Wikipedia Edit Wars, and YFZ (or, why the FLDS is losing)-UPDATED

Popular perception in opinion and political wars, is everything.

The following is an example of subtle vandalism, and evidence that someone is watching, and erasing as we go.

Wikipedia - "On February 10, 2010, Arizona prosecutor Matt Smith agreed not to use any evidence seized from the YFZ raid at the upcoming trial of Warren Jeffs. Jeffs is awaiting trial in Arizona on four counts of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, charges filed in 2007."

Except, that's not the original edit, and entry. It's been changed.

Those who know how Wikipedia works know that such reference material is largely a "substantiated perception" of an event, not a historical record. Wikipedia becomes very useful in documenting what most people believe, seasoned strongly with what evidence is available, to back that up. Though timely and readily available, Wikipedia is often subject to a sort of vandalism similar to the "unpersoning" mentioned in a previous post on this subject.

The above referenced quote from Wikipedia is a subtle lie. It is also vandalism. I know. I wrote the original edit that stated specifically that Judge Steven Conn ruled YFZ evidence inadmissible and the raid unlawful ("illegal"). While this is an opinion, it is also fact, and it also can be documented from the online record on the case. Someone has come in, and changed the entry to show what FLDS enemies want us to believe about Judge Conn's ruling. They want us to believe that it was a Stipulation on the part of the prosecution, that it wouldn't use YFZ evidence, something Matt Smith tried to pawn off on the defense and Judge Conn, and something Judge Conn scathingly rejected.

It was a Stipulation alright, but to the motion of the defense, that the evidence be suppressed, because the raid was unlawful (read also, "illegal"). Then the equivocation began that because Matt had offered a "Stipulation" before, and because the word "Stipulation" was being used, that it was the same thing. Matt in fact, reversed field, came before the court, and agreed that the defense was right, and the matter on which Judge Conn INSISTED he would rule, was in fact, ruled on. When the defense cries "foul" that the raid was unlawful ("illegal") and demands that the evidence be "suppressed" in the form of a motion, and a Judge who is already dubious about that evidence has in his hand a "Stipulation" from the prosecution, as to that defense motion being valid, and he insists on RULING, it shouldn't come as a surprise, that he does rule.

And Judge Conn DID. GRANTING the motion of the defense. RULING that the evidence was UNLAWFULLY ("ILLEGALLY") obtained and suppressing the evidence.

The way the Wikipedia entry now reads, you'd think Judge Conn agreed to this offer (Stipulation) on the part of the defense.

"COMES NOW, the State of Arizona, by the Mohave County Attorney, and hereby agrees to stipulate to not using any evidence seized from the State of Texas including any materials seized specifically by Texas law enforcement during the April, 2008, search of the 'YFZ Ranch'. The State agrees at this time in order to avoid an Evidentiary Hearing in this case in February, that it will not use any evidence seized by the Texas authorities from the YFZ Ranch in its' case-in-chief, during cross-examination of any called defense witnesses or as rebuttal evidence. IN summary, the State will agree not to use this evidence for any purpose whatsoever in either of the two cases pending against the Defendant, Warren Jeffs. The State believes that this should take care of the pending Evidentiary Hearing and there should be no need to proceed with said hearing at any time.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 21st day of January, 2010.

MATTHEW J. SMITH
MOHAVE COUNTY ATTORNEY"

Judge Conn ANGRILY rejected that notion.

"The Court does not know what, if anything, to read into the fact that this offer is being made in the form of a pleading filed with the Court rather than a communication with opposing counsel."

Imagine the preceding "offer" (which Conn labels as being misidentified as a "pleading") had been read and understood in Court. Conn is handing the piece of paper BACK to Smith and saying "What do you want me to do with this nonsense?" He doesn't want an answer, the remark is rhetorical. Conn goes on to say:

"This Court, of course, has no authority to make the parties stipulate to anything."

Interpretation? "Matt, if you didn't want an evidentiary hearing on YFZ evidence, you should have sought out Michael Piccarreta and made a deal with him that he could believe in, not to use the evidence. If he was convinced you were sincere, he wouldn't have bothered to make his motion, but you didn't.

In addition, if you found the evidence suspect, why did you go to Texas to look at it, and confuse the issue? Judge Conn again:

"The defense motion was filed more than a year ago."

