Jeffs leaves Arizona Jail, back in Utah

He's in Draper.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "The Mohave County Sheriff's Office in Arizona flew Jeffs, the former president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to Utah and handed him over to authorities at about 10:45 a.m. (MDT), according to a Sheriff's spokeswoman."

Next, the extradition fight. Judge Conn said he had to go back to Utah. He just never stops being right.

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

More on the Warren Jeffs dismissal

Folks, I have been VERY busy, just figure I'm working close to 16 hour days and it's very "hands on." I blogged during my only breaks yesterday, one of which was at Little Big Horn. Thus I have scads of analysis on the tip of my tongue (as it were) but have been unable to share it. I haven't been able to read all the docs filed at Mohave County.

The Deseret News though, makes it clear what really happened:

"Judge Steven Conn dismissed the four charges of sexual misconduct with a minor after prosecutors filed a motion Wednesday requesting the dismissal. The charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled."

And there you have it. All the twaddle and spin you are hearing on the news, like what I heard on the Radio (CNN) is just smoke, though dangerous misleading smoke it is.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Arizona Judge Steven Conn) has dismissed two cases pending against Warren S. Jeffs in Arizona and ordered that he be sent back to Utah, a move that abruptly ends the state's prosecution of the polygamous sect leader and potentially puts Jeffs on a faster track to face more serious charges in Texas.

(The Judge's) ruling came after County Attorney Matt Smith filed a motion Wednesday asking that the cases be dropped so that Texas can proceed against the 54-year-old Jeffs -- something Smith said both Arizona victims want."

The truth the case is dead. More on that later. The charges were dismissed "with extreme prejudice." This is not about what the "victims want." Arizona is making sure there will never be a trial. The victims can go whistle "Dixie" if they choose, they were not consulted, they were TOLD. There won't be a trial if they change their minds, come up with new evidence, have a vision from the Almighty or any other scenario that is proposed.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Mohave County, Ariz., Attorney Matt Smyth (sic) filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss sexual misconduct with a minor charges against the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Arizona poured well more than 1,000 man hours into the investigation and prosecution of Jeffs and case dismissal comes with disappointment.

'I would say it is with a lot of regrets,' Smith said. 'We certainly wanted to have our day in court here in Mohave County, but I have to give a lot of respect to what the victim’s wishes are.'

Smith explained that the victims understand that Jeffs has already spent more time in jail in Mohave County than he could be ordered to serve if convicted on both counts and given the maximum sentence. He said neither of the victims, Elyssa (sic) Wall nor Susie Barlow, wants to go through the pressure of additional trials under those circumstances."

Bull Feathers Matt. Don't lie. Among other things a key is understanding that Warren had already spend more time in Jail than he would if convicted, in Arizona.

Another factor? It would be the Elissa Wall is no longer a credible witness.

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

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

Meat Puppets VS The Pharisee

And maybe Sock Puppets too, but that's harder to prove.

Read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hugh_McBryde#Your_message_about_YFZ_Ranch

I don't want to lose editing privileges at Wikipedia, just when I seem to be getting the hang of it, but I wouldn't be getting the hang of it any time soon, had I not gotten embroiled in this business. Read all about it:

"In short, my edits, which started as a simple edit declaring that the evidence had been suppressed in Arizona, have been scrupulously true and unbiased. The motion granted termed the raid, in the Arizona Court's official legal opinion, as 'Unlawful.' They did this by ADOPTING the motion of 9/3/2008 by means of accepting the agreement of both defense and prosecution in the form of a stipulation. Those who are also engaged in reverting and editing the YFZ Ranch page have striven to alter it's content to show that a stipulation only was signed, and have elsewhere striven to equivocate the rejected offering or attempt at a unilateral stipulation on the part of the defense at an earlier date as being the one accepted. The 'war' started when persons having an agenda, and having a 'Single Interest' tried to obscure the little known fact (nevertheless a fact) that the evidence was genuinely suppressed in Arizona while using the terms 'unlawful' and in fact countenancing defense terminology in the process using the word 'illegal.'

