Wednesday, March 31, 2010


Happy Birthday.
To me.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Will there ever be a trial? Judge G. Rand Beacham wanders away from the problem.

After taking an overly long time to decide what should be a simple matter, the Judge in the Allen Glade Steed (could be a rape) case, punts. Or maybe it's a "mulligan." In addition, the Judge seems to put the game into continuous overtime, as he specifies no time limit.

I have decided to "Fisk" the order:
"Having studied the memoranda supporting and opposing Defendant's 'Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations,' the Court finds it necessary to require the parties to submit supplemental memoranda to clarify the facts before the Court for the following reasons:

1. Defendant's original memorandum contains fact statements in 23 paragraphs and subparagraphs, many of which contain multiple sentences. Many of those statements are made without reference to any evidentiary source."
I'm not sure entirely what Judge Beacham wants of Allen, though perhaps someone could enlighten me. How is it that you deny an event with evidence that the accuser can only give a "range" of times as candidates for the date the offense took place?

I passed through that section of southwestern Utah on multiple occasions during that rough time frame. On some days I have an ironclad evidentiary alibi. I can prove from California DMV records that I wasn't in Utah on certain days, but on other days, I can't. I would expect the innocent to be vague on when it was that they didn't do something.
2. "Plaintiff's opposing memorandum contains statements of fact in five paragraphs and Attachment A, for which some sources are cited but not provided to the Court. For example, Plaintiff refers repeatedly to a trial transcript as '9/19 Tr/.,' followed by numbers, but the transcript pages have not been provided to the Court. In addition, Attachment A contains references to unexplained 'facts,' such as 'the incident at the park' which is not otherwise explained."
Frankly, I have seen a lot of what appears to be "classroom" cheating in these cases, such as getting to look at someone else's paper. It would seem to me that Elissa wants Allen to be specific, before she is. Understandably, if I were Allen, the accused, I'd want to see specific dates and times before I started trying to prove I wasn't in town every day of the week, except for Thursday, and then suddenly, Elissa has a "recollection" that the "crime" occurred on May 10th, 2001. She's the accuser, let her pony up with some specifics.
3. "Both parties have also referred to additional facts within their legal arguments, some of which are not supported by any evidentiary source before the Court.

Although the Court has attempted to analyze the statue of limitations issue on the basis of the facts as they have been presented, the Court's analysis has been hampered by insufficient clarity in the facts as presented. For example, the memoranda disagree as to when the alleged rape took place, a fact critical to the statute of limitations issue."
"Both parties" really means "one party." That one party being Elissa Wall/the Prosecution (or "it"). Essentially Ms. Wall cannot remember exactly what happened, and not surprisingly, Mr. Steed cannot remember specifics to counter such a vague recollection on her part. If Elissa cannot remember with clarity, in essence, Judge Beacham has enough to rule already. Namely, enough to rule that the Statute has expired, otherwise he'd rule that her vague set of dates falls within the statute and that her vague recollections surrounding the rape represent a "preponderance of evidence," sufficient to bring charges, but not sufficient to determine guilt. At trial, the standard would be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Judge Beacham has stated clearly that as yet, Ms. Wall's accusation, is not believable.

As to Allen? Like I said, when you don't know what you're being accused of, you can't exactly deny it. He's not believable either, but for entirely different reasons. He's grasping at air. Nail something down and he might be a witness as unassailable as the rock of Gibraltar.

I cannot emphasize enough that Judge Beacham is trying to disguise the fact that Elissa Wall hasn't made a case that she was raped and reported that rape in a timely way, based only on "preponderance" standards. He has also made it clear that Allen has raised a credible point as to the time frame already.
"Defendant asserts that 'Mr. Steed is accused of only one count of rape which is alleged to have been committed more than 4 years before the legislative extension took effect on May 2, 2005.' [Defendant's Memorandum, p. 10, emphasis in the original.] Plaintiff states that it intends to proceed on 'the first time Mr. Steed had sexual intercourse with Elissa Wall' and asserts that 'the first act of sexual intercourse occurred before May 12, 2001 but no earlier than May 4, 2001.'* [Plaintiff's memorandum, p.2.]

* (The Information alleges that the crime was committed "between April 14, 2001 and September 30, 2004.)
I can't be sure what is being said here, other than one set of facts say the "crime" may have occurred in April 2001, as early as the 14th, and another range of dates says it may have occurred between May 2nd, 2001 and May 12th, 2001. The legislative extension on reporting, passed on May 2nd 2005. If I understand this right, a "rape" date of April 14th, 2001-May 1st, 2001 (remember there is only one count) puts the "crime" outside the reporting dates for the "extended" statute. Crimes occurring 4 years prior to the "extension" are taken in by the "extension." Crimes more than 4 years prior, are not.
"The court is required to determine by a preponderance of evidence whether this prosecution is barred. Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-306. Consequently, the Court must be able to weigh the evidence, and that requires greater clarity than what has been provided to this point in time.**

Ideally the parties would present a stipulated set of facts , set forth in chronological order. If that is not possible in this case, the Court will require that each party submit his/its comprehensive statement of facts, in chronological order and with citations to evidentiary sources."

** (I suspect that one reason for this is the parties' familiarity with the history of and the testimony given in State v. Jeffs, of which this Court has virtually no knowledge.)
And so the Judge begs off and says "I don't know your prior case and you haven't made one here, go back and make one." Elissa.

Again, I would observe that the Judge is stating between the lines that Ms. Wall and the prosecution have NOT made a "preponderance" presentation that convinces him a crime took place within the reporting framework of the statute. So they get a second chance to do so. A second chance with no due date.

What if Allen holds off and makes no "comprehensive" statement of facts? Will Elissa ever do so? What if she holds off? What the Judge is doing seems to be casting this case into the void, that is, unless the trial proceeds now because the Defendant's motion is "no longer under advisement."