This is critical, because it identifies for us, the reader, WHICH motion it is, of the defense, to which Conn is referring. Matt Smith initially fought that motion to suppress, made on September 3rd, 2008. There were no other motions made about the evidence, as Conn indicates, "more than a year ago."

"The Court would have hoped that if an agreement were going to be reached eliminating the necessity of a hearing on the motion such agreement could have been reached a long time ago. The Court has had the impression that the State was not exactly sure what their position was as to evidence seized in the Texas search."

Translation? "You're wasting my time Matt, and you don't look like you know what you're doing." Conn goes on to rip into the State of Arizona for wasting the valuable time of the Court:

"The Court has set aside a week on its calendar to resolve this issue."

Conn restates to Matt (who already knows this, so it is a LECTURE), what the purpose of an evidentiary hearing IS, a "Trial of the Evidence."

"The Court intends to conduct the evidentiary hearing as it would a jury trial, clearing its calendar and devoting its daily calendar to this hearing until it is completed."

(You haven't just inconvenienced ME (Judge Conn) Matt, and this Court, but everyone who has business before it.)

"The Court has already made dozens of scheduling decisions in other cases, many involving parties who wanted to schedule trials or other hearings as soon as possible, based on the assumption that the week of February 16, 2010, was unavailable for scheduling purposes."

Now the more subtle "codespeak." What Conn says here is; "Matt, if you're going to agree to the motion of the defense, or if the defense withdraws it's motion, I'll cancel the hearing. Otherwise, it's on like Donkey Kong bub."

"(If) the Court is advised unequivocally that this hearing is unnecessary, it will assume that it is going as scheduled. It is much easier to cancel a hearing at the last moment than to try to reschedule it. However, the Court hopes that the parties will have enough respect for the Court's scheduling concerns that if this hearing is going to be vacated upon mutual consent the Court will be so advised as soon as possible."

Conn is being superficially polite as well, since it is not Michael Piccarreta that is causing the problem, but Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith.

Now the stage is properly set. For Conn to back off, and accept the "Stipulation" offered that he ridicules brutally above, he would have to make an embarrassing about face. He just said "Like HELL" to Smith's piece of paper, that he derisively dismisses as a "offering."

Why the sudden offer of a "Stipulation" by Matt Smith? Piccarreta was plunging ahead full speed, issuing subpoenas to Sheriff David Doran (Texas), Texas Ranger Brooks Long (Texas), Deputy Allen Pashano (of Arizona), and Probation Officer Bill Loader (Arizona), two days before.

It has been derisively snorted that subpoenas to Texas LE would be ignored and worthless, but this is what both Texas and Arizona have been trying to avoid. If Doran and Long don't show up to go under oath, the motion to suppress will carry. If they do, it was widely speculated that they would being in an awkward position, having a lot to answer for under oath. A real danger to both men and to all the YFZ cases.

It is thus believed on both sides of the YFZ controversy, that the Texas witnesses (Doran and Long) would not show up. If they did, the FLDS would have a virtual gold mine to work with. They're not coming, (I speculate and the opposition agrees) so at the moment the subpoenas were issued, Arizona loses the evidentiary hearing, and it's all over. The "offering" that Conn refers to was a desperate last ditch ploy on the part of a brave Matt Smith, who is willing to make himself look foolish for Texas in front of a Court in which he must appear again, and again. In front of a Judge he does not wish to convince, that he, Matt Smith, is foolish.

Michael Piccarreta then draws up another Stipulation. This is also critical. The previous "Stipulation" filed in the form of a "pleading" before the Court, scathingly dismissed by Judge Conn as an "offering" with which he did not know what to do is off the table. THIS "Stipulation" is crafted by Warren Jeffs' attorneys, and says quite simply that Matt Smith now unconditionally surrender, and stipulate to Warren's motion of September 3rd, 2008. The motion to suppress.

"Plaintiff, State of Arizona, by and through its attorney, Matthew J. Smith, and defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his attorneys, Michael L. Piccarreta and Richard A. Wright, stipulate as follows:

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

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

3. That, in light of the foregoing, the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Searches of FLDS Property, currently set for February 17 and 18, 2010, is hereby vacated."

This "Stipulation" is WRITTEN by Jeffs' Law Firm, specifically states the raid to be "Unlawful." It was signed first by Jeffs' attorneys and in essence, pushed across the table to Matt Smith who signed it in a surrender as unconditional as that of Japan on V-J Day.

On page 26 of the Original Motion, it says this:

III CONCLUSION

"For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this Court to issue its order suppressing all the evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the unlawful searches of FLDS church property in Eldorado, Texas.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of September, 2008."

WRIGHT STANISH & WINCKLER PICCARRETA DAVIS PC

The only person now, who can stop the raid being ruled unlawful, is Judge Conn, and he doesn't:

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

The terms are that of the defense, and involve granting the motion to Suppress (above), and suppressing the Evidence, obtained in an unlawful search, never to be used in any way directly or indirectly.

And so history is marred, vandalized if you will. If you read the altered Wikipedia entry, you'd think Matt Smith just "agreed" not to use the evidence, as he offered, and was rudely rejected by the Court.

The Evidence was SUPPRESSED in Arizona. The raid was agreed to be UNLAWFUL by Arizona. That has sweeping future implications for that same evidence, and it's use already in convictions obtained in Texas. That fact was part of the original entry on YFZ at Wikipedia, and now the lie is promulgated that Matt Smith simply "isn't going to use it," promoting other various causes such as "Warren is guilty as sin and Arizona doesn't need the evidence from YFZ to prove it."

You can find a similar acknowledgment at the Texas Blog "Grits for Breakfast," that clearly recognizes exactly the same thing, spelled out above.

So why does this mean the FLDS are losing? Because when popular perception is wholly distorted on the raid, it is simply easier for Judges to ignore the law, and rule in a way that makes the populace happy.

The populace believes that the FLDS convicted are bad men, is forgetting about Rozita and doesn't know that once you get outside of Walther's courtroom, the evidence used so far in FLDS convictions, has been thrown out.

When it gets to the appeal, Judges, who are supposedly not political, will find it all too tempting to be, political. When that happens, no one will care. They have already forgotten. Wikipedia is important, because it shows that someone with an ax to grind has a vested interest in making sure that the truth stays forgotten.

That's because "they" believe it will influence the final outcome, and they are right.

UPDATE: I attempted to edit the Wikipedia page on YFZ, but the edit lasted about 5 minutes, and was "corrected" back to the misleading entry. The edit had cites linking to the Mohave County Courts site, documenting with exactly quoted language from the motions, what had in fact occurred.

The dates are still wrong, the implication of the article is still that Matt Smith "Agreed" not to use the evidence from YFZ, despite the fact that he gave up, laid down, and allowed it to be ruled inadmissible (suppressed).

More →

Sphere: Related Content

And they say it's not nice, to point....

But I'm going to do it anyway.

There's an article out in Texas Monthly, and "Grits" has something to say about it.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Two Years Later, all that is left, is misinformation

Betty Jessop

The condition of journalism today, is largely a reflection of the condition of our own minds. Logic applied to this ABC News analysis would cost the writers their jobs, but it doesn't, because we have long since ceased to apply logic, as a society:

"Former members of the polygamist sect that was raided two years ago say they are encouraged by tough sentences handed down by courts in recent months, but said that the secretive group is as a strong as ever."

In one sentence, there is an internal contradiction that will be repeated in this story. Perhaps the writer is a fan of "synthesis," thinking we arrive at truth by merging contradictions. If so, the writer is so fuzzy on that blurry concept that they have lost track of even that distorted view of the truth.

How are you encouraged by "strong sentences" if they are not breaking the will of your enemy, but instead, seemingly, making them stronger? In addition, in a theme repeated by the hateful "Antis," the human sacrifice of example must be applied to an undeserving victim to advance their agenda.

Think.

If the sentences are extraordinarily harsh, and out of proportion with sentences handed down to other "sex offenders," then we have demanded of the "offender" that they pay more than they ought, for the sake of an agenda being advanced. We might as well throw someone into a volcano to appease some "god."

If the sentences are NOT extraordinarily harsh, then the hatred of the "Antis" is revealed again, because they cannot focus on the greater damage to society occurring every day with other sex offenders flying under the radar while former FLDS members revel and rejoice while their own special focuses of vitriol are roasted alive. The rest of the world and it's children can go to hell while they sit back and bask in the glowing fire of their enemies suffering.

"So far, four of the 12 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who were accused of child abuse have been convicted and sentenced to prison.

'These convictions are a really big deal. They're game changers and it's significant,' said Carolyn Jessop, who escaped from the FLDS sect in Colorado City, Ariz., seven years ago."

