Comments on: DON’T ANSWER THE DOOR, IT’S THEM MORMONS!

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:14:29 +0000

Nephew,

How is he posting as if he’s coming from your site?

Do you want to see the signature?

By: Pliggy

Pliggy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:28:09 +0000

Most of “diesel” posts of late are also KB sockpuppetry.

By: Pliggy

Pliggy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:25:08 +0000

“diesel” of 10:04 is not the original “diesel” but a Kindred Bigot mole. (Poor pitiful life to live by loving hate and spreading lies)

By: Christmas Jacobs

Christmas Jacobs — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:50:25 +0000

I hear u Bob. - I understand your point, but the way I understand it - With both the judge and the prosecution working hard to stack, then prejudice, the jury, Steven and Hudson had to make their primary focus making the case very strong for appeal. The fact is, the FLDS knew they must lose this one so they could appeal to get their documents and family records back. Its better for them to lose one right off the back and get the appeal rolling and then wait while more of their religious records are decimated. From here they can add the states witness testimony to their evidence hearing in AZ and the federal civil law suit they’re working on.. See? They HAD to lose this battle to win the war.

By: pins

pins — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:05:10 +0000

Ditto!to *just me* I totally agree

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:00:47 +0000

Cripes….let me try it this way…

Before I went to law school, I was an actor. When I was in acting school in NYC, we had some people in the class who were lawyers. They weren’t there because they had stars in their eyes. They were there to learn how to win cases. Win cases!

There was no law taught in acting school. None. Zip. Nada. So why were the lawyers there?

They were there because a smart defense lawyer knows that a courtroom is a stage and he has to win over an audience of jurors and convince them that his client should walk.

I wasn’t in the courtroom and maybe the defense team did a great job. But, as I’ve been arguing even before the case was in court, this was not a difficult case for the prosecution. This being the case, the defense had to pull out all the stops and work the jury to have the individual jury members see through the minutiae to arrive at a just decision.

By: Christmas Jacobs

Christmas Jacobs — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:59:25 +0000

Sigh . . . The prosecution did NOT PROVE any assault took place IN Texas! The second biggest reversible error made by Walther (after allowing in the evidence) was not instructing the jury that the state had not proven jurisdiction.
The jury did not have to exercise its right to nullify. In fact it nullified justrice when it declared him guilty when the state presented them no proof that the act occurred in Texas.

Like CPS, LE and Walther - if they had simply followed the law.

I believe Wendell Nielson’s trial woulds be an excellent one to argue state persecution of religious beliefs. - It’s comin’ Bob. Be patient.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:55:49 +0000

Aww geez. I didn’t think I’d have to explain this further.

Look, the lawyer doesn’t stand up and say: “I’m looking for jury nullification.” He simply argues in a persuasive manner and subtly introduces ideas of how the black letter law is an ass in this case.

And, the jury doesn’t then stand up and say: “We’re nullifying the law.” It simply finds that the defendant is innocent and finds the rationale in the law to reach this conclusion.

A good lawyer understands human psychology and is able to use it to his client’s advantage.

By: zxcvbnm

zxcvbnm — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:38:58 +0000

For a lawyer to directly present to the jury a case for nullification is against the procedural rules of a Texas and other courts.

If a lawyer opens the door for a religious freedom case the lawyer opens the door for the other side to present a contrary case……and the judge will shoot one or both sides down for opening an irrelevant argument.

The prosecution stayed strictly in a ‘lane” which argued the law……….under 17 and no right to consent.

Sure a lawyer may have skirted the issue but in all reality barbie would have shut down any argument that strayed from the States agenda. Jury nullification is in all practicality a practice of a jury acting alone and as an independent body…………..fat chance in Texas or many other states.

Hildibrand set the agenda, slipped the new laws under the radar of the legislature and set up the scenerio that will convict many…………but just a note…………16 was the age of the non-victim and that age was within limits of thethe pre-Hildibrand law.

Everything in this case will be decided in the long run and will be based on the procedural issues and “technicalities” of the trial………………………….a long process is underway. Sure hope Raymond and the others are patient.

By: Cupcake

Cupcake — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:13:14 +0000

Just how many of the KS are qualified to assess an attorney’s peformance? Most of them act as though they are watching a football game instead of a trial.

Think about it. Did any of them understand the principle of presumption of innocence? No. As far as they were concerned, Raymond was guilty before the trial ever started.

If they can’t understand the very basics of criminal law, how could they possibly determine whether an attorney did his job well?

As for Stevens, we’ll see how good an attorney he is if the FLDS file an appeal.