'BlueSooner' is almost certainly 'TxBluesMan' who has written an advertisement for his Blog 'Coram Non Judice' on Wikipedia. A check of the authorship and edits shows that 'Bluesooner' and 'Natalie Malonis' (a single interest source opposed to the FLDS) authored the 'Coram' page. 'RonLawHouston' is almost certainly 'RonInHouston' who also posts on the same blogs and sites that 'BlueSooner/TxBluesman' posts at. Both are virulently anti FLDS and are engaged in self promotion. They almost certainly confer offsite, and make coordinated edits. The likelihood that 'Hope4Kids' who honestly declares bias is also acting in coordination with 'BlueSooner/TxBluesman' and 'RonLawHouston/RonInHouston' is extremely high. There are perhaps other contributing editors who also act in conjunction with these three. This is, as I understand it, by Wikipedia definition 'Meat Puppetry.' It may also be 'Sock Puppetry' but this is difficult to prove. The likelihood that these posters have other Wikipedia editor identities is high. There is considerable evidence from the 'Coram Non Judice' blog 'promotion/advertising' page that 'BlueSooner' shares editing identity with "Natalie Malonis" and may (long shot) even BE the same person. There is no assurance that these editors are even separate at all though it is likely that there is more than one real person behind them all.

These persons are fervently interested in suppressing the simple legal fact that there was a relatively unknown but nonetheless real setback for those prosecuting the various FLDS cases and defendants in Arizona. They have an agenda. They are certainly single interest, they have a high conflict of interest. They haven't even been here at Wikipedia as long as I have. I joined without any intent to promote or discuss FLDS issues as can be proved by my join date. These other editors, from what I can tell, joined after the raid commenced.

As a final offering, I am a real person, I have a name, I have no other identities. I post under the same name on my driver's licence and birth certificate. All of my qualifications, biases and interests can easily be researched and evaluated." Hugh McBryde 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)--Hugh McBryde 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wiki Edit Wars, the Armistice

I figured it would end this way:

"On February 5, 2010, Arizona Judge Steven F. Conn approved a stipulation from the previous day between Mohave County prosecutor Matt Smith and Warren Jeffs' defense attorney, Michael Piccarreta, that evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch in Texas would not be used in any manner in Warren Jeffs' two criminal trials in Arizona. Based on the agreement of the attorneys, Judge Conn issued an order adopting the stipulation. Jeffs' first of two trials on charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor is scheduled to begin November 2, 2010."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Now Comes "Hope4Kids" to get the Spin up to Puking Speed. WikiWar 4!

This is a desperate crew, in full LYING mode. Wikipedia is of course, considered to be a reliable source, and if it's in Wikipedia, it's "true." See the spin increase to puking speed. If our planet spun this way, we'd be flung off into space.

"On February 5, 2010, Arizona Judge Steven F. Conn approved a Stipulation between Mohave County prosecutor Matt Smith and Warren Jeffs' defense attorney, Michael Piccarreta, that evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch in Texas would not be used in any manner in Warren Jeffs' two criminal trials in Arizona. [54] [55]Based on the agreement of the attorneys, Judge Conn issued an order granting the defense motion to suppress evidence and canceled a hearing on the issue.[56]. Jeffs' first of two trials on charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor is scheduled to begin November 2, 2010." [57]

This edit is performed by Hope4Kids, who I assume to be no one in particular, but who has a Wikipedia profile bannering boldly how "Hope" is against Wikipedia Vandalism.

That's a tactic alright. Vandalize while loudly claiming what you are doing is not vandalism, but opposition to vandalism.

What has been done, to the entry? First of all there is a removal of a footnote linking to the Mohave County Courts site. That is the actual stipulation of February 4th. If anybody looked at the stipulation, they would see clearly that the word "Unlawful" is used, and they would see the authorship of the stipulation, as being from the defense team, not the prosecution. So "Hope" removes the more recent edit citing the February 4th date, and instead refers in spun language to February 5th, and deletes the link to Mohave County Courts.

Behind the scenes "Hope" cries vandalism on my part, and "Hope's" ardent opposition to vandalism, fervent adherence to published internet standards and sports a stupid symbol declaring "Hope" to be opposed to Wikipedia vandalism. While in the process of spray painting over a truthful reference to legal content, and a link to that content.

Now the casual reader does not know there was activity on the 4th, as an antecedent to the court order of the 5th, and unless they backtrack through the Mohave County Court site, they won't find the Stipulation of the 4th, to read. That Stipulation is very short, and to the point, and contains the word "Unlawful" in point three. Matt Smith signs it. The judge adopts the "terms of the order."

What "Hope" doesn't want you to read, or see or know, is that Judge Conn has agreed with a stipulation that says the raid is "unlawful" and has specifically used language that to pointedly state that the terms of that stipulation are adopted by the court. It's exactly as if the Judge had the defense write the order. He liked it so much, he signed on to it. So did the prosecution (Sorta).

An additional entry earlier in the Court Rulings section has now been added:

"On October 2, 2009, Judge Barbara Walther issued a ruling denying a defense motion to suppress the evidence seized from the YFZ Ranch, stating:

'The court finds that Defendants’ offer of proof of deliberate falsehoods contained within the probable cause affidavits to support the two warrants is unsupported by credible evidence.' "[53]

That's accurate, but combined with the same users unwillingness to have the word "Unlawful" appear, though it is used at least 3 times in orders embraced by the court in Arizona, they are trying to unbalance the article in favor of the view that Judge Walther (who has a vested interest) expressed.

An accurate section on "Court Rulings" would let the reader know that there are two very different legal opinions on the evidence that have been expressed by courts. In view of the fact that Walther has already been reversed in this matter, and she is being appealed on her evidence decision already, the reader would be served well to know this.

In the end it will be the courts that decide who is more credible. Judge Walther or Judge Conn. For now certain people don't want it known how badly Judge Walther was rebuked out of state. They don't even want you to see it. They want Judge Walther's rulings quoted for language, they don't want Judge Conn's rulings quoted for language. They delete links to the court documents that show that language, and they delete that language.

The truth is there are two opinions. Texas rules Texas and Arizona rules Arizona. For defendants in Texas, Arizona doesn't matter.

Yet.

Eventually the twain shall meet

Don't Miss WikiWar 3, WikiWar 2 and WikiWar!

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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

More Wiki Wars (YFZ Ranch Skirmish)

I admit, it's sorta fun, in that I am learning a few things about "Wikipedia" that I may be able to use in the future.

The not so fun stuff is the bias I am running into in writing the page. The fun stuff? I'm getting a school of hard knocks education in Wikipedia. Something I may be able to use at a future date.

This is how the Wikipedia page on YFZ Court rulings now reads:

"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."

This is a modification of my short lived experiment to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. The original addendum to the section on "Court Rulings," read as follows:

"On February 5, 2010, all evidence seized during the YFZ raid was ruled inadmissible in cases involving Warren Jeffs in Arizona. The prosecution was barred from using that evidence either directly or indirectly."

This, I might add, is scrupulously accurate, albeit brief. The current entry is a modification of mine. It is inaccurate as to date, and misleading. It implies Matt Smith only "agreed" not to use evidence from YFZ, but what he agreed to was a motion that was a motion to suppress brought by the defense. Since an evidence suppression hearing is like a trial of the evidence (something Judge Conn mentioned), the roles of defense and prosecution are reversed to some degree and the evidence goes on trial, with the defense prosecuting the evidence.

Under these circumstances when Matt Smith (defending the evidence) agrees with Michael Piccarreta (prosecuting the evidence), he is pleading the evidence guilty. The evidence is then "put to death" and cannot live again, in court. This is known as Evidence Suppression. Matt pled his client guilty. The evidence is suppressed.

At any rate, I figured I had done it wrong somehow, and I tried again, with this entry:

"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.'[52] Judge Steven F. Conn accepted that agreement the following day[53] stating that September 3rd, 2008 motion to suppress be granted[54]. 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."

The entry is now more detailed, and was now linked directly to the Mohave County Arizona court site, to each specific order or document, and quoted directly from those orders and motions.

I figured that Wikipedia's policies required more specificity on controversial topics, and while struggling with the formatting, I pretty much got it right. The formatting, that is.

It was almost immediately changed back to the way it reads now, and as if for spite, an additional "grind your heal into the neck" entry was made about Merril Leroy Jessop's conviction:

"On March 19,2010, Merril Leroy Jessop was sentenced to 75 years in prison for one count of sexual assault of a child. Jessop was convicted of illegally marrying and then fathering a child with a 15 year old female."

The culprit? "RonLawHouston"

In essence then, the page is being written by FLDS haters. The entries are superficially "neutral" but if even a factual edit is made that deviates from the narrative that is desired by the haters, someone swoops in, and changes the page back to the "less favorable to the FLDS" version. In this case, a version that is a lie in favor of a copiously researched and referenced version that just so happens to favor the FLDS case.