What, is this a book deal promotion? Carolyn Jessop "escaped?" Are we just reminding people what the title of her book is? Many people have "escaped" from the FLDS, as many as want to. "Escape" is a connotation laden word implying imprisonment, making a break for it, and "Getting Away" from pursuers.

The evidence says you can "walk away" from the FLDS, anytime you want to. The author of the story neglects to mention that Carolyn's own daughter Betty "escaped" from her and went back to FLDS.

" '(T)here is still a side to the FLDS that thinks they are invincible and that these trials are a joke and that if a few men go to prison for the cause, the group will still be fine,' said Jessop. The group burst into the national spotlight after the April 3, 2008 raid of the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, Texas. People were stunned not only by the charges of polygamy and child brides, but because of the pastel prairie clothes, braided hairstyles and submissive attitude of the ranch's women."

One is tempted to simply allow their brain to leap out of their skull and start smashing itself into whatever wall there is available.

There is "Still a SIDE to the FLDS?" Um, Carolyn, how about "the whole group?" Pretty much it seems the "side" she speaks of is the vast majority of the FLDS. She seems to imply here that the FLDS is a divided group with a faction holding sway, when outward evidence suggests that the "factions" of the FLDS consist of a small rebellious minority that regularly leaves the group and then is stunned when no one follows, such as Carolyn, Elissa and Flora. By using these terms, and also having the writer repeat them without modification or observation of any kind, the writer is not being a reporter, but an advocate, mouthpiece and publicist for the "side" of the FLDS that pretty much isn't FLDS any longer.

Carolyn and the writer imply strongly that there is a "side" within the group still, that longs to be as she is. Except, in two years none of those "rescued" that needed to "escape" from the ranch, have taken advantage of their opportunity to "escape." They have in fact fought tooth and nail, to get back, like her own daughter Betty.

"Carolyn Jessop characterizes the recent 75-year prison sentence as 'unbelievable,' saying that the FLDS has believed for generations 'that they live above the law.' Even so, she says that unless the veil of secrecy that has long overshadowed the sect is lifted, the group will continue to thrive.

'If these men go to prison and don't say anything, [their convictions] might not have any impact on the group,' she said. 'The only way I can see it having a profound impact is if someone is willing to talk for a reduced sentence.' "

And here Carolyn's hateful motivations and immorality are made clear. She's part of a group that wishes to use long prison sentences to extort information from the convicted.

"Keep Convicting Them," she is saying, "Keep Sentencing Them to LIFELONG TORMENT (until someone talks)."

I hate to break it to Carolyn, but if you truly believe that the Path to Heaven and Place in the Afterlife is along the lines that the FLDS believe it to be, this would be the equivalent of selling your soul for Raymond, Merril Allen Keate or Michael Emack. Would you indeed trade your immortal soul for relief in this life? 35 or less of your remaining years on this earth, for an eternity in Torment?

"[The sect] depends on secrecy," she said. "The minute the secrecy is taken away, then the crimes will have to be prosecuted."

"These men know what is going on at that ranch and in the entire community and they've witnessed the worst," she added.

Carolyn Jessop

Yup, that's it. They're the Nazi's that imprison her people who long to be let go from their concentration camp. They should be subjected to increasing torments, until someone confesses.

What's next Carolyn? Do you want to send them all to some CIA torture camp outside the country to be waterboarded until they give it up?

"Mary Mackert, another former FLDS member who left the group and her six sister wives in 1984, agrees with Carolyn Jessop, and says that while the news of the convictions 'makes her smile,' she said there is much more to be done."

If you doubted me, simply read the above again. Mary Mackert "agrees" with Carolyn Jessop. What is her attitude? The extraordinary punishments of the FLDS members convicted so far "make her smile."

For them, the ends justify the means:

"Both Mackert and Jessop said the investigation of the Yearning For Zion Ranch in 2008 was successful in that it brought light to the crimes the members allegedly commit, but said it failed in terms of the children."

And for the FLDS? I have a point to make, when you don't tell your side of the story loudly enough, the revisionism takes full hold, and today's writers, who don't research their stories, repeat lies:

"In the days following the raid, 439 children were taken from their parents and put into foster care, running up a tab for the state of Texas that exceeded $12 million in just 2009. Legal fees since then have not been calculated. All but one child has since been returned to the ranch."

