Not Linking, but Linking

A while back, Brooke Adams pissed me off, and I've pretty much stayed that way. Yes, I can say "piss" since the King James Bible also says a variation of that word.

Brooke now runs "Wordpress" for her blog, and on rare occasions I take a trip to the "Dashboard" of my account with "The Plural Life" (now called "The Polygamy File") and observe.

Does Brooke know that as a pissed off enemy I am the primary driver of traffic to her blog? Either that, or the "feed" that shows on the dashboard is incomplete. Here's what it said when I checked today:

The Pharisee linked here saying, "Will Elissa Wall repeat herself and drop charges i ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "I won a book! From "Frienemy" Brooke at the Plural ..."
Toes linked here saying, "Neatly tucked away between her book giveaways, Bro ..."
MPB linked here saying, "Hm, I really wonder what strange and malicious tal ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "I figured it would end this way: "On February 5, 2 ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "Of course he is a neutral party, not wasting money ..."
Toes linked here saying, "From the Plural Life's Weekly Twitter Updates: •Th ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "After taking an overly long time to decide what sh ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "Brooke Adams is pointing to a ruling where it says ..."
The Pharisee linked here saying, "Brooke Adams has a new post up at her blog involvi ..."

And I don't link that often, actually. The Polygamy File is not on my blogroll because she "Pisseth me off," but I dutifully link to items she posts and news she uncovers after a brief period of petulance where I didn't do that, merely mentioning instead where the material came from but not linking.

If I drive that much traffic to her just in blog posts where I link out of courtesy, think of how much traffic I would drive to her if she WAS on my blogroll.

Another thing, the remaining linkers coming into Brooke's Blog are all in the category of "Pro." Since I recently had it admitted to me by someone in a position to know that the "Antis" are in fact doped, this is further proof that despite the lofty rankings of the "Anti" FLDS bloggers, no one reads them really, because they link in too, but they don't show up and many of these links on my dashboard at Brooke's, are quite old.

So, to those blogging on the Anti side, no one cares what you think, and no one is reading it either. Except idiots like me.

And another thing, who is basically "pissing in the wind here?".

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Extradtion of Warren Jeffs from Utah to Texas, by no means automatic

Will Elissa Wall repeat herself and drop charges in Utah (after a new trial)?

Brooke Adams points out this little gem:

77-30-19. Procedure if prosecution pending in this state.

"If a criminal prosecution has been instituted against such person under the laws of this state and is still pending the governor, in his discretion, may either surrender him on demand of the executive authority of another state or hold him until he has been tried and discharged or convicted and punished in this state."

If Warren compels a new trial in Utah (and I think he will), Elissa is faced with pulling out the same old saw she used in Arizona.

"I am dropping the charges so that more serious ones in Texas can be prosecuted."

Ultimately I think Warren's extradition will depend on how fast he gets his new trial, how quickly Elissa demurs and then whether or not the appeal of the raid evidence is heard in Texas.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Allen Steed wins a Little One.

Brooke Adams is pointing to a ruling where it says Allen Steed's counter claim is not filed outside a statute of limitations.

She's also saying there were more rulings today. Every little bit helps.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Natalie says she wouldn't talk to Brooke, (and then does)

Brooke Adams has a new post up at her blog involving documents and the UEP trust, and people getting subpoenas in Texas.

It's essentially a teaser, advertising as many of her recent posts have, the possibility, or the near certainty that Brooke knows more than she's saying, now.

This little drama may play out before I have the chance to throw in my "swag" (Scientific Wild Ass Guess), but there was this interesting little tidbit:

The Plural Life - "(Natalie) Malonis told me on Thursday she had to check with Wisan to see what she was 'at liberty' to say. No answer yet."

My guess here is that if Wisan hasn't fired her yet, it's because it's the only way to keep her mouth shut, or hope to. It is more likely that whoever Texas Blues Man is, she has terminated that "attorney-client" relationship, unless of course Wisan is the Blues.

That's not a guess, that's rhetorical by the way, and somewhat amusing to speculate.

So much for Nat's claim that she wouldn't talk to Brooke.