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

Lamont Interview "Next Week," Jeffs trial date in November

The Pre Trial will be October 8th, 2010 and trial, November 2nd.

In view of Judge Conn's observation about sentencing length, this is a curious date. By the time trial is conducted, if there is a guilty verdict, Judge Conn has just about guaranteed that Jeffs will then go free, at least as far as these charges in Arizona are concerned.

The Mohave Daily News - "(Matt) Smith also said there are remaining interviews, including an interview next week with Lamont Barlow, the current husband of one of the two alleged victims in Jeffs’ Arizona criminal case."

That would seem to mean the first or second week in April (this week includes part of April, by Thursday, April 8th, it will be the second week in April.) We may not learn anything about what transpires at the interview until about "tax day."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

For Lamont, it will be an interview, with the threat of Deposition

I learned this on Friday, but waited until it was published.

Lamont Barlow will be interviewed at a place of his choosing. The scope will be limited to the recent revelations regarding what he told Shannon Price. I still say at this time, he will end up being deposed over this, or someone will.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Specter of Elissa Wall pleading the 5th looms

Either that, or she's going to risk multiple perjury charges. That's a prediction by the way. Predictions are not prophecy. They're predictions. I also predict that Michael Piccarreta will get his order for a Deposition of Lamont Barlow, and that's going to lead to someone recanting, or pleading the 5th, or perjuring herself/himself. Read the Motion:

The defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby replies to the State's response and Lamont Barlow's opposition to his motion of the deposition of Lamont Barlow.

The request for Lamont Barlow's deposition stems from the fact that Ms. Shannon Price contacted County Attorney Brock Belnap of Washington County, Utah, "and she told him that (Elissa Wall*) had lied during her testimony at the Warren Jeffs Trial" in the state of Utah. [See report of Washington County Sheriff Chief Deputy Jake Schultz, attached to Defendant's Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow]. Mr. Belnap then instructed Washington County Sheriff Chief Deputy Jake Schultz to interview Ms. Price and she provided further information about this alleged false testimony. Specifically, Ms. Price stated that "Lamont told her that (Elissa Wall's*) medical records had all been created in one day, to make it look like she had seen caretaker on several different occasions." [Id.].

This matter will obviously be admissible at trial as it relates directly to (Elissa Wall's*) Credibility, or lack thereof.

Indeed, Arizona's rules of discovery are quite broad and allow the parties to pursue any matters that might lead to admissible evidence. "It is not a basis for objection 'that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead the the discovery of admissible evidence. American Family Medical Insurance Company v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507,__, pp 12,217 P.3d 1212, 1217 PP 12 (App. 2009) [quoting Ariz. R. Civ. P.26(b)(1)(A)]. Moreover, the Arizona Supreme Court has made it quite clear that, in criminal cases:

"We believe that a trial court should exercise its discretion in favor of seeing that the accused is furnished with every fact necessary to prepare the best possible defense. The modern trend (in**) discovery proceedings is to have the winner determined by the facts, rather than by which side is the most ingenious in 'playing the game.' "

State v. Ford, 108 Ariz.404,409,499P.2d699,704(1972).

The state correctly notes that it "suggested to defense counsel" that defense counsel move for Mr. Barlow's deposition.

[State's Response, p. 3]. The State suggested this due to the fact that defense counsel had been unable to schedule Mr.

Barlow's interview, despite repeated attempts. [see attached email correspondence]. Accordingly, the defendant has filed the present motion.

The defendant concedes that Mr. Barlow was, in fact, interviewed as to all matters known at that time. The new interview or deposition of Mr. Lamont Barlow will center on the recent report by Ms. Shannon Price to law enforcement about (Elissa Wall's*) false testimony. These matters will obviously be admissible at trial and the rules of discovery clearly contemplate that these matters will be explored through pretrial discovery and interviews.

In his opposition to the motion to depose Lamont Barlow, Mr. Hoole now attempts to re-write history and presents a new version of facts that directly contradicts Ms. Price's statements. However, the defendant is not obliged ot accept teh new version of events that Mr. Barlow, after consultation with Mr. Hoole, now presents. Nor is the defendant obliged to accept the numerous "conditions" that Mr. Hoole is attempting to place on the interview or deposition of Lamont Barlow. It must be remembered that the Mr. Hoole represents not only complaining witness (Elissa Wall*), but also her husband Lamont Barlow, and also claims to have some type of privileged attorney-client relationship with Ms. Shannon Price's employer, the diversity foundation, whom Mr. Hoole claims is some sort of "client representative."1 Mr. Hoole now has a statement from an employee of a "client representative," Ms. Shannon Price, that indicates that the client he represents, complaining witness (Elissa Wall) committed perjury, and Ms. Shannon Price's comments now also directly contradict the statements of Mr. Lamont Barlow, yet another client of Mr. Hoole's. Given all of these obvious conflicts, Mr. Hoole's desire to limit the inquiry is understandable, but not acceptable.

Indeed, it is obvious that there are issues of fact that will have to be explored and will have to be resolved, ultimately, by the jury concerning the problems with (Elissa Wall's*) credibility. Moreover, the defendant is not willing to accept the assertions by the state and counsel for Mr. Barlow that the allegations of (Elissa Wall's*) perjury are limited to simply medical matters. Ms. Shannon Price's report to Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap was not limited. As noted above, "she told him that (Elissa Wall*) had lied during her testimony at the Warren Jeffs Trial." Mr. Belnap then instructed Chief Deputy Schultz to interview Ms. Price, and this is where some of the statements were made about fabricated medical records. The defendant is entitled to fully explore all of these matters, and to further explore the issues of whether there have been any attempts to influence the testimony of any witness, including but not limited to, conversations with third parties.

In addition, the somewhat far-fetched versions of events that Lamont Barlow now presents with Mr. Hoole's help will, itself, be a factual matter for the jury to resolve. Mr. Barlow now claims that it was Mr. Jeffs' attorney in the Utah case, Mr. Walter Bugden, and not (Elissa Wall*) that provided false information in the Utah trial about (Elissa Wall's*) medical condition, and Ms. Price "simply misunderstood" what Lamont barlow had told her. [Barlow's Opposition, p. 2]. The problem with Lamont Barlow's new story is that Ms. Price never said anything bout who may or may not have provided false information about (Elissa Wall's*) medical condition at trial, she stated initially to Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap that (Elissa Wall*) lied during her testimony. She later told the deputy that"Lamont told her that (Elissa Wall's) medical records had all been created in one day, to make it look like she had seen a caretaker on several different occasions." [Schultz Report]. This is obviously a quite separate, and also quite serious, matter. Again, while Mr. Hoole's desire to wish this matter away is understandable, the defendant is not required to accept this new version of events, and is not required to accept any limitations on his ability to fully explore this new matter.

Again, this matter will be brought out at trial as neither Mr. Barlow nor Mr. Hoole can prevent the defendant from question all of the witnesses involved about these matters during the trial. Obviously, this matter can be dealt with more efficiently at trial if, as the rules of criminal discovery clearly contemplate, the issues are narrowed and the factual matters are fully explored during the pretrial discovery. Accordingly, the defendant categorically rejects the proposed limitations Mr. Hoole is suggesting for Mr. Barlow's interview. In addition, the defendant specifically objects to Mr. Barlow's interview being conducted in St. George, Utah, at Mr. Belnap's offices. Indeed, the defendant's request to depose Mr. Barlow in Salt Lake City was specifically designed to accommodate him and his attorney. Ms. Shannon Price will interviewed in Salt Lake City where she lives and works, the prosecutor and defense counsel will be present in Salt Lake City for this interview, Mr. Hoole's offices are in Salt Lake city, and it was thought that Lamont Barlow did reside or currently resides in Salt Lake city although counsel is not certain. Mr. Hoole will presumably be present for Mr. Barlow's interview and he is certainly free to bring to the interview whatever transcripts he wishes.

This is av very serious matter when the executive director of Diversity, an entity that has worked diligently to harm Mr. Jeffs and other FLDS members, feels compelled to advise the previous prosecutor of Mr. Jeffs, Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap, that (Elissa Wall*), the same accuser in this case, had lied during the Warren Jeffs trial. She later provided additional information regarding statements from Lamont Barlow and creation of a false document relating to (Elissa Wall's*) medical records. Lamont Barlow, after consultation with his and (Elissa wall's*) counsel, provides an affidavit claiming she is mistaken. Defense counsel is entitled to explore this very serious matter and also to explore what, if any, communications any of these parties had with third parties discussion these issues. The witnesses' positions can be clarified during the interview process so that the matters can be presented properly at trial. It would not be fair or appropriate to deny the defendant the right to investigate such serious allegations made against the key witness and accuser of Mr. Jeffs and certainly should not be limited by artificial restrictions proposed by their lawyer who is highly motivated to limit the disclosure of information.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this court to order the deposition of Lamont Barlow to take place on March 16, 2010, at Parsons, Behle & Latimer, One Utah Center, 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, following the interview of Shannon Price. See proposed order attached to Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of March, 2010.