This gives the impression that Texas still holds Merrianne Jessop.

"It broke my heart to see the judge turn those children back," said Mackert.

I suppose we should care about Mary's heart, far away in Idaho, about kids that aren't hers, as opposed to the parent's hearts, in Texas, with relation to kids that ARE theirs. To say nothing of the kids themselves.

And now, another one of those contradiction laden passages:

"Jessop also questioned why the children were returned.

'When the state went in and took the kids, I thought once they interfered they had an obligation to follow through. They had an obligation and not just put the kids back in it and close their eyes. That to me was completely betrayal for these children,' she said.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to comment for this story. In previous media accounts, the agency has defended the raid and has said they would do it again if they received more reports of child abuse. The children were returned to the ranch due to a lack of evidence of abuse to those children.

'Because the state dropped the ball on the kids, the FLDS community was very much strengthened because inside, they feel like the sky is the limit and they're untouchable,' said Carolyn Jessop, who still communicates with sect members, including family members."

The state defends the raid, Carolyn thinks they dropped the ball, but the CHILDREN were returned because there was a LACK of EVIDENCE of ABUSE to those children.

Carolyn is again held up as some sort of expert on internal FLDS workings, and the state has listened to her with regard to what happens there, and given her almost all she wishes in terms of pressure applied the FLDS, and they haven't cracked.

Wise up Carolyn, you said it yourself: "The FLDS community is very much strengthened." Wait for it though, she's not through contradicting herself.

"(Mary and Carolyn) say that while they will never stop talking about their own experiences, current FDLS members are the ones that really have the power to end what they call a life of 'emotional and physical torture.'

'The people at the top [in the sect] are nervous,' said Jessop. 'They don't admit it to a lot of people, but they are.'

'How could they not be nervous?' echoed Mackert. 'It's becoming a reality that they could spend the rest of their lives behind bars.' "

Yup, the emotional abuse and torture Carolyn's own daughter couldn't wait to subject herself to again. The emotional abuse and torture that Mary and Carolyn seemed trapped in for the rest of their own lives.

Get over it gals.

It's over. I have an ex. I lost everything. Kids and all. I don't spend any more time than is absolutely necessary thinking about her. It only hurts me and if I'm really unlucky, everyone around me when I can't zip my lip about it. Don't be such losers.

In my experience, a good deal of ex wives are like suicides. They leave a marriage, they kill it, and then they hang around to see if their ex, got the message. Finally.

"Think I'm gonna kill myself, cause a little suicide, stick around for a couple of days, what a scandal if I died.

Yeah, I'm gonna kill myself, get a little headline news. I'd like to see what the papers say..." (Bernie Taupin)

Unfortunately, for those of us left behind, the ghosts of divorce are all too real. Carolyn and Mary still want the attention, and are going to hairlip the devil to get it.

It is also true that Mary and Carolyn seem to be engaging in a little wishful thinking. The leaders are "nervous." Of course, she has no actual communication with them to know this, but, they're nervous. Aren't they? They'd have to be. Wouldn't they?

Stunningly, or perhaps really not so stunningly, the "unpersoning" (damnatio memoriae) of Rozita Swinton is now complete. In not one place in this story is she mentioned. In the popular retelling we'll just keep applying a little makeup to that "unsightly area" until it is gone altogether.

Rozita Swinton, Babysitting, Thanksgiving 2008, Burley ID

I did do the follow up on Rozita's Douglas County probation violation. Her probation officer was persuaded to not file a report against her, alleging violation of her previous conviction's terms of probation in Douglas County. She was "granted a new trial," the charges were dropped, and the whole matter went away.

Just like David Foley said it would happen. Except he left out a few nasty details, like she'd been convicted before, and than some major arm twisting went on to get the new trial, dropped charge and eventual vaporizing of Rozita's previous crime to that of the El Paso county conviction.

David Foley has also said that Texas has agreed to drop the charges against Rozita. I believe him even though Texas denies it.

But Carolyn and Mary hang around. Rozita and the real causes behind YFZ fade into the sunset and diminish. And ABC news retells the story, until we get it "right."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Lamont Barlow "Rule 15" interview taking place within the hour

Today.

This is no joke, I realize the date might make you think that.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

56

Happy Birthday.

To me.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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.

JUDGE G. RAND BEACHAM"

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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 don’t 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

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?

Because it can.

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