headermask image

header image

ARE THE WRITINGS OF WSJ “EVIDENCE”, OR ANOTHER FANTASY OF PHILIP KEMP?

Texas may be a pretty weird place, but even they cannot play around with “Evidence” in a criminal investigation like it’s their own private porn material.

It appears that lessons of perjury, withholