You Talkin' to ME? (slightly updated)

I can't resist. Is Eric Nichols talking, to ME?

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The prosecution spearheaded by Eric Nichols argued for a motion that would prevent the defense from doing certain things without approaching the bench.

One of the items regarded not allowing the defense to bring up media reports.

'This prevents lawyers from pulling up a newspaper article, magazine article or blog post,' Nichols said."

Since the Modern Pharisee has been the leading FLDS centric blog for the past year, occasionally swapping front runner status with Bill Medvecky, one has to assume that when Eric Nichols refers to blogs, he's referring to yours truly.

I accept.

LOL. Lemmings.










(I brought the inner tube.)

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Olympic Memories, the Kaiser, 1976, Innsbruck

I've never seen better. A recent fatality in Winter Sports in this Olympic competition reminds us we are flesh and blood, and objects are hard. Franz risked his life, let it all hang out, literally, and won by a little over .3 seconds.

Franz gets in to trouble early and often in this run, the near wipe out at 2:17 on this video was what stuck in my mind when I was watching it in 1976.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

I lose

The question is, how far do I take this, or has it gone far enough?

I'm thinking (and praying) about it.

One of the vain hopes I have had, the longshot scenario, is that in some way in my dispute with the church over marriage, I would win a sort of stalemate, where I would be allowed to believe what I believe, and the church would view that belief with disfavor, but nevertheless, allow me to hold my views nonetheless.

Always the greater possibility would be that the church would bend every rule and forsake every scriptural principal, to silence me. Surprise surprise.

One of the strategies in dealing with the church was to take one of the elders before his certification agency and thereby apply pressure to a member of the session, and thereby lever the session.

Not exactly Biblical procedure, but we've long since departed that format. "Peacemaker Ministries" whitewashed the whole issue, let Dr. Selle see my complaint, but never let me see his answers, and judged (shock) in his favor.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

9:40 PM, February 15th, 1898

This man John Henry (Dick) Turpin was in the pantry of the wardroom when there was an explosion. He says he felt the deck under him "heave and lift." One of the first men the US Navy was later to make a Chief Petty Officer from the ranks of their African American enlistees, he made his way out of the ship, jumped in the water, had another man grab onto him, and then he was rescued.

That night it was the USS Maine (ACR-1) in Havana Harbor. Contrary to popular belief it has never been established what actually sunk Chief Petty Officer Turpin's first ship. It is widely believed that a coal bunker explosion sank the Maine. There is no conclusive evidence for that cause, or for the cause of a mine. The mine seems unlikely based on the later actions of Spanish naval personnel who rushed to the 90 survivors aid. The die was cast, and "Remember the Maine" became a battle cry that led to a war the United States was itching to have in it's then Imperialistic aims.

I am reading a bitter book by James Bradley that makes President Theodore Roosevelt out to be nothing short of a precursor to Hitler. Hence my fascination with the Maine. As bad as Roosevelt is made out to be by Mr. Bradley (who was born the year I was), the book makes some valid points. Nevertheless, it is oddly Dick Turpin, perhaps the Navy's first black Chief Petty Officer, a Master Diver, Chief Gunner's Mate and later Master Rigger that I ended up focusing on.

While Mr. Bradley fumes over the horrid things undeniably done in the run up to two World Wars, I see Dick Turpin, who later was heroic in surviving yet another Naval ship explosion on the Bennington.

Dick in older age tried to return to military service for World War II. He was an "inspirational speaker" for the US Military. He won several boxing crowns in the Navy, taught boxing at Annapolis and was known to be something of a human jungle gym in Bremerton Washington, where he later died, probably the Last Surviving member of the crew of the Maine.

Kids loved him and climbed all over him when he was on base in Bremerton. He is, as shown above, a fine figure of a man. By some accounts, he should have received the Medal of Honor for his role in saving men.

The Maine died 112 years ago. Dick Turpin lived on to reach his nineties and died March 10th, 1962, proving that the times were changing from the bitter vision of the book "Imperial Cruise." They were changing because of men like Chief Petty Officer Turpin, for whom there was no record of complaint about his lot in life. He simply went forward, being first, doing good, and having courage. Someone by which to "Remember the Maine."

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

Natalie Malonis Responds to Brooke Adams, via your Modern Pharisee

I'd say the best thing to do now Natalie, is get a lawyer, and shut up. It's too late to shut up and get a lawyer.

From an email from Ms. Malonis, to yours truly:

"Oh, by the way, in that article, it says Brooke contacted me by phone and email for an interview. That is not true. I did not receive a phone call or email from her, not that it would have mattered because I wouldn’t have spoken to her."

Swear on a stack of law books, it's genuine. I emailed a hyperlink to my previous post today, and she shot back. I'll skip the love patter that preceded the above quote. The relevant portion is quoted.

Brooke says Natalie Malonis was contacted and did not respond. Malonis says Brooke didn't email her, so she didn't respond. Except she wouldn't have responded anyway.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Bruce) Wisan's Texas attorney is Natalie Malonis, who was appointed to represent one of Jeffs' daughters during the child welfare proceedings. Malonis used some of Jeffs' dictations as exhibits a year ago in that case, but the dictations briefly published online this week were not introduced then.

Malonis did not return a telephone call or an e-mail request for an interview."

It's a case of she said, she said.

Rather than getting into who I believe, a reporter (yes I know to sometimes claim I am one) or a lawyer, I'm really torn.

But lets look at Nat's claim and treat it as true. That means Brooke is panicking a little, or is angry with Blues/Malonis or perhaps both. Brooke would be using her bully pulpit as a Salt Lake Tribune reporter to gain the upper hand.

Let's look at Brooke's claim, and treat it as true. Natalie is in a tough spot as she has claimed to be "TxBluesMan's" lawyer, and she's Bruce Wisan's lawyer. I dunno, could this be a growing conflict of interest as they may be spitting at each other in court very soon? Natalie can't really respond until she resolves that problem

In any case it looks like Brooke drew her gun very quickly. We all have busy days. In fairness to Ms. Malonis she could have gotten in late and found out that Brooke wrote her a nasty gram via the Tribune. But in fairness to Brooke, it didn't take long for Nat, to respond to me. Only one hour, and at 2am in the morning. Natalie was burning the late night oil.

Natalie is no stranger to conflicts of interest, having argued against herself before, in court. Perhaps she can again perform this magic, juggling the diverging interests of Wisan and Texas Lamb Chop.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Brooke Adams continues to write about her unholy relationship

About the time that Natalie Malonis wrote me, declaring that she was "TxBluesMan's" attorney (ok, EXACTLY that time), I gave up on trying figure out the answer to the question, "who dat (blues?)"

After all I figured, anyone with Natalie Malonis as an attorney, is not all that bright. Also, having switched to "wordpress" as a platform, "Coram Non Judice" experienced a sharp drop off in readership that "Blues" (whoever Blues is), did not recover.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Bloggers who operate the sites 'Coram Non Judice' and 'FLDS Texas' announced on Monday a new blog, FLDS Priesthood Records, where they would publish 'previously undisclosed' dictations made by Jeffs they said had been filed in an unnamed Arizona court case.

The bloggers described the dictations as containing 'the thoughts and actions of the FLDS' during a four-year period. By Tuesday, the bloggers had posted dictations from September through December of 2002 -- though one post contained dictations from January 2006 about FLDS temple ordinances and religious blessings given to members."

Now who's the attention whore? After ignoring that vacuous shill for the better part of the last 6 months, the vacuous shill is back, nose deep in hot water. It reminds me of a child who can't get attention, pitching increasingly annoying fits, until that child is noticed again.

Well Blues. You got noticed.

But wait you say; isn't this a post headlining Brooke Adams, SL Trib Polygyny beat reporter?

Why yes, it is. We'll get to that, in a bit.

It is now becoming more and more likely that TxBluesman, who we cannot even be sure is a.) a man (not that there is anything wrong with not being a man). b.) one person (as opposed to a committee), is extraordinarily connected. The blogger that started blogging right before the news became public about the "cry for help" being a "hoax of a cry" has been an unwavering and increasingly strained Anti FLDS apologist now for nearly two years. Lately Blues has been trying to pass off a court ruling, in favor of a motion to suppress as only a stipulation of the prosecution offered and accepted by the court. All from someone who writes well, but can't tell hac from hoc. So no lawyer, or not a good one, but connected and a good writer, shilling. For whom?

This smacks of a hired gun trying to make trouble on main street. Trying to get noticed. Trying to start fights. So not getting enough attention of late, Blues went on a privacy destroying document dump that possibly violates "HIPAA."

This is where Brooke Adams comes in. Brooke has favored TxBluesMan for quite some time, linking to Blues Blog (up until recently) and mentioning Blues regularly in posts. Basicly, Brooke shills for Blues from time to time. Is this a quid pro quo?

Does Blues get things that others cannot and passes them along to Brooke? I'd guess yes. Blues is a Salt Lake Tribune/Brooke Adams source. In exchange, Blues is regularly promoted, and given credibility by a major newspaper.

If Blues is a source for Brooke, then Brooke has known who Blues is for a while, or should know.

Now it seems like she wants a divorce. Blues is the story now, like Mark David Chapman became the story when he couldn't stand being a fan in the shadows any longer. Brooke Adams is realizing this (or should be), and pushing Blues away.

How can Brooke and the Tribune not report NOW, on who this shadowy character assassin is? I'm guessing the who da blues is, is going to be news soon. If not, it ought to be, because frankly, the story is now who Blues knows, why those persons have given Blues material, and why Blues writes about it so singlemindedly and without empathy for those Blues tramples. Like a hired gun.

I'm going to have to buy more popcorn. This Western is starting to get very interesting.

Will Blues "connectivity" eventually result in him winding up in court as a defendant?

Shame....

PS: The Salt Lake Tribune - (Natalie) Malonis did not return a telephone call or an e-mail request for an interview.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren's Motion to Suppress GRANTED (UPDATED)

Two Three filings in Arizona.

Steven Conn:

The parties have filed a Stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court signs the Stipulation and adopts the terms thereof.

The Court does not know whether eliminating the possibility that evidence seized in the Texas search could be used in these cases makes these cases any more ready to go to trial than before. The Court has certainly had the impression that that possibility was a major obstacle to getting these cases resolved. The Defendant has now been incarcerated in the Mohave County Jail for almost 2 years, which is ironically the maximum prison sentence he is facing in either of these 2 cases.

IT IS ORDERED directing counsel to file individually or jointly with the Court by no later than February 22, 2010, some pleading advising the Court what hearing they fell should be set next and when

IT IS ORDERED directing the Clerk to bring these files to the Court's attention no later than February 24, 2010.

The other order reads as follows:

Upon stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search that occurred at property belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) near El Dorado, Texas (YFZ Ranch) beginning on April 3, 2008, and continuing thereafter is granted.

2. The evidence obtained thereby is suppressed and the State agrees that it will not use any evidence obtained as a result of the search of the YFZ Ranch, directly or indirectly, in his case-in-chief, during cross-examination of any called defense witnesses, as rebuttal evidence, or for any purpose whatsoever.

3 The hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, currently set for February 17 and 18, 2010, is hereby vacated.

DATED this 4th day of February, 2010.

The way I read this, the State of Arizona's case was lost from the start, and attempted to pretend convincingly they wouldn't use the evidence, then said they wanted the evidence hearing, then tried to avoid the hearing with a meaningless stipulation, and Conn would have none of it.

The evidence is not "stipulated" as not being used, the evidence is RULED inadmissible by consent of both prosecution and defense. It is SUPPRESSED, just as effectively as if it had been argued admissible and the argument lost.

CONTRAST THAT with Barbara Walther's ramrod hearing, foot dragging and later predictable political ruling that the evidence was admissible. She's wrong. Without a Judge in your pocket, you can't win the case on YFZ evidence. Matt Smith knew that, fought valiantly to avoid that fight, but was up against a knowledgeable attorney that would have none of it.

THE EVIDENCE IS SUPPRESSED. Furthermore it looks as if the charges now might be dropped, Judge Conn is rumbling the prisoner has been in jail longer than he would sentence him for his crimes.

It's starting to look like Arizona was simply warehousing and harassing Warren. All of this comes on the deadline for appeals filing in Texas for Raymond Jessop. How timely.

Brooke Adams is now reporting it as well.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Almost 200 Pages of filings by Warren's attorneys

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

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

Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 1)

Memorandum and Supporting Evidence (Part 2)

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

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Looking Good for Allen Steed

I didn't report on it at the time, but as the day (rumored) for Judge Beacham's decision approaches, I thought I might weigh in now.

This is an opinion of course, based on the facts, and I'm not the judge. In the past when I've made similar statements, I've been lambasted by the less than honest for making unqualified remarks. These remarks, are qualified.

The St. George Spectrum - " 'How does the state file information in September 2007 that they allege happened in May 2001?' (Allen Steed's attorney) asked.

(Jim) Bradshaw chipped away at the prosecution's contention the report was first made in January 2005, when Wall's boyfriend sat down to breakfast with Mohave County (Arizona) Attorney's Office investigator Gary Engels at a Hurricane restaurant and informed him of the allegations, arguing Engels is not certified as a law enforcement officer and the discussion did not constitute a formal report."

It's pretty simple, what the defense is arguing; there is a law, there is what is known as a legal report of a crime, there is a time limit. The applicable law that governs this case for reporting states a time limit for a specific kind of report. That report was not made in that time frame.

The ugly truth is that if Jim Bradshaw is right, particularly on the time frame issue. Regardless of what actually happened, there is a limit and it's been exceeded if what the prosecution calls a report, is not a report in the Court's eyes. The gavel bangs and it's "next case." The very fact that this hearing was held is proof that the defense has a credible contention. Even the prosecution, concedes this:

"(Brock) Belnap acknowledged that if the court does not regard the comments made to Engels and his subsequent vague e-mail to Belnap's office about a child bride as a report to law enforcement, then the case was not filed in time to fulfill the statute.

'If that is not sufficient, we would have to concede it is not sufficient,' he said.

The burden rests with the prosecution to prove the statute was fulfilled."

It really is refreshing to get out of Texas. Both Arizona and Utah seem to possess less hell bent for leather minds. Less "damning of the torpedoes," less "full speed ahead," or "come hell or high water." In Texas you get the impression folks think they're going to "make it happen." That's pretty macho. In St. George, Brock is honest about his chances.

I don't know the Judge in this case, but you figure he is looking over his shoulder at who will be second guessing him on appeal. He could ignore the facts and rule the way he wants to, but it will come back to haunt him, and he knows it.

"(Fifth District Court Judge G. Rand) Beacham said he would issue a written decision on the arguments at an undetermined time.

'I just have to satisfy myself that I have corralled the facts,' he said.

Belnap said a ruling in the Steed case will not directly affect the Jeffs case, although 'they would be free to make whatever arguments they wanted.' "

Belnap acknowledges that though strictly speaking, the lack of a rapist doesn't legally preclude the existence of an accomplice, it will get dicey for holding Warren's conviction together, if Allen Steed is not convicted. Charges not reported in the correct time frame means there will never be, a rapist.

It will look ridiculous to the public. It will not look like justice. It is also a case of special circumstance, and Warren can't be said in this case, no matter what the law says, to have conspired to commit an act that didn't take place, particularly if the primary couldn't be convicted because the crime was never reported in the first place.

It doesn't look to me, like reporting took place. The frothing opposition says to me often, that I'm an idiot, that the law doesn't require a perpetrator, for there to be an accomplice. Well kids, the law says a report has to be filed in a proper manner, in the proper time frame, with proper documentation to the proper kind of person(s).

It doesn't look like that happened. I say Allen Steed wins. Probably right here, and right now. If not, he'll win this later.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Shurtleff must think he's a banker, or a judge...

A while ago he thought he was going to be a Senator.

KUTV - "In a letter sent to FLDS attorneys, Mark Shurtleff says the issue must be resolved within 30 days. He suggests following a proposal from Bruce Wisan, the accountant appointed by a judge to manage the trust."

The headline on the article says he's "demanding" this of the FLDS.

Who died and appointed him God? Last time I checked this was a matter for the courts.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Ba Da Boom, what went between Conn's Rebuke, and Smith's "Stipulation."

Piccarreta writes well. It's not in the dense legalese that makes motions hard to understand.

Response to Stipulation. Just when I thought it was getting dull, it get's interesting again. I am so loving how all of this makes my personal detractors (who shall remain nameless in their infrequently visited haunts) look idiotic. Matt Smith Strategy, my hiney, LOL.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

It's official, Raymond Jessop to file his Appeal

Two different sources are telling me it's done, it's done.

You heard "maybe" here last week. The notice of appeal has been sent so the actual appeal will follow soon. Within a week.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Arizona Hearing to go Ahead on YFZ Evidence, Conn Scolds Smith

I don't think the Judge is happy with Arizona playing games.

Judge Conn Scolds Matt Smith and keeps the hearing going:

"The State has filed a pleading entitled Stipulating offered by the State in which they offer to not use in evidence at trial in these cases any evidence seized at the Texas property in April 2008 and suggesting that the Evidentiary Hearing now scheduled on the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized in that search on February 17, 2010, is no longer necessary. The Court does not know what, if anything, to read into the fact that this offer is being made in the form of a pleading filed with the Court rather than a communication with opposing counsel. The Court recalls that the defense had expressed concerns that information derived from evidence seized in Texas might be used in this case even if that evidence itsself (sic) were not used in this case. This Court, of course, has no authority to make the parties stipulate to anything. The defense motion was filed more than a year ago. The Court would have hoped that if an agreement were going to be reached eliminating the necessity of a hearing on the motion such agreement could have been reached a long time ago. The Court has had the impression that the State was not exactly sure what their position was as to evidence seized in the Texas search.

The Court hopes counsel can understand its predicament. The Court has set aside a week on its calendar to resolve this issue. The Court intends to conduct the evidentiary hearing as it would a jury trial, clearing its calendar and devoting its daily calendar to this hearing until it is completed. The Court has already made dozens of scheduling decisions in other cases, many involving parties who wanted to schedule trials or other hearings as soon as possible, based on the assumption that the week of February 16, 2010, was unavailable for scheduling purposes. Unless and until the Court is advised unequivocally that this hearing is unnecessary, it will assume that it is going as scheduled. It is much easier to cancel a hearing at the last moment than to try to reschedule it. However, the Court is advised unequivocally that this hearing is unnecessary, it will assume that it is going as scheduled. It is much easier to cancel a hearing at the last moment than to try to reschedule it. However, the Court hopes that the parties will have enough respect for the Court's scheduling concerns that if this hearing is going to be vacated upon mutual consent the Court will be so advised as soon as possible.

IT IS ORDERED affirming the Evidentiary Hearing date of February 17, 2010, on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Waste to Fuel? Bacteria engineered to eat Junk and Crap Fuel (and Sugar!)

Just infect your garbage and the fuel rises to the top!

Yahoo News - "(B)iologists in the United States say they have invented a genetically-engineered version of a humble bacterium called Escherichia coli that could provide a cheaper, more effective alternative.

It feasts on the simple sugars found in wood chips, straw and other biomass waste and secretes molecules of fuel.

'We incorporated genes that enabled production of biodiesel directly,' lead author Jay Keasling of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California said in an email to AFP.

'The engineered E. coli secretes the biodiesel from the cell, which means that we don't need to break open the cell to get the diesel out. This saves substantially on processing cost,' Keasling explained.

In addition, 'the biodiesel is insoluble in water, which means that it forms a separate phase when it is secreted from the engineered E. coli -- it floats to the top as any oil would. This also saves on processing costs.'