So did Blues get a subpoena?

"(Patrick) Crimmins told me Friday no one in his department received a subpoena.

Earlier in the week, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, gave me this statement when I asked about the dictations:

'Neither OAG nor law enforcement has made these documents available to the parties to the UEP Trust litigation.'

So who in Texas got the subpoenas?"

I wouldn't believe Patrick necessarily. He is a convincing liar, based on direct experience, and making the mistake of believing him. That's once Patrick.

But assuming it is true, as it is possible that no one got such a subpoena in Texas Government. Apparently from what Brooke is saying, someone did.

Jerry Strickland makes Patrick Crimmins more believable.

So is one of those someone's the Blues?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke continues to provide good coverage

Since I can't be there, and she is there, and she is providing the coverage,

it's really best to hear it from her. I think that unless Walther is instructing the jury that the prosecution is pushing the limits on procedures, apparently agreed to by both side, then Mark Stevens call for a mistrial is justified.

From other reports I was getting the impression that Stevens was essentially saying he was being maneuvered into looking like the bad guy before the jury, which is subtly prejudicial, and that of course, was what he was complaining about. I hope to have something to say on this later, but the trial is moving fast enough, that my observations may be dated.

It does look like (for now) that the variance in DNA odds that Raymond fathered the child in question would not be very large even if there was a far smaller "initial" chance used for his paternity. This is a point Ron took me to task on earlier. It appears for now, he is right. Sorry Ron, I just don't take your word for it until it's verified. I could have done the math myself ( a matter of time and lack of interruption ) or I could wait to see how it worked out in court. You seem to be right. That is, unless the defense brings in a witness later that credibly torques the odds in a different direction.

The next observation is that venue is a big deal and as of yet, I don't see how it is going to be proved that Raymond was on the ranch. I have no reason to believe Mark Stevens is an incompetent defense attorney and the prosecution is supposed to supply him with witness lists and evidence it is using against Raymond Jessop. If that's the case and the prosecution can prove Raymond was on the ranch, Mark Stevens should know that. He has argued that it can't be proved, and so far the state has done little to show that it can place him on the ranch. They seem to be centering their effort on proving he "resided" there.

If Raymond traveled in his line of gainful employment, and stayed away for extended periods of time, then it isn't going to matter a hill of beans if he resided there or not. He has to be shown to have been there at the time of conception of the child. Let us say there is a two week window for conception, and the prosecution can't place Jessop's bride or him there during that entire period of time, then even if it is proved he is the father (and he probably is) it can't be proved he committed a crime in Texas.

The venue question is important. A lot of noise has been made by FLDS haters over the last year and a half that it wasn't important. The state seems to think it is. Venue has been said not to matter because what happened was as crime in Texas. Since the state is trying to prove Raymond's location, it would seem venue is important, and if it can't be shown to have happened in Texas, or perhaps merely not to have happened in Eldorado, it should be game over.

I think the judge is biased, and the jury tilted and the playing field, not level, so it won't surprise me if a guilty verdict comes out of this jury. But, perhaps there is an honest soul among them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Latest Rozita Revelation started with this: Was she a NARC?

The latest Round of Rozita Revelations started with my friend "Toes," after one of our brain storming sessions. I updated a speculative post that was primarily written to tweak press interest which is typically pointed in other directions:

March 30, 2009 - "The owner of the MySpace page has made a convincing presentation that she is not a close friend of Rozita, but a passing acquaintance. For that reason I am at least for now, removing references to her home page and her name. What is odd is that this paints a portrait of a young woman trapped in the idea that she is still in High School, and hanging out with High School students in Colorado Springs, pretending to be one of them.

It has been suggested to me by a friend that this is what a 'NARC' does. It's a totally wild speculation, but could it be that Rozita was such a person, employed by law enforcement to befriend High School students, as if she was one herself?

Right now, I caution, that's just wild speculation, under the heading of "What if?' "

Trying to follow Rozita has always been very difficult. Her associations, aside from that claimed by former foster mother & GLBT rights advocate Mary Catharine Nelson, and a probable foster parent in Idaho have always been glancing at best. Rozita often claims strong ties by implications or actions with persons whose memory of her is fleeting. Either that or their memory of her is strong and they view her now as radioactive and lie about it.