If one or the other party speedily files a chronology and then goes back to the court to compel a ruling, will the Judge rule on one set of facts, absent the other? Here is the order:

"Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED:

A. Each party shall submit a supplemental memorandum containing only his/its comprehensive statement of facts related to the statute of limitations issue, in chronological order and with citations to evidentiary sources.

B. Each party shall also submit documentation of the evidentiary source cited for each statement of fact.

C. When each party has submitted the required statement of facts and documentation, one of them shall file a request to submit for decision.

D. Defendant's Motion will no longer be under advisement until the Court receives the supplemental memoranda, documentation and request to submit in compliance with this order.

DATED this 26 day of March, 2010.

No doubt some will crow that Allen's motion has been "thrown out." What I see is that unless a trial date is now set, this is a big and infinite stall. Personally, if I were Allen, I wouldn't file my set of facts, until I knew Elissa had filed hers. I'd be afraid she'd look over my shoulder, and cheat off my paper.

Sadly, it would seem that we're now playing a game of who goes first again, with Warren Jeffs' trial now put off for 7 months.

Or maybe something will happen with the Lamont Barlow interview that sabotages everything, in Warren's favor. Ruling in Allen's favor right now, might just crack the jail cell door open for Mr. Jeffs.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 29, 2010

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

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Marty Braemer? He's working for a church.

You want to know how abusers and adulterers stay in the pulpit? They have enablers. Don't think they don't know.
Check the website of Temple Baptist/Temple Christian School in Titusville FL.
"We are excited about announcing the first Temple Christmas Classic Golf Tournament! For the golf tournament to be a success, we need YOU! If you would like to golf in it…this is YOUR invitation. If you cannot golf but would like to sponsor a golfer or give a donation to the Gideon 300 Scholarship Fund…this is YOUR opportunity.

Last year 200 Christian schools closed their doors. TCS is the ONLY Christian high school in the Titusville area. Help us keep TCS on solid financial footing.

Golfers are asked to try and raise $900 each in sponsorship. We have letters that you can give to friends and family members to help you do this. Registration fee is just $35.00 and it includes golf, cart, lunch, beverages, and MORE! Even if you cannot golf, you can help someone at $50.00 for one hole or $5.00 for each hole or WHATEVER amount you can afford. We need your commitment now. Space is limited. Don’t miss this opportunity to be a part of a special Christmas blessing.

To get involved, call Temple Baptist Church at 269-1133 and ask for Marty Braemer. Information is also available in the school office."
Apparently, they're putting a man with alleged difficulties when it comes to keeping his hand out of the till, in charge of collecting "sponsorships" for a Golf Tournament. For a school.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put a man who had problems with boinking teachers back in the Christian School environment he once plundered, right in front of the students. I wouldn't let him do anything with collecting money in connection with athletic endeavors as well.

But I guess if you're connected, you fall in fertilizer and come out with a handful of Roses, working for the church again.

Me? I get thrown out of my church for believing that a form of marriage practiced throughout the scriptures, was never put into sunset.

It's a wacky world, isn't it?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sentences Harsh - YA THINK?

We go much closer to home to see the latest sentencing silliness as the San Angelo Standard - Times asks "Were these sentences too harsh?"
"On Thursday, 32-year-old Daniel Ozuna was sentenced to life in prison by 391st District Court Judge Tom Gossett for indecency with a 7-year-old child by sexual contact. Ozuna already was serving a 5-year sentence for a similar crime.

Lesser sentences can come from situations when there is not a large age gap, such as between a 19-year-old and a 15-year-old person, Morris said.

Morris also said that if the parties consented, the sentence may be more lenient, even though consent is no defense for the guilt-innocence phase of the trial.

'It’s not a defense, but it’s certainly something (jurors) can consider in punishment,' (Gerry) Morris said."
And what is this business about "consent?" While we have seen stories written over the last two years about "what the child wants" from the "ad litem" perspective and what children cannot consent to, suddenly, it seems we have two "consents" now. The consent that a child cannot give, on which the whole "sexual assault of a CHILD" is based, and then the fact that, "oh, yeah, they gave their consent," meaning they gave every indication in language and body that they granted consent, except, they weren't old enough for those words to mean anything.

What incredible hypocrisy. Are we to believe now that chilren actually possess a "consent" that should be considered and a lawyer can now argue that the kid "loved it" and that is a reason to go easy on the perpetrator? First we base the law on the idea that a "child" is a person below a certain age, and that a "child" cannot give "consent."

How about the fact that Mr. Ozuna was already serving a 5 year sentence for a similar crime? Similar in my mind means another child in the single digit age category for which Mr. Ozuna was sentenced to only FIVE YEARS.

And now the point your Modern Pharisee has been making for two years about polygamy and "sexual assault" of "children:"
"The penalty becomes a first-degree felony if the defendant is legally prohibited from marrying, purporting to marry or living with someone under the appearance of being married.

A first-degree felony is punishable with five to 99 years or life in prison and the fine of up to $10,000."
Why then was Lauren Cosgrove not charged and sentenced as a 1st degree felon? Lauren was "legally prohibited from marrying" her 13 year old victim, not because Texas prevents 13 year olds from marrying 30 year olds but because she was married already." Her lawyer, in case you forget, argued that her 13 year old victim "wanted it" and got standing with his peers for bedding an older woman and in this age of equal rights, that "it's different for boys than it is for girls."

The polygamy of the FLDS involving children is not wrong because it involves children. Clearly, even the law recognizes (though seldom fairly applies) the fact that adults can marry "children." The law further declares that "children" magically gain the intelligence to give consent, once they have been legally married.

Kid without a marriage certificate? = Can't give consent.