The study, published in the British science journal Nature, is a 'proof-of-concept' piece of research.

It did not detail any potential environmental impacts or estimates of costs.

Keasling, though, said the findings were significant enough to warrant commercial products within one or two years, provided further increases on yield are met.

The researchers further engineered E. coli to secrete enzymes that would degrade hemicellulose -- an important component of cellulosic biomass -- into its component sugars.

'The importance of this development is that the organism can produce the fuel from a very inexpensive sugar supply,' said Keasling.

More than 7.6 billion litres (two billion gallons) of biofuels were consumed worldwide last year, and demand continues to increase."

And Tastes Good Too!

When do they start? It seems as if they are saying you can throw your refuse into a pond, seed it with these little monsters and skim diesel off the top.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

(UPDATED) Arizona Says Officially: We will NOT use any evidence from YFZ

In a move severely damaging their case, and signaling they DON'T expect to win an evidence challenge, Arizona has given up YFZ evidence:

This has several effects, one is that the FLDS lose an avenue of appeal. Texas Gains (not Arizona) the advantage of not being shot in the back on YFZ evidence, by Judge Conn. Sheriff Doran will not go under oath in Court, neither will Brooks Long. There may be a dismissal of Arizona charges against Warren in the offing. Maybe not. That will have to wait.

I am told that there is an appeal already filed in the case of Raymond Jessop.

This is both good, and bad news. FLDS supporters or sympathizers would have welcomed a ruling on the evidence in Arizona. This will not happen now.

However, there is a wording at the end of the "stipulation," which says "at this TIME." This may mean that Judge Conn will go ahead with the hearing, so there will be no "later time." I'm sure all of this will come out soon.

Correction: It says, "At Any Time," meaning that the State is renouncing all intent to use YFZ evidence.

Still, I'd watch for them to try to "back door" the evidence in some other way, such as trying to use the trial records in Texas, or perhaps Michael Emack's "no contest" plea. This is where not being a lawyer really puts me in the dark.

Nevertheless it seems that various government entities REALLY don't want Long and Doran under oath on a witness stand. Why would that be?

All of this is very curious, because back on November 24th, Matt Smith and essentially said "let's dance" when it came to the evidentiary hearing, now he says "don't bother."

UPDATE: I am told if Judge Conn SIGNS the stipulation, the hearing is off. Apparently, he must agree to this stipulation.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Obama:

He just said:

"What keeps me going....."

Yeah, the crowd is wondering what keeps you going too Barry.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Delay, Delay, Delay Machine back up and Running for Rozita?

According to Douglas County, whose computers have been down most of the afternoon;

Rozita's case was "vacated" for tomorrow. The individual answering the phone could not tell me if that meant her case was dismissed, or if the probation revocation hearing had been reset for another time.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bring it on, part II

Just to give you an idea of how obsessed these people are, and how badly they need a devil, I will refer to a blog that I really prefer that you never visit.

Sometimes though, you're not completely useless, you can always serve as a Bad Example.

Some observations. In the above thread I am mentioned numerous times. The number of inaccuracies are rampant.

First, though these are no in particular order of importance. I knew Randy Weaver, to paraphrase slightly, I am no Randy Weaver. I find him a fascinating character and I emphasize the word "character" and deliberately endow it with double meanings.

I doubt Randy Weaver remembers me by name. I helped arrange for financial transactions with Randy after Ruby Ridge as part of my job. By this time Randy had won his case, and a lot of money in the process.

My evaluation of Randy is as follows:

He is in essence a good time party boy with strong political beliefs. The evidence of my eyes and personal experience is that the constant salutation assigned to Randy; "White Supremacist," is not apropos. He was a small time gun dealer in Idaho who was targeted as an example. Had he been arrested quietly in town, no one would have died, and Randy would have been in and out of jail by now, and we'd never have known who he was. Instead, Randy was ambushed in the woods on the way to his house, and the ensuing lethal misunderstanding made him something of an Icon.

I had a chance to observe Randy over several days during about a month to two months worth of time. I had a chance to interact with him for several hours regarding business. I was able to extract personal information from him, that he is ordinarily very reluctant to give. All of this occurred in 1996. In other words, Randy trusted me and did so in a short period of time. That's part of my tool box or skill set, it's what I do.

Later Randy went to a party of all the clients of that business over a one or two month period of time. It was a "get to know you" function for that business. That business had a motivational/organizational consultant on retainer who was in attendance and who is more African than our current President. There was alcohol on hand, and someone had brought cigars.

All night long, Randy and the consultant sat together smoking and laughing and drinking. You almost wanted to say "get a ROOM." It's hard for me to see Randy as a "White Supremacist," at least, that is not his primary motivation in my experience. I personally think he was a crook of a minor variety that got off the charges because his family got shot up in a Law Enforcement gross over reaction and attempt to make an example out of him, and his family. I often use my short relationship with Randy as an illustration of public perception vs private reality.

I will say this: I knew Randy, you probably have never met the guy. I'll play my trump card of knowing him over your sound bite use of his name any day. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a racial supremacist or a Nazi. Period. I have in the past made the mistake of commenting at a Nazi site not KNOWING they were Nazi's and I got out as fast as I got in.

Two. My wife is off limits you idiots. Leave her alone. Don't even comment on her. This is a warning. Should ANYTHING you say or do spill over into the reality of her life you're in deep yogurt so to speak (one of my father's favorite pet phrases). My wife ranks as the best thing that's ever happened to me personally, outside of salvation. I regard myself as literally owing my life to her. She is an intelligent but private person. She holds NUMEROUS degrees. She speaks SEVERAL languages. One of her degrees is from a school of near Ivy League reputation. Many of the personnel working at the White House over the last 30 years graduated from the same private institution. She was in her youth, a near Olympic caliber athlete. Absolutely none of what I just said is an exaggeration. It is spot on true as well as the following: She is none of your business and doesn't want anything to do with you. She is entirely aware of what I think and do. I love her deeply. Leave her alone. I will be on you LEGALLY like a heat seeking missile if you let your casual remarks and stalking bleed over into her life. That goes for any family member. I have used none of their names except for my jailbird son. None of them have aligned themselves with me publicly. My passion is not their passion. That has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. Some of them do, some of them don't.

The Christian (Protestant) Reformation began in disagreement over doctrine. It is right and proper for us in the Reformation tradition to disagree over sincerely held beliefs. I am in fact in closer alignment with the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther, when it comes to my stance on polygyny. I have reached a public phase of my dispute with the denomination with whom I fellowship. I have been very disclosure oriented with regard to that dispute. It is my belief they violate their own procedures through secret meetings and secret accusations. There is no declared requirement of belief on the institution of marriage for membership in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and as such it would have no more declared impact on my sincerity of belief than a dispute over Baptism.

The various Presbyterian Denominations are not AUTHORITARIAN in their Governance like the Roman Catholic Church for instance. Right or wrong, there is no mechanism for dispute of what constitutes Orthodoxy for the rank and file parishioner in the RCC. This is quite different in the OPC. Hence, I contend that I have been wrongfully withheld membership and am now wrongfully barred from the church by it's leadership. I am however obedient in that I have not attended since directed not to attend.

I expect to lose the conflict. I have always expected to lose the conflict should it ever have become public, as it now has. I have always harbored the faint hope that I might be accepted as a member with the understanding that the denomination I was in, did not agree with me. This looming loss provides for me, certain options that I would not have as a member of the church. None of those "options" should be seen as me contemplating or threatening or encouraging an illegal act.

Last, I do not now nor have I ever had a Criminal Record. I have never violated any law except for traffic regulations. I have never seen the inside of a court room as a defendant except in the civil matter of my first marriage (divorce) or as a defendant in a traffic violation. I have never been arrested. I have seen the inside of a jail ONCE in California because that is where they kept their fingerprint scanner. I have had my fingerprints taken on numerous occasions as part of passing criminal background checks. I have successfully passed those criminal background checks in Florida, Idaho, Montana, Vermont and California. I am on file as licensed in Montana and Vermont under the exact and same name I used here as part of the address of my blog. I have twice in my life been a registered lobbyist.

Rozita Swinton is on the doorstep of transitioning from public figure, to private figure. Her court appearance this coming Wednesday is her last regularly scheduled one intended to tie up loose ends from her 2007 guilty plea in her false reporting crime in Castle Rock in 2005. I doubt anything earth shattering will come out of it. Unless someone discovers something NEW about her in connection with some other investigation or unless Texas ACTUALLY decides to charge her with something, she's off the table pretty much. Her name will get mentioned here from time to time, as it is relevant but the FLDS know enough about her now, and her past connections and they'll pursue her, or they won't. In the final analysis, it's not my ox that got gored.

Don't suppose, you toads, that you can lay a finger on me, or my wife without trouble raining on you so hard that you will need the Super Dome for a hat. All the trouble I will cause for you will be of the entirely legal variety and done to you by an attorney, in court.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

No new tricks up Michael Emack's sleave, he goes No Contest

Michael Emack pled "nolo contendere" but preserved his right to appeal, answering a question on my mind:

The San Angelo Standard-Times - Judge Barbara Walther of the 51st District Court asked (Michael) Emack if he understood what the plea allowed him to do.

'I believe it helps me maintain my dignity,' Emack said.

He also said he understood that it allowed him to appeal. The court recognized that Emack reserves the right to appeal only in certain cases.

One case regards the lawfulness of search warrants that law enforcement personnel used to raid the Yearning for Zion Ranch outside Eldorado in April 2008 on the basis of what later turned out to be a hoax call of a girl claiming she was abused inside the community."

I had wondered about this. If you plead "no contest" can you re-open the case if the evidence is disallowed later and the answer is "yes." Depending on how long those appeals take, Michael may be out about the same time they get processed through our legal system. It apparently took making a special stipulation to reserve that right for Mr. Emack who will get seven years.

He also gives up his "right to remain silent" among others which I don't know exactly how to take. The waiver stipulation worries me:

"(Judge Barbara) Walther had Emack agree to a 'waiver of stipulation of the evidence,' saying that the evidence was accurate and could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt."

I honestly don't know. Does this now constitute a form of testimony that can be used in other cases? Namely, that the evidence is "accurate?" Judge Walther is not a great jurist, but she is not a stupid woman either, and I'm sure the prosecution had influence on what it would accept from Mr. Emack. Greater legal minds than mine (there are quite a few) will chime in on this development and reveal what it means to it's fullest extent.

As always, it happens late on a Friday. For now it seems though, that Michael avoids the meat grinder trial, the publicity and the "perp walk." If the appeal goes badly, he won't spend too much more time behind bars than he would if it's successful.

This also means that in general, procedural issues with regard to appeal have been covered by the first two trials. There was no "grand stand" left to make at this trial, that wasn't made in the first two.

There is this fascinating tidbit as well:

"Emack has a pending bigamy case against him, and he said he intends to plead no contest to that as well for seven years to be served concurrently with his sexual assault sentence.

(Michael's) defense lawyer, Abilene attorney Randy Wilson, will reserve the right to appeal that bigamy case, stating that Emack intends to be a part of a joint motion of FLDS members that will challenge the constitutionality of Texas’ bigamy statutes."

Interesting. Plead out so that you can challenge the constitutionality of a bigamy law. My work may be done soon.

The constitutionality angle will burn the candle at one end, the evidence challenge at the other. Eventually, if the evidence challenge fails, but the constitutional angle does not, it will be argued that Texas married young women right up to the point of the raid, that were of similar and younger age than the informal brides of the FLDS. I suppose the argument would then be, "I wasn't asking to do anything wrong, I was just forbidden to do what was my right by the state of Texas." Texas can hardly argue it doesn't want young girls having sex, when it's marrying them off. All they can say is they don't want young girls having sex with older men who have another wife, and that will be an unconstitutional restriction.

More →

Sphere: Related Content