The above quote is an edit from the original speculative post which was based on the fact that one of Rozita's two known "My Space" accounts was claiming to be moving, and the other was claiming to live in Ontario. As a now "put off" trial date approached, it seemed as if Rozita was saying she was leaving the country. The flurry of associations around Rozita led to a woman now no longer in Colorado Springs (or the west for that matter) that seemed to know Rozita well, based on what Rozita was saying about her. According to that woman, who I still believe, or at least want to believe, she barely remembers Rozita.

I believe her because of what she insisted was true about Rozita. That she was part of another group of High School students that hung out at the same bowling allies. She saw her, heard her name, and knew of her, but associated her with that "other High School" group. Why does one woman remember another woman she doesn't know in another group of High School students? The most credible reason is that the woman I mention that gave me this information is a lesbian. Rozita would seem to be one herself, and hung out with a group of lesbians in that time frame, in Colorado. Perhaps this unnamed person found Rozita attractive, at any rate, she remembered Rozita, but didn't really know her and claimed she was on the periphery of her activities.

This is what my tipster saw. The tipster has inside information that I have verified first hand. The tipster began to search the internet for terms like "Rozita" and "NARC" and found me. The tipster was concerned and increasingly agitated about the free pass Rozita was getting and claimed to know why.

Why?

Because "Tipper" alleged that Rozita was employed by Lt. Magdalena (Maggie) Santos of CSPD and her lesbian life partner who also works closely with Maggie at CSPD. Lesbians. Again.

I verified that the two individuals DO in fact work for CSPD. They are often mentioned together in CSPD and association literature. They own or recently owned a home together in in the Colorado Springs area and the other woman whom I've called "Beta" has been "outed" as a lesbian, by name. It makes sense to assume that she and Maggie are a "couple."

So on Saturday, I got an email from "Tipper."

"The interesting part about this is that during the interview of Becky Hoerth at Colorado Springs Police Department she stated she meet Rozita through friends Maggie Santos and **** ****(Beta) these two individuals are both Sargent's with CSPD who happens to be a Lesbian couple.. Rozita use to be there nanny! Very Interesting, right? For someone who claims to be LDS is surrounded by lesbians does not make sense. I was also told that Maggie Santos has a hand in the investigation with Terry Thurmston who is also a female. Does this not seem odd? Why would you not remove yourself from a case when you have a relationship with the individual involved? It's all shady to me but what do I know."

A subsequent interview with Maggie, which led off with me asking for "Rozita" after calling Maggie on her cell phone had Maggie immediately claiming that the relationship was 20 years old (Rozita was 14 and in Nashville TN). I discounted that as unlikely (frankly nearly impossible) and Maggie retrenched at 1995 being the date, after being confronted with the date of 1997. Maggie's recollections were alternately wrong, vague or specific based on what served her best. For that reason I do not believe Maggie. She has changed her story and Tipper has not. Maggie would not clarify and promised to swear out a criminal complaint if I contacted her again. All of this started in very friendly fashion but in less than 12 hours descended into threats and claims that I was "blackmailing" her. I would not publish her name until after she refused to clarify and after she cut off communication and after her story was called into question. I had kept her name out of the story because it would be wrong to name her if she just had a passing relationship with Rozita once. It now seems it was not a passing relationship. Back to Tipper, paraphrased and redacted ever so slightly so as to hide Tipper's identity:

"Page 1/50 of the discovery under Becky Hoerth Statement says:

'Ms. Hoerth stated she met Rozita in 1997 through a mutual friend at the Colorado Springs YMCA. She stated at the time Rozita was doing day care for Maggie Santos and **** ****(Beta). She stated the two of them have been friends and that Rozita has helped her out when ever she needs it. She stated she had just recently moved back from Wisconsin and due to financial reasons is staying with Rozita."

This cannot be disputed as it is in the discovery."