Kid WITH a marriage certificate? = Can consent to any act with anyone.

Difference? A piece of paper. Basically, the equivalent of a car registration. A point your Modern Pharisee has also made.

Thus the case can be made that it's POLYGAMY they're after, not really "sexual abuse of a child," because if it wasn't polygamy they were after, it would be legal, and a polygamist could legally marry the "child" they were "assaulting" and produce the appropriate papers necessary not to go to jail for life. If it wasn't polygamy they were after, Janet Parker would be in jail right now, and so would Rebecca Ann Bramlett. If you want to "do it" with a 14 year old. Go get a piece of paper.

How sick is it that you can marry the 14 year old girl and have an affair with a 30 year old and nothing happens, but if you are married to the 30 year old and have an affair with at 15 year old, you go to jail for life?
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, March 27, 2010

"Texas Monthly" and their take on the "Mineola Swingers" prosecution

The full article can be found here.
"The DA in (Wood) County, where the building is located, says nothing happened here at all."
The proximity of the Newspaper office to that of the "Swingers" club is significant. They were right next door, which is what prompted writing the column that more or less set this controversy off.

Remember, this is important because Texas Ranger Philip Kemp is involved. Up to his neck.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, March 25, 2010

KETK NBC 56 Tyler Texas' take on the Mineola Swingers Story

They use the word "Bombshell."
Bingham retorted, "They can say Matt Bingham's a bald-headed ass, but when they challenge my integrity, that makes me mad."
Methinks the DA protest too much.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

More on Mineola

With the caveat that I do not know the case well, and can't come close to evaluating the guilt or innocence of those involved, here's the story run in the Tyler Morning Telegraph today. The Judge is expressing some degree of skepticism from the tone of this story:
"Justice Hedges also focused on the fact that five children were called to testify in the original trial, when the original two who made the outcries would have sufficed".
Again, the similarity to this case and YFZ is the mystifying failure to go with what would have worked better, and instead running up the number of supposed victims. The Judge seems to think that if the prosecution had just stuck to the first two "outcries," things would have gone better for the prosecution. This makes me wonder about the pathology of Law Enforcement that is involved.

Are they competing to get to a prosecution first?

Are they trying to up their "rep" in the case with more salacious details thereby furthering their careers?

I mention this because a less spectacular approach to YFZ it seemed, would have sufficed, yet in this case the Judge seems to be pointing to, bare minimum, excess. Five kids instead of two which in my mind corresponds to the number of "underage pregnant teenage girls" that were "found" initially at YFZ.

I continue to point out that the cause for going into the ranch seemed silly to me. Why not just go in on a suspicion of Bigamy and list a bunch of places to search and then "Seek until ye shall find?" Instead there is a big splashy raid with horrific allegations (who can forget the "Sex Bed") and now an endangered prosecution.

Does Texas routinely gin up the charges so as to make any potential juror afraid to acquit or give lowered sentences? Is it all about trying the case, before trying the case?

"Wes" Volberding:
"The briefs allege that the Smith County District Attorney’s office concealed vital information pointing to the actual innocence of the six adults involved in the case, and that Judge Skeen has applied different rules in this trial than Texas allows," he said.

"The owners of the club, Russ and Sherry Adams, told the Tyler prosecutors that no children ever set foot in their club," Volberding said.

"The prosecutors believed them and let them go, then kept that information to themselves without telling the defense lawyers," he said.
The original source of the accusation, is questionable:
"Smith County prosecutors also concealed the fact that one of the foster parents of the two children who made the original outcries, John Cantrell, was being investigated in California for molesting other children who had been in his care.

Volberding also alleges that prosecutors held onto recorded statements in which the children say that nothing ever happened to them, and no molestation ever occurred."
Thad Davidson, who was the original attorney of record for the defense said he would be: "surprised if the case was not flipped."
"Jim Huggler, who served as both the original trial attorney, and is now the appellate attorney for Jamie Pittman, another defendant in the case, filed his appeal based on the introduction of other offenses not related to the indictment of his client in the original trial.

Huggler also said, like Volberding, that the state concealed the tapes of the children who said nothing ever happened to them."
There was no mention of the unprecedented "Amicus Brief" filed by the Wood County DA, contradicting the Smith County DA, in the Tyler Morning Telegraph story.

The story has also been covered by "Grits for Breakfast," and by the "Texas Monthly." As mentioned before, Ranger Philip Kemp is in it, up to his neck. Of course Bill Medvecky has been all over it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Kaboom? "Mineola Swingers Club" conviction fuse starts burning...

This is something that Bill Medvecky has been following, and it looks like the Volcano is about to blow:
KYTX TV (CBS 19) - "The Mineola Swinger's Club convictions could be overturned. Jamie Pittman, Shauntel Mayo and Patrick Kelly were convicted of sexually exploiting children for profit. All three are serving life sentences for their role in the Mineola Swinger's Club."
The original story is doubtless somewhere else, but I thought I would treat you to a "treatment" similar to that of our FLDS friends, from the website People you'll see in Hell:
"Investigators discovered some pretty upsetting things that had happened, things that the children were able to reveal once their contact with the adults involved was eliminated and the kids realized that they wouldn’t have to suffer any longer. During the trial of 36-year-old Jamie Pittman, the first of the gang to be brought to trial, the full scope of what went on at the Mineola Swingers’ Club was revealed.

Jurors were treated to a two and a half hour videotaped interview with Texas Ranger Sergeant Phillip Kemp, the oldest victim and her then-7-year-old brother. Their new foster mother was also there to help the kids feel a bit more comfortable.

During the videotaped interview, the girl was very cooperative, drawing a diagram and describing the inside of the club that the Mineola Swingers’ Club occupied. She described how there were two guards standing inside the front door. She mentioned how 45-year-old 'Dennis' – who turned out to be Jamie Pittman’s older brother, Dennis Boyd Pittman – would sit at the front desk and collect money from people who came into the club to watch the movies of the children performing sexual acts."
But something is happening in Texas, that is nearly or completely unprecedented. One District Attorney has turned, on another.
"(The) Wood County District Attorney (has) faxed (70 pages of paperwork) directly to the appellate court. It's called an Amicus Brief. It essentially contradicts what the Smith County District Attorney's office is telling the court of appeals. 'I've never heard of an instance where one elected District Attorney directly contradicts what another elected district attorney is telling a court of appeals. I've never heard that happen,' concluded (Patrick Kelly's attorney Wes) Volberding."
Have you noticed something though, in one of the quotes above?

Who is in the middle of all this?

That would be Texas Ranger Philip Kemp, who now may be shown to have participated in some way, in yet another case of false testimony. He's in the chain of investigators that is "investigating......."

....Rozita Swinton.

I'm also going to say that Bill has been on this, all along. Nice unbiased picture of Patrick, don't you think?

This is a lot like the McMartin case.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

I guess she wasn't exactly hiding it...

Rebecca Ann Bramlett (120lbs, dark hair, green eyes, 5'4", pretty fetching mug shot, hmmm?) was driving her lover home the last weekend of April 2008 with the news of YFZ still ringing in everyone's ears.
"The Houston Chronicle - The investigation began when (Ms. Bramlett) was pulled over on a minor traffic stop about 1:40 a.m. Saturday (April 26th, 2008), Brady said.

When the deputy began talking to Bramlett, she said, 'we are having an affair and I am taking him home,' (Fort Bend County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Craig) Brady said."
This could be the proverbial case of "please stop me before I screw a kid again." After all, she did just up and say it. One wonders if she clapped her hand over her mouth and said "whoopsies" afterward.

Probable cause? Check. Ms. Bramlett was stopped for a traffic violation.

Extant circumstance? Check. Ms. Bramlett blurted out her crime. Only the age of her alleged victim was not specifically disclosed, at least in the dialogue as it is presented to us.

So, tried, convicted, off to the big house, right?

Nah. At least it has not been reported as such. But if you go to the Texas Sex Offenders registry, you will find her there. She's out and about, convicted (plea bargained to) a violation of "TX:11990002, Sexual Assault (of a) Child, Attempt to commit."

Wait, didn't she say they were having an affair?

She got.....

(Wait for it.)

NO PROBATION. She is required to report annually and is on the sex offender registry until 2026.

Ms. Bramlett (who resigned in between her arrest and the reporting of the story) was a middle school teacher, and her victim was probably a student of hers, at least at one time, and was 16 at the time of her conviction.

Ms. Bramlett has successfully stayed out of the news since the incident. She didn't get 33 years, or 75, or 7. Is this because she didn't hide the act? Has she since interfered with witnesses as Lauren Cosgrove did? Inquiring minds want to know, and your Modern Pharisee, has (at least some of) the answers.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 22, 2010

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

Things my dog taught me, and Obama Care

Valena (may she rest in peace) my AKC registered Husky (miss her) taught me a few things.
Which is why I knew that Obama care was going to pass.

What Valena learned about me, taught me to watch body language and behavior more than listen to words, when such inputs were available. After a point in time Val didn't get excited by certain cues unlikely to produce the desired result. If she wanted to squeeze out the door and run the neighborhood or if she thought I/we were going outside and wanted to come along, she watched my feet. If my feet were pointed in the right direction or giving little subtle clues that I was going out, she got excited. In the meantime she lay in the appropriate doorway designed to give as wide a view of the living room possible, with her head between her front legs and her eyes followed everyone around the room.

Without going into great detail I stopped listening and started watching a long time ago, hence I knew that "National Health Care Reform" was going to pass. I've been using this as my cue for becoming more political in my commentary. Over the next few days and weeks, expect me to proffer my solutions to the problem. Nationalized Health care is not the solution, it's the problem. How do we fix it?

I've never been fond of the "taking back" talk in politics. Who were we, after all, "taking" what, "back" from? We've reached that point now. Battle lines are drawn. There is an "us" and there is a "them." Good guys. Bad guys. The Bad Guys have America now, unless you think the "Parliamentarian" will rule against the reconciliation process (strongly possible but probably not probable) and subsequently that vacuous rubber stamp whose time has come, Vice President Joe Biden, doesn't overrule the Parliamentarian.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, March 20, 2010

It was Witness Interference, and "Bad Acts"

That got the book thrown at a sex predator in Texas. Even though the victim "enjoyed it."
The Denton Record-Chronicle - "Lauren Cosgrove, 30 (now 31), of Sanger, also was sentenced to two years in prison on a charge of tampering with a witness. Though she had been court-ordered not to contact the boy, he testified that she picked him up outside his house in December 2008 and convinced him to write a letter saying he lied about what happened between them.

She also gave him a handwritten note professing undying love for him.

The sentences will be served at the same time, and Cosgrove will be eligible for parole in 2 1/2 years.

The jury also found her not guilty on a charge of indecency with a child."
Five years. Yup, divide 5 into 75 for a predator that tampers with a witness. Hmmm, if you are a man that means you will serve 15 times as long.

I'm sure you're asking with YFZ a year old and that scandal fresh in their minds if the prosecutor and jury took that into account:
"Prosecutors Rick Daniel and Cary Piel were satisfied with the sentence, Piel said.

'I asked the jurors in voire dire about the double standard,' Piel said. 'Who’s to say if this had been a man and a 13-year-old girl he would have gotten more time? But we are absolutely satisfied.' "
We can now answer that question. There are apparently several differences between YFZ and Ms. Cosgrove's case. One of them wasn't her marital state.

Apparently to get 15 times the sentence your victim must be older (Ms. Cosgrove's prey is still a minor) and now an adult. Ms. Cosgrove's target was 13.

There must be an element of religion. Free standing sexual abuse by a woman in power over a minor male child is no threat to us, though it appears to occur frequently in Texas. You must add the potent element of a closed society trying to preserve a religion the Government wants to stamp out.

To get 15 times the sentence your case must be higher profile. Texas gets embarrassed when attention is called to it's laxity over sexual assault of a child. The jury pool must be tainted with false claims of things that never happened at YFZ so that when they try you, they stop short of killing you only because that punishment is not available to them.

To get 15 times the sentence, your victim must be female.
"(Defense Attorney Donna)Winfield told jurors that if given probation, Cosgrove would not be a risk, and that the boy enjoyed the attentions of an older woman and was not traumatized.

'It’s different with boys and girls,' she said. 'I dont believe he’s going to be scarred for life.'
Translation - "Oh come on people, we're putting a woman in jail for giving a 13 year old boy bragging rights around the neighbor hood, he's now a certified STUD. She ROCKED HIS WORLD. He's totally DIGGING on her."

Your victim must now be an adult, so that you can threaten her. That way she won't speak her mind during the trial in her husband's defense.

You have to be a polygynist.

The floor is open to discuss other differences that must be present for you to get 75 years, like Merril Leroy Jessop.

If you've spotted other differences, feel free to comment.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, March 19, 2010

75 Years for Merril Leroy Jessop

It's like they're squaring the sentences as they go.
The Salt Lake Tribune - "The sentence for Merril Leroy Jessop, 35, is the stiffest yet handed out in the criminal trials of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Under Texas law, Jessop has to serve half of his sentence before he is eligible for parole."
FLDS men "marry" (albeit not legally) the girls they "assault," love them and their children and take care of them for life. Merril is going to die in prison unless appeals succeed while the manifestly perverse Janet Parker walks among us. Her joke of a sentence didn't even make the news. Sandra Borrego pled guilty to 22 counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a child for whom there was a complaint, and got 6 months (that she has already served) with a chance to clear her record.

75 years. Contrast that with the three cases the Modern Pharisee has highlighted over the last few days. Zero time, 6 months, and do you want to bet that Alison Mosbeck will get off lightly by comparison? (UPDATE-a fourth woman's attorney claimed her 13 year old victim "enjoyed it" and her client got 5 years. She also engaged in witness tampering.)

The $10,000.00 fine is a joke that only hurts the woman and the children that Texas is supposedly protecting from him.

My only question at this point is, when will the FLDS pull out all the stops and try everything legal? If the appeal doesn't work, these men will die in jail and their children will be scarred for life, if they aren't already. Their wives will be deprived of consort, of the children that the FLDS believe give them standing in the next life.

Make no mistake, if it was an option, they would have stuffed Merril Leroy Jessop's genitals in his mouth and hung his lifeless body from the tallest local church.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why does a dog lick itself?

Well? More →

Sphere: Related Content

You think the wheels of justice turn slowly for the FLDS?

Consider the case of Alison Mosbeck. The then 33-year-old history teacher at Dueitt Middle School (now 35 or 36) and mother of two (no word on children in the intervening time period) resigned October 29th, 2007, the same day she appeared in court on charges of having sexual relations with a boy who is still a minor. Previously Ms. Mosbeck had been on "administrative leave."
The Houston Chronicle - "(Harris County Assistant District Attorney & Crimes Against Children Division Chief Denise) Oncken said Mosbeck allegedly had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old student between fall 2006 and March 2007. They had intercourse at least three times, prosecutors said."
The "alleged" crime originally occurred in late 2006, after the crime committed on or about August 20th 2006 that Merril Leroy Jessop is being sentenced for. Merril's "victim" is now and adult and had to be considered a "hostile" witness for the prosecution, so much so that they had to collect DNA against the will of all involved to come up with the charge and successful prosecution of Mr. Jessop. I emphasize that Ms. Mosbeck's alleged victim is still a minor.

Alison will finally go on trial next month. Since that time it would appear that Ms. Oncken has been promoted and now John Jordan will be prosecuting the case. If prior cases mentioned here at the Modern Pharisee are any predictor of outcome, after her trial, Ms. Mosbeck will serve a fraction of the time that Michael Emack "plea bargained" to get.
"If convicted, Mosbeck, a mother of two children, faces a possible sentence ranging from two years to 20 years for each case, Oncken said. She also is eligible for probation, Oncken added."
It looked like, at the time, that Harris County Assistant District Attorney Denise Oncken was open to the idea of probation.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Today at 9 a.m. the jurors will hear closing arguments and deliberate on Jessop’s sentence."
I suspect they will be sending another "message."
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Caught RED HANDED, Texas Sex Predator gets "Deferred Probation"

And very little publicity even though there are graphic pictures documenting her escapades. While the initial article suggested salacious acts reminiscent of oval office escapades with a cigar, the aftermath was quite different.
From Nacogdoches, the Oldest Town in Texas:
The Daily Sentinel - "Twenty-six-year-old Janet Parker surrendered to sheriff's officials at 11 a.m. Wednesday. According to a press release from Shelby County District Attorney Lynda K. Russell, her office and the sheriff's office were first alerted to an inappropriate teacher/student relationship in December. 'The matter was investigated, and although authorities felt inappropriate behavior existed, no proof could be established,' the release said.

'Two weeks ago, suspicions of this relationship again surfaced when a student's cell phone was taken up during school. Because the screen saver picture on the phone depicted behavior unacceptable at school (a student with a tobacco product), authorities at school searched the phone further. The phone was turned over to the district attorney's office. A search warrant was executed on the phone, allowing a forensic expert to search the phone. An inappropriate picture of Janet Parker was found on the cell phone. This phone belonged to the same student with whom Parker was suspected of having an inappropriate relationship last December,' the release said.

Because of the nature of this picture D.A. Russell and Sheriff Johnson requested a warrant for the search of Parker's home. Assisting in executing the search warrant were Shelby County Sheriff's Deputy Desmond McDaniel, Texas Ranger Tom Davis, and D.A. Investigator Danny Green. Evidence gathered at the scene confirmed that the picture of Parker on the child's cell phone was taken in her home. In cases like this, computers are commonly used to store images of inappropriate behavior and communications between parties which sometimes reveal the type of relationship between the parties. As a result, two computers were gathered as possible evidence. A forensic search was conducted of the computers, and as a result of the searches on the computers and the investigation into this matter, 23 warrants have been issued for the arrest of Janet Parker - (9 warrants for sexual performance by a child , three warrants for sexual assault of a child and 11 warrants for possession of child pornography third-degree felony)."
Repeated searches of the web yeilded no information on the trial result. Probably because there was no trial. When contacted, District Attorney Linda Kay Russell's office stated that Ms. Parker received "10 years of deferred probation." I'm not sure what that means, but if it's anything like deferred sentencing, Ms. Parker pled guilty and then got a "deferred" arrangement meaning she's not even being supervised. "Just stay out of trouble" would be the operative phrase, and in ten years she can apply to have her record cleaned.

It would seem that Ms. Parker is being treated as a "first time offender" and not having the book thrown at her. In the meantime, defendants like Merril Leroy Jessop, Michael Emack, Allan Keate and Raymond Jessop are having the book thrown at them as if they were "repeat offenders." It would also appear that just like the ranch was "one residence," FLDS offenders are being treated as one defendant. The sentences are getting worse.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

UPDATED - Guilty of Sexual Assault of a Child, Texas Sex Predator gets 6 Months

Yup, only 6 months and a chance to wipe her slate clean:
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times - "A former dance teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old student pleaded guilty Tuesday in exchange for probation, six months in jail and the opportunity to avoid a conviction.

Sandra Borrego’s guilty plea came shortly before jury selection was to start Tuesday morning. She pleaded guilty to 22 counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child."
What hypocrites Texans are. Michael Emack got 33 years, a virtual life sentence. I shudder to think what Merril is going to get. The age difference between Sandra and her young victim is greater than that of Merril and his bride. Sandra is 41, the boy she "assaulted," barely a teen.

By the way, they say they don't believe me, but they do. (Rise to the bait little fishy.)
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Jessop Guilty! (in time for lunch)

Like I said, it wouldn't take long.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Merril Leroy Jessop) kept a pleasant face while 51st District Judge Barbara Walther read the jury statement and pronounced the word 'guilty.'

Jurors heard closing arguments this morning and left at 11:30 a.m. to deliberate.

Attorneys were summoned back to the courtroom at 12:30 p.m. upon hearing that the jury had reached their verdict."
It was never one of my favorite songs, but it does keep going through my head:
"And the judge said, 'Guilty,' in a make-believe trial, slapped the Sheriff on the back with a smile (and said) 'Supper's waitin' at home and I gotta get to it.' "
Bobby Russell - "The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia."

Brooke Adams has "Tweeted" that the "enhancement" was voted to apply, and thus Merril faces 99 years in prison.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Case goes to Jury, Location continues to be an issue (UPDATED)

Both sides have rested their cases. (UPDATED- VERDICT = GUILTY).
The Abilene Reporter-News - "The jury will return at 9:30 a.m. today to hear closing arguments from the defense and prosecution, and then jurors will deliberate on the verdict.

Attorneys and 51st District Judge Barbara Walther had spent the day looking at documents to establish Jessop was at the YFZ Ranch at the time of the alleged offense."
Apparently, more that in the other cases, the location of Merril is in doubt. Most of the silence coming out of San Angelo yesterday has to do with the Judge, Prosecution and Defense looking at documents.

The way this story is phrased, is puzzling. I would have thought that if there was any doubt, the defense would have speculated loudly in open court to the effect that the prosecution "couldn't prove it," "it" being where Mr. Jessop was. Much has been made in the past among FLDS detractors that location wasn't an issue, but it now seems hugely clear, that it is.

Do I think this will matter? Not really. It would seem that the defense is relying on Judge Walther to rule to dismiss charges if there is clear evidence that Merril was not there. Walther, I am convinced, would rule that Merril Jessop was there even if he had time stamped pictures sent by certified letter from Kenya showing that he was there hunting Water Buffalo around and about August 20th, 2006.

The FLDS has been all along, stacking issues up for appeal, both thin and strong. Essentially the strategy is to impeach Walther and/or the evidence later with minor emphasis on things like Grand Jury/Jury racial composition.

The case has gone to the jury. I'm not holding out any hope for Walther ruling Merril (and therefore his "underage bride") weren't in Texas during conception. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury returns before lunch, with a guilty verdict (turned out to be 12:30pm).

According to KCSG's 9:49 AM EDT version of the story, closing arguments will be today and are probably are taking up a good portion of the morning if not all of it.
"The prosecution and defense rested their cases Tuesday in the trial of Merril Leroy Jessop. The jury (returned this) morning to hear closing arguments from the defense and prosecution, and then jurors will deliberate on the verdict."
Judge Walther did not allow a CPS worker to testify in front of the jury regarding the level of fear that had been created among the FLDS. A CPS worker testified away from the jury about how children were taken from their mothers.

If the testimony is emotionally loaded in favor of the prosecutions case, such as testimony from Rebecca Musser, the Jury hears it, if it is loaded in favor of the defendant. (You guessed it!)
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, March 12, 2010

Rangers obtained records looking for Rozita?

According to Texas Ranger Don Williams; "I thought it was very possible someone might be in that vault."
This is interesting. Texas Rangers busted into the FLDS Church Vault looking for a PERSON. Hadn't we discussed this two years ago? What "hat" was being worn by Texas Rangers?
The San Angelo Standard-Times - " 'Would you say the men and women were distrustful?' (Defense Attorney Brandon) Hudson said.

Williams said they were.

Williams said the locksmith took hours to open the vault door.

Hudson pointed out the damage done to the framing around the side of the vault.

'Were there attempts to enter without having to break the locks?' Wes Mau, one of the prosecuting attorneys, asked.

'Yes sir,' Williams said, and he said the residents were not cooperative with opening the safe. 'I thought it was very possible someone might be in that vault.' "
Back to the Standard-Times, April 10th, 2008:
"In one exchange, (Judge Barbara) Walther questioned (Gerry) Goldstein on why he claimed Lyle Jeffs had standing to challenge the search warrant based on the removal of his two children.

'The removal of the children had nothing to do with the search warrant,' Walther said. 'That's a civil matter.'

'I'm not sure they knew what hat they were wearing' when officials removed the children, Goldstein replied."
I'd say at this point they didn't know. Later, when sorting out details in the aftermath, it seems clear that Rangers retroactively threw a hat into the narrative, based on what it was they'd need, to cover their actions. In the case of the Vault, they're not in a residence looking for anyone, they're in the temple. These records are obtained looking for "Sarah," who we now know to be Rozita Swinton. Not that Texas dares ever ask that question, of Rozita.

Something tells me this might be important. If Law Enforcement was treating the ranch as "one residence," clearly the temple is not a "residence" and clearly a "gun safe" or cabinet inside a vault inside a church is not a home. At what point to you stop looking? Can I go into the White House looking for a murder suspect in Washington DC and come out with evidence of the "Cornhusker Kickback?" Can you go into a church on a warrant based on a residence? Can you go in their vault because someone might be in there? Do you open shoeboxes looking for body parts? Ranger Williams says he goes into the vault looking for a person, but that's not what they come out with. It seems rather clear that Rangers wanted anything belonging to any member of the FLDS or the church, so that they could audit them for evidence of crimes. Is this the case Brandon Hudson is building?
"Hudson noted that the person they were searching for was never found, and the call that led to the April 2008 raid on the ranch was determined to be a hoax call from a woman who claimed to have been abused and living on the ranch."
The "hoax" call remark seems to have gone unchallenged by the defense. I'm sure the prosecution had to let that stand, since if they did not, the issue of it being a hoax could have spilled out into open court. So it's official. Texas regards the call as a hoax.
"Another Texas Ranger, Jesse Valdez, testified about having entered a vault in another building called the temple annex.

A picture showed the jury an open vault door with a small hole less than three feet wide breaching a concrete wall several inches thick.

'I removed all my outer clothing and entered with a flash light and a pistol, unsure of what I would encounter,' Valdez said.

Inside the vault, law enforcement personnel found many cabinets full of boxes of personal and church records."
What did this "Drama Queen" expect to find in a vault? Why didn't he wait? Was there a sense of "urgency" that perhaps at any moment the search might be called off and they didn't have all their "loot" yet? What does he expect to find in the dark that he needs a pistol for? I don't know about you, but if I was planning to used deadly force against a Ranger entering a vault with no clothes, a flashlight leading the way and a pistol, the pistol isn't going to do him any good.

If I were the Ranger, and I thought I might NEED the pistol once inside the valut, I'm not going in that way. It's a death sentence. I might pump some tear gas in there first, but no way I'm crawling headfirst with a pistol and a flashlight into a dark hole, particularly when there's only one way out.

To this day I do not know why the FLDS don't call Rozita as a witness.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Location, Location, Location.

It's the Real Estate maxim, and apparently it does matter in the Trial of Merril Leroy Jessop.
When an act is a crime in one place, but not in another, where it happened really does matter.

For instance, it's not a crime for me to be nude, and I am nude every day in the shower. It is one for me to be nude on Main Street. Unless my shower is in my RV and my RV is on Main Street. Likewise it is important where the child that is almost certainly Merril's, was conceived.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "(Prosecutors) presented evidence that Merril Leroy Jessop resided at the Yearning For Zion Ranch outside Eldorado, where the charge against him — the sexual assault of a child in connection with an alleged underage marriage — was alleged to have occurred.

Pictures showed photo albums and poster-sized pictures that depicted Jessop surrounded by a crowd of children and three young women law enforcement personnel identified as his wives."
Well dang. I thought that wasn't important according to some of the "legal experts" trumpeting how irrelevant location was on the other side of the fence, but apparently, it is important.

It's always been my thought that it was up to Texas to place Merril's "celestial wife" on Eldorado Terra Firma and Merril there too, to make the case stick. That goes for Michael Emack as well, and Raymond Jessop. This salient point didn't seem to figure much in the first trials, but is now making an appearance here, at Merril Jessop's trial, as part of the prosecution's case.


Do they know that Merril will try to contend he was elsewhere? To me it has always seemed that I could say, if I were Merril; "How do you know we weren't in Mexico?" After all, no one knows how they got to Mexico and it's not up to Merill to prove his innocence, he is presumed innocent, nor is it up to Merril to incriminate himself. The fact that Texas thinks Merril robbed a bank, but can't say which bank is sort of important.

Don't get confused with the idea that his wife is the bank. She has to be in Texas for it to be a crime, in Texas. If I admit to taking money from a bank, I haven't admitted to robbing it. If I admit to nudity, I don't admit to a crime. If I say I drive my car 200mph, if I did it at Daytona International Speedway, it's not a problem.

There are various considerations such as the "Mann Act," but that's where self incrimination and presumed innocence come in. I'm presumed NOT to have committed a crime, and frankly, as far as the jury knows Merril really conceived a child with his bride at a sort of FLDS "girls gone wild" event on the Yucatan peninsula. She went there, he went there, they meet, the lights go down and so on.

Do I believe that? Well heck no, but it's not up to Merril to have to prove that. For it to be a crime in Texas, it had to happen in Texas. For it to be a "Mann Act" violation, a conspiracy has to be proven. This is not possible without receipts and photographs and cooperative eyewitness testimony. In some places it is still just "bad judgment" to engage in a sex act with a 16 year old, whether it should be or not.

Do I think it will matter to the jury? Nah. A little girl was "assaulted" with an old man's phallus while she cowered in fear of it's mighty and damaging blows. And it had MORE WRINKLES than the 16 year old boy she could have rubbed uglies with, with impugnity.

The jury would kill Merril if they could.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Obsessed are we? (UPDATE)

After a while, it gets to be so overwhelmingly weird, that you have to mention it. Really, even as much as I hate to point to that sick bunch of freaks.

Go ahead, count if you want, how many times I get mentioned, and then go back to the previous open thread, and count, and then go back to the open thread before that and count. Between the "Huge McNuts" and the "Huge McEgos" and the various manglings of my name, pseudonyms and so on, it's obvious that when the FLDS trials and appeals are done, I'm going to need to pay a visit to Mark David Chapman, just to see what drove him.

Mark and I are both drop outs of the same school, maybe he can spare me some time.

Any of you clowns own a copy of "The Catcher in the Rye?"

It's getting to the point where I don't want to walk home in the dark.

It does no good to try to reply to what are brain dead half reads of things I've said, or deliberately obtuse ones.

UPDATE - The Dim Ones are beginning to realize its not COMMENTS that rank a site, it's traffic, composition and length of time on site. Years ago in one of my many and varied incarnations, I was a talk show host engineer/call screener. That which provokes comment is not the same as what promotes readership/listenership/viewership. If you doubt me, listen to Rush Limbaugh. Eventually he will comment on that aspect of ratings/rankings.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Jury Seated

And typically, another motion denied.
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The jury is made up of seven women and seven men to fill in the 12 juror and two alternate positions. Among the jurors, three have Hispanic surnames."
The defense cited widespread publicity and resulting prejudice. They asked for more "peremptory strikes." What do you think happened? Don't be stupid, it's Babs.
"(D)efense attorneys this morning moved to be granted more than the standard 10 peremptory strikes against prospective jurors, citing widespread prejudice against their client, but 51st District Judge Barbara Walther denied the motion."
Arguments are underway.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Merril Jessop moves for Mistrial - UPDATED

It won't work. (UPDATE, it didn't.) Not because it shouldn't work, but because it's Barbara Walther on the bench.
This is part of the basic plea of the prosecution that the FLDS is a dangerous murderous entity and we are dealing with "King Willie, the Thug."
The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Willie Jessop, the sole representative of Merril Leroy Jessop’s family and church, was denied entry to a crowded courtroom (yesterday).

Willie Jessop said the motion, although prepared and signed Monday, was submitted (today)."
No it won't work now, but this continues to be the sort of foundation you build for an appeal. It sounds as if the FLDS was ready for this prosecution piece of theater that is purely designed to make various FLDS men "boogie men" and therefore increase chances of conviction.

Apparently in ruling on the motion (which she denied), our lovable warm fuzzy "Thug" got a word in edgewise:
"(Eric) Nichols, arguing against the motion, put Willie Jessop on the witness stand and made the case that Willie Jessop hadn’t made an attempt to enter after the general questioning of potential jurors.

'At what point would it have been appropriate to enter again?' Willie Jessop shot at Nichols.

Walther intervened, telling Willie Jessop — who she said may not be fully aware of the court’s procedures — that the witness is not allowed to ask questions."
Raymond Jessop (as is being reported elsewhere) has already filed for appeal, but your Modern Pharisee told you it was done, when it was done (January 28th, 2010).
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. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 08, 2010

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Mark Henkel & Gretchen Carlson on John Stossell

It's a clear win for Mark. Mark and I DO NOT get along, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

It's unfortunate that no one in the room on the pro polygamy side understands that it needs more than "decriminalization." Again, you do not HAVE to get legally married to understand why being ABLE to be legally married helps you.

Decriminalization means it won't be a felony but it's still against the law. The fact that you can essentially get a parking ticket for too many people in the bedroom means that the police have a right to enter your bedroom.

Ms. Carlson makes the lame excuse (for an apparent conservative) that the polygamist family will have tax advantages. I keep telling people, as long as we have an income tax, and particularly a progressive income tax system (which we have), the government is always going to stay in the arena of marriage. You want marriage off the books? Get rid of the income tax. Completely. All vestiges of it. THEN you have a shot.

That and you'll have to get government out of the business of defining pedophilia. This is an UGLY truth because we are so twisted around and phobic as Christians of a "Crime" or "Sin" that isn't even a sin in scripture that we react with blind feeling. Perhaps a compromise can be reached with marriages to minors involving court consent and licensing. Until then though, government has entered the room in the marriage discussion, and it isn't leaving.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, March 04, 2010

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

Wanna know exactly how I feel about Rick Perry's primary win?

I don't like his opponents very much, that's one angle.
"Crusty" covers it, exactly. As I am fond of saying, when someone else says it, you just point. Joan Baez also weighed in on the topic about 40 years ago, calling politics a choice between cancer, and polio.

Well actually, it was the Rolling Stones, but I like putting the words in Joan Baez's mouth, better. It's where I first heard them.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

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

Monday, March 01, 2010

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