by the Texas Attorney General's Office that because they had some ongoing Grand Jury Investigations, that Rebecca was not allowed to discuss under color of Texas law any of her involvement in the Texas search warrant. It is the State's understanding that those restrictions no longer apply and that Rebecca Musser is now able to talk about the Texas aspects of this case. She will cooperate in granting a second interview concerning the Texas matters. Although the defense points out in a footnote on page four of their motion that Matt Smith indicated Becky Musser might answer questions about Texas in the future, that has not occurred as of time of the defense motion. However, the defense has not requested to re-interview Rebecca since the time of her first interview on December 11. A deposition is not required under the rules because Rebecca Musser will continue to cooperate (as she has done in the past) with the interview process."

Ms. Musser stands to gain a lot, if FLDS assets are determined, seized and distributed amongst it's "victims." Elissa Wall, "proxy rape victim," has written a book and is trying to sue the FLDS UEP trust. Assuming there is anything left, Ms. Musser will end up benefiting it would seem, from her sister's largess and the evidence seized at the raid that she advised Angie Voss, among others, to conduct.

I would say that Piccarreta wants her sworn testimony for the above reasons, and the fact that she will now be testifying on matters that could indeed by incriminating.

More →

Sphere: Related Content