I stress that this document simply exists, or does not. "Beta" and Maggie are close enough to the situation to verify this, but Maggie will not. CSPD or El Paso/Douglas County officials can verify it too. I'm either wrong, or right about the existence of this statement, which is worded almost exactly as I have presented it above. There is even a page reference. Back to Tipper:

"Some of (Maggie's) statements to you are incorrect also; such as (Rozita) worked for her longer. (It was hoped that) if either one of them spoke with you that they would be honest this. My concern (is that Maggie) is hiding something. One of the problems is it's affecting the case against Rozita (for Rozita's benefit) since Maggie didn't recuse herself 3yrs ago. The only reason she pulled out was because Becky outed her and Beta in her statement so she was forced to pull out."

Again, this is ever so slightly redacted and paraphrased for the purposes of concealing Tipper's identity.

Since nothing Tipper has said to me has been contradicted by the facts and Maggie has already owned up to getting one critical detail wrong, I'm going with Tipper for now. Tipper has not had to retract one bit of the story so far. Much of it has been independently verified.

So when did Rozita start getting into trouble with the law on phony tips?

"ABC News - Colorado Springs police said Rozita Swinton had made calls in February (2008) in which she pretended to be a girl locked in a basement, claiming abuse and calling authorities for help. Swinton has a record for making similar calls in 2005."

2005? That fits with "3 years ago" when it is said that Maggie was forced out of the case, forced to recuse, as opposed to doing so voluntarily. If this is the case it would call entirely into question everything that Maggie said, such as details like not knowing what part of the south Rozita came from (Tennessee) or unverifiable (at this time) details like exactly when and how long Rozita worked for Maggie, or that Maggie and Beta both employed Rozita together.

So how do we speculate at this point?

Was Rozita at one time, "locked in" Maggie's basement? This is a fair question to ask. Unlikely, but nonetheless fair. As I have said to Maggie and many others, lies tend to contain elements of the truth. I would guess from what Rozita said, she'd been locked up somewhere once, by somebody and it really bothered her. Not exactly a surprise.

Was Ms. Swinton's relationship with either Beta or Maggie ever sexual? If a male police officer had a long ongoing relationship with a female suspect in and out of trouble with the law that required rescuing, it had better be a relative, or the department will eventually ask "are you doing her?"

Was Ms. Swinton a snitch? A confidential informant? A "Narc?" Stories from one of my other sources (now unnamed) says she may well have been. At the time she was in Colorado, she was in her 20's and apparently was viewed as another High School student and "hung out" with them.

Was Ms. Swinton a convenient warrant factory? Can't get into some residence? Need help? Maggie has a nanny that can fake an abused kid's voice and you're in the door, no problem! Rozita at 33 convincingly passed herself off as 15. To several people.

These last two speculations gains more weight when viewed with how quickly CSPD was said initially, to have ID'd her. Texas calls. There was a lot of back channel chatter off the record as well. We were asked to believe that they said "Oh yeah, those are Rozita's numbers." If most lies do indeed contain an element of truth, what if CSPD really knew who Rozita was by the phone numbers she used? Texas calls. "No problem, we know that gal."

Some other questions that need answering are among others, is there some sort of accessible database on which Rozita and her number were already published. We know that since 9/11 there has been an effort to coordinate and consolidate information between various law enforcement agencies. Would it be possible for the FBI in Texas for instance to type in Rozita's number and it comes back with "PAID SNITCH, ROZITA SWINTON - CSPD?"

Would you type in the number and it says "NUMBER IN CASE IN COLORADO SPRINGS, PERP ROZITA SWINTON?" This was the goal post 9/11. Is that possible in this case and if so, was it done?

More "out there" but deserving of consideration as well is the idea that someone was calling around looking for a decent actress to play a part. Does this lead to Maggie and "Beta's" warrant machine Rozita? Does someone need to be checking into cases investigated by Maggie and her department for the veracity of the information or informants used in gaining warrants in Colorado Springs?

I've fed all this information to the press and their reaction? Meh. As a matter of fact, I mentioned on Brooke Adams blog at the SLTrib that there was a relationship between Maggie and Rozita. Her reaction? She didn't publish it. I didn't link, as I recall. I did not characterize the relationship with anything other than that which Maggie has willingly confirmed to me personally. Brooke comes on today, makes a comment herself, but won't publish that cold hard simple fact.

Why?

PS: As of this post I am making it official. If you post at this blog, you're going to have to make sense. Ranting this and ranting that and blindly ignoring evidence will only get you published here if it is a great example of how idiotic you are. Other than that, you're going to get rejected. Jam's last post is not published, but not because it was stupid. It was not published for reasons Jam knows.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Blog Changes, Baby, Link Back.

As of this weekend, probably last week actually, the "Modern Pharisee" became the biggest "FLDS Centric" site on the internet. Worldwide. By a long shot.

As always (depending on when you read this) that could and almost certainly will change. As of THIS MOMENT though this site ranks 87,262nd in the United States. No other blog with highly FLDS oriented content, no other site in fact, ranks that high through Alexa. None in fact, rank even in the top 100,000 in this country.

I am therefore putting several blogs and sites on notice. I link to you, I watch my stats. I know you get a lot of traffic as a direct result of my blogroll linking to your site. Link Back, or "Baby, step back."

On a case by case basis, I will be eliminating the link to certain sites, starting with "the Plural Life." If I cite them for any reason, solely based on the fuzzy feeling I may have, I will or will not include a hyperlink. If I do not include a hyperlink, I will cite the source in a more traditional literary way, as a footnote or as a detailed description of where the article might be found.

The reason behind this? This morning I made a comment on "the Plural Life" which is Brooke Adams Salt Lake City Tribune sponsored blog. Brooke has stated she would moderate comments, then said it wouldn't work for her, and then this morning the comment I made was flagged as "awaiting moderation." Hmmm, I think, moderation is "Back on." Then several other posters commented and mine is still pending. One of two things is then true.

I have had my registered identity at that site flagged for moderation.

I used a "keyword" that automatically flagged the comment for moderation, (kinda like farting in church.) If so, the keyword was probably "Nazi" as I said the following: "The trip to the Nazi side of the street is only a short walk and most of us believe we are too far from that reality to worry about it. We have never been far from it, ever, in this country’s history."

If the latter is true, it's excusable and I get it, totally. Really. But it did get me to thinking and once the pink color of my neck died down I still think this is best.

Brooke has an uncomfortable relationship with FLDS supporters. She talks to them, she has talked to me though I will not say what about. She has in fact solicited such conversations and we have had more than one over the phone. I probably did more to initiate contact, but it's been a two way street, or has been.

Combining the fact that I regard the following from her blog regarding Brooks Long to be potential plagiarism of the blog "Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart" who is a good friend and a thorough researcher, there are a number of similar concerns and I simply can't in good conscience promote someone who links to blind FLDS haters, and won't link to the best of the blogs out there on the FLDS supporting side. Here's the possibly plagiarized remark/research:

"The Schleicher County Medical Facility has 14 beds, according to a December 2007 report by the American Hospital Association.

That year, there were 766 visits to the emergency room. That is less
than 3 patients a day."

Toes first mentioned that. It deserved a cite. Toes offered that research to me, as always I said to her "you found it, you blog it and you get the credit." It would have been fun to look like an omniscient genius but credit should go where credit belongs, and I'm disappointed that Brooke can't seem to do that.

Continuing to use Brooke as the "Bad Example," here is her blogroll:

* Bountiful Elementary-Secondary School (never been there)
* Coram Non Judice (biased FLDS hater)
* Holding Out Help (even more wildly biased state subsidized FLDS hatred)
* Introspection of Plural Wife (Daddy Like)
* Just Ducky (FLDS Supportive, but "Ducky" has had a stroke and doesn't blog)
* Merry Wives (Daddy Like)
* Share The Light (Daddy occasionally cites)
* Truth Will Prevail (Daddy Cites, is quoted in, is linked to by, and Daddy regularly mentions)

In that the "Modern Pharisee" is bigger than each of them, and probably all the sites other than "Truth" combined and hourly refers traffic to several of them, "the Plural Life" included, they benefit from the association. Only "Introspection" links to me. "Truth" is not a blog, and isn't on my blogroll, but they cite me, I cite them.