(1. Arizona, of course, does not recognize through rule, statute, or decisional law, any such privilege for a "client representative," outside the context of some sort of organization or entity. As noted in the defendant's pleadings concerning depositions Diversity Foundation's founder Dan Fischer and Mr. Sam Brower.)

*In the PDF found at Mohave County, there is no name appearing here. It is almost certainly that of Ms. Wall.

** In the PDF found at Mohave County, the word is actually "is," and I have substituted "in," believing it to be a typo.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Conn indicates strong inclination to Depose/Interview Lamont Barlow (UPDATED)

I'm guessing Judge Conn is saying; do it voluntarily or be subpoenaed. (UPDATE, the AP agrees with the Modern Pharisee's analysis).

"Counsel for the Defendant has filed a Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow in CR-2007-0743and requested oral argument as soon as possible. The State has filed a Response seeming to indicate that Mr. Barlow does not have any objection to granting another personal interview, presumably limited to the issue identified in defense counsel's motion. If he is willing to grant a personal interview, then he is not subject to being deposed pursuant to Rule 15.3 However, the Court can understand that counsel would like this issue resolved before arriving in Salt Lake City on March 16th, 2010. The Court will probably be inclined to order Mr. Barlow to submit to a deposition on or about the above date but only if he refuses to grant a personal interview and only to cover the issue identified in the defense motion.

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for hearing on the above motion on Friday, March 5, 2010. at 830 a.m.

The Court will not provide for the presence of the Defendant at the above hearing unless specifically requested by defense counsel at least 24 hours in advance.

Counsel for the Defendant having filed a Request for Omnibus Hearing in each case,

IT IS ORDERED setting these matters for Omnibus Hearing on Friday, March 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m."

The claim of "four layer hearsay" is not impressive to Judge Conn, apparently he thinks something smells wrong and that the defense is entitled to delve a bit.

This could get tricky as Lamont Barlow is married to Elissa Wall, but there are few good options for Lamont and Elissa if she did hide something. It will start a chain of events where she will be back under oath. I assume that Warren's investigators have found something, and they're going to start asking uncomfortable questions. My information is, that whatever various FLDS operatives/investigators/lawyers have found, they are certain of their footing.

Figure it this way, Elissa Wall's rape by proxy, as "directed" by Warren Jeffs begins to fall apart a bit, since she was regarded as "believable" by the jury. If it is shown she is not believable with regard to material facts, then we will potentially start all over again. An impeached Elissa Wall, opens doors.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Filing Day in Mohave County

It figured there would be a landslide of legal paperwork showing up on the Mohave County Site, and there is:

Motion for accelerated hearing. Piccarreta wants to expedite the hearing to depose Lamont Barlow.

Motion for Deposition of Witness. Lamont Barlow. This boils down to Matt Smith not wanting Lamont Deposed, and Michael Piccarreta wanting to depose him. It would later be Matt's argument that Piccarreta was exhausting and badgering Mr. Barlow after several "non deposition" interviews, if Lamont suddenly refused to answer a question and stopped cooperating. I can hardly blame Warren's counsel for wanting a deposition so that they can be done with this. That doesn't mean Lamont wouldn't have cooperated.

Request for Omnibus Hearing. Agreed hearing by phone to apparently expedite matters.

Matt Smith's Response to Motion. The "four levels of hearsay" response of Matt Smith. Matt says Lamont has never refused an interview and doesn't want to make it a deposition. I can only see this as potential foot dragging on Matt Smith's part. The force of deposition would make sure that everything happens on a timely basis.

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

Almost 200 Pages of filings by Warren's attorneys

I'm not even going to pretend I have my mind around it yet, but you can look.

I will too, and if I come up with something meaningful to say about it, before someone else does, I'll post on it later.

Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 1)

Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 2)

It is both amusing and distressing to see that the name of "Sarah Barlow" is still being redacted, as if she exists, or could exist.

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

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