So, as time goes by, depending on how I feel and on how I'm treated by other sites, I'll be pruning my blogroll. Last year for instance I trimmed internet behemoth "Little Green Footballs" from my blogroll, and I've been getting bigger ever since. It's content people, not backscratching but if I scratch your back, show some courtesy. I know I do.

The Modern Pharisee's blogroll will continue to be dominated by what I think is interesting and include some sites that I frequently question, and some that don't choose to link back. It's my blog after all. But if you don't link back because you think this site is somehow toxic, and I perceive that (ahem), I'll cut you off.

Love you all! Ta ta for now.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooks "Pinocchio" Long and the Ever Evolving Texas Ribs story.

Brooke Adams has just gotten around to expanding on Lt. Long's ever lengthening nose problem, when it comes to "Sarah's" broken ribs.

Keep in mind that during this testimony in the middle of last month, it was finally established that Texas no longer believes that there was a Sarah. It became evident that they didn't every really believe in "Sarah" during that hearing before Walther either.

"During the hearing we learned that Texas Ranger Brooks Long told Warren Jeffs’ attorneys in December a sheriff’s deputy checked with the Schleicher County Medical Facility to see if a 'Sarah Jessop Barlow' had been treated there for broken ribs.

Then, during the hearing before Judge Barbara Walther, Long said he misspoke. It was actually the prosecutor’s office who checked for the medical records.

In any event, no records were found, Long said.

During the hearing, an investigator for defense attorney Gerald Goldstein testified that he checked with the medical facility and learned no one from law enforcement ever checked to see if a young woman had been treated there for broken ribs.

The facility’s medical records director provided an affidavit, given to the judge, to back her statement. The facility also reviewed records back to 2006 and found no such case.

So what to make of Long’s testimony? The state did not offer any explanation or clarification.

Long did said he did not consider the lack of records a red flag about the call’s veracity or important enough to mention to Walther. He was able to easily dismiss it because, he said, Doran suggested the FLDS likely used a fake name and age for the girl."

Long's Pinocchio style here is to heap lie upon lie. Now it wasn't him who checked, it was an um, deputy, uh yeah, that's the ticket. No wait, it was, um the prosecutors office, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! And he has the deed to the London Bridge too, I'll bet.

"The Schleicher County Medical Facility has 14 beds, according to a December 2007 report by the American Hospital Association.

That year, there were 766 visits to the emergency room. That is less
than 3 patients a day."

Brooke goes on to enhance on a fact discovered by Sore Toes and a Bleeding Heart. There were 766 visits to the Emergency Room at the Medical Center. A young teen with broken ribs in a small community would have stood out like a young teen from a small community with broken ribs.

For those of you who live your lives in the big city, let me emphasize this to you. They know EVERYONE in small towns at the hospital. You can't LIE about who you are. You might pull it off if you were from "out of town," but that underlines the event and makes it even more memorable. Brooke Adams, to her credit, touches on this lightly. It deserves though, the technique of the stomping foot. This is a virtually impossible thing to ask us to believe. They would have known at the medical center if she was "From Here (Eldorado)," "From There (YFZ)," or from out of town. I don't care how she identified herself.

The point is that if "Sarah" from YFZ goes into the less than three visit a day tiny Schleicher County Medical Center and anyone thinks she goes unnoticed, truly, they either don't know small towns, or they're stupid. The Liar telling you this might have happened is an audacious liar. It's a BIG LIE (Große Lüge) on the order of the Big Lie told by the Nazis. For Doran and Long to say they conferred and thought she might be lying about name and age is to tell you they think you'll fall for it. In small town America, this is a Transparent, Obvious, Audacious, BIG LIE. No one would tell a whopper THAT BIG, right? Not publically.

This also tells us that we're missing something. All summer long, "Toes" and I both wasted time on irrelevant details, as did the rest of the media, spent time on some relevant details but missed the audacity of Doran, Long, et al. They're just plain lying and it's reasonable to expect that they're nearly pathological about it (Brooks appears to be) and it's a virtual certainty they've told other obvious whoppers, not just this one. Every small detail of the case needs to be called into question and checked. I should have thought of this myself, right away, but in the fog of war and the unfamiliarity with the literal landscape of Schleicher county, I missed it. Just like almost everyone did. Warren's attorneys didn't.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The State of Utah Replies to Warren Jeffs Supreme Court Appeal (UPDATED)

Parallels to the Parlay Dutson case would seem not to apply, as Warren's attorney's consented to the seating of a new juror. In Parlay's case, the compromised juror was allowed to complete deliberations.

I find this language to be the most interesting:

The Plural Life - "The state has finally filed a response to Warren Jeffs’ Utah Supreme Court appeal. It will be months before we know whether the court will hear the case.

The state’s 84-page brief makes these points. Point 13 is interesting because of what happened yesterday in the case of Parley Dutson.

1. Elissa Wall expressed lack of consent to sexual contact with Allen Steed when she 'repeatedly and tearfully begged [Warren Jeffs] and Rulon, in Jeffs' presence, not to make her marry at age 14 or marry her first cousin.

2. Elissa expressed lack of consent when she later told Jeffs Steed was touching her in ways that made her uncomfortable and that she wanted to be released from the marriage.

3. Because of her age, she could not legally consent to sexual relations.

4. Jeffs held a position of 'near-absolute authority over Elissa.'

5. Together, those elements made Jeffs an accomplice to her subsequent rape.

'In other words, while Jeffs himself may not have had non-consensual sex with Elissa, and while Jeffs may not have specifically intended that Allen forcibly rape her, everything Jeffs did ensured that Allen would have non-consensual sex with Elissa.'

'The statute requires only that Jeffs intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided Allen to have non-consensual sex with Elissa.' "

The reply excludes the idea that Warren "intentionally or knowingly" "requested, commanded, encouraged or intentionally aided Allen to have non-consensual sex with Elissa." What's left is "recklessly."

Why?

If Allen did not have "non consensual sex" with Elissa, then if Warren is doubted to have "intention" or have "encouraged" or "requested" or "commanded" or knowingly done any of the preceding, then he can only have "recklessly" encouraged it. The case hangs on the idea that Warren created an environment for rape, and then the rape happened. That alone makes my skin crawl as a concept, as it makes us play God, knowing men's hearts, but be that as it may, it's the only thing left.

Suppose that Allen is acquitted. There was no lack of consent. The majority of the statute does not apply and we are left with only the "reckless" part. Granted it could still be said that Warren was "reckless." I think he probably knows that legally, he would be considered as "reckless" now, but did he really know then? It would be as if they saw Warren driving drunk, and convicted him of murder, when no one was even injured. I understand the principle, he basicly is said to have pointed a gun into the dark and fired off blind shots, convinced he was doing no harm, and I get that, really, I do.

But it's not murder unless he connects. It's something else.

(UPDATE) It would be my thought that it can be no crime if Allen is not convicted for these reasons. What Warren is expressing in speech and thought is protected speech. He CAN believe that it is proper for a young lady to marry at 14. That is his right. He MAY express that belief as part of both free speech rights, and his right of religious freedom.

Does Utah and this country say that Warren may NOT believe as he clearly believes? He may not express that belief? Ultimately if Allen is not convicted and Warren's conviction is upheld, then it's probable that this law will wholly or partially be set aside on constitutional grounds.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke Adams "outs" her own bias.

Ever wonder what reporters really think of the FLDS/YFZ story? Brooke Adams of the Salt Lake Tribune, slips up (?) and tells us.

The Plural Life - "Those early official claims — which included unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse of boys and broken bones due to abuse, which DFPS acknowledged yesterday were unfounded — were unfortunate since they clouded the real discovery that the sect had spiritually married girls as young as 12 to older men."

Even though no trial has been held, and they have not been convicted. It's obvious isn't it? There is no hint of objectivity on Ms. Adams part. "The REAL discovery" (not the alleged discovery) is that older men were married to girls as young as 12 even though it couldn't have been known without real abuse of power. All the while every reporter is careful to hedge their bets acting as if they don't know Rozita was the caller, and without saying as I do, that "there is no Sarah, you morons."

I'm not disputing that FLDS men may be actually doing a good portion of what is alleged. Not in the slightest. I do think that there remains a strong, strong possibility that the youngest of the girls was in a "betrothal." The confusion there for the rest of society is that they don't understand that Biblical Betrothal was in essence, marriage. Marriage without sex, and a state that required divorce to sunder. Merrianne Jessop may well be in such an arrangement with Warren Jeffs.

To Brooke the ends justify the means. On the scale of heinous acts that humanity can commit, even more heinous it would seem than the genocide carried out by the various state and federal government agencies arrayed against the FLDS is "child abuse" as defined by those agencies.

Ms. Adams. The REAL story is the flagrant disregard for OUR rights, the rights of the FLDS, your rights Ms. Adams and my rights, that the state exhibited when invading YFZ. Such informal precedents are dangerously real. They redefine words in our minds. "Justified" takes on new meaning. "Probable cause" deteriorates into any trumped up reason to search a home or business that results in a "find."

The real story in fact is how a woman, so TOWERINGLY stupid as Rozita Swinton, perpetrated a hoax on Texas so that they went on her story alone into YFZ with guns drawn. Does Ms. Adams think, for real, that the REAL discovery is that older men have sex with young girls? Does she HONESTLY think SHE JUST DISCOVERED this?

I have followed the Story of Rozita for almost a year now in a fashion that can only be described as obsessive by those watching me. The more I learn about her, the more I am amazed ANYONE believed her. She can't SPELL. She is a narcissistic sociopath (IMHO). She lies CONSTANTLY. She thinks she's part of some gigantic cause. Those that she thinks are her friends, her longtime associations, often don't even know who she is as she stalks them under multiple internet identities. She has pretended to be a HIGH SCHOOL student in Colorado Springs and pulled it off apparently, with those students, long after she graduated. Her opportunistic literary whore of a foster parent, Mary Catharine Nelson tried to hawk her miserable vanity press books by pointing to the good fortune that had her mention Rozita's name twice in both books. I READ one of them and found that Rozita was regularly cut OUT of the frame of the "Rev." Nelson's illustrations, because she was so UNIMPORTANT.

Yet she was believed. She now wanders around the country, going to Hospitals as a patient, visiting apparent real friends in Idaho, blogging incomprehensibly, sometimes about my "obsession" with her (no, it's an obsession with injustice, she's just there) and not having the good sense to realize that the "Hugh McBryde" who has been pursuing her, that she blogs about, is the same "Hugh McBryde" contacting her on one of her social networking accounts.

After a year of using my limited tools to find things out about Rozita, in the hope of showing how the raid was bogus, it's proven. I haven't found someone that anyone could believe. To perpetrate the Hoax, Rozita would have to have been someone else, someone she demonstrably, is not. Unless it is shown that she has real "other personalities," some of which are actually intelligent, no one can convince me that this dim Medusa has any power beyond the ability reveal people's minds, are already stone.

That's the real story. The real story is that our rights are trampled while Brooke, and virtually every member of the press deliberately ignores the fact that if you KNEW Rozita, you'd know Texas is lying. God forbid that they tell that story. The story of Texas believing what they want to believe and tossing away the rights of every man, woman and child in this country.

For most of the last 9 months, I have uncovered fact after fact after fact. I have dutifully reported on them. I have occasionally been wrong. I have put the facts in front of the people who cover them time after time. I have sometimes offered the story to reporters prior to publishing it myself. I have let others take credit for my own research, some of which those following the story have read under other people's bylines.

The REAL STORY is not that Older Men took younger girls, that does not threaten us all. What threatens us all is that an unbelievable woman was used to trump up charges and trample rights. That harms us all. The next story is that the press, entrusted with the freedoms that preserve all other freedoms, won't report that story, instead, leering and trying to catch a glimpse of old men and young girls to sell newspapers that are as bankrupt as their principles.

More →

Sphere: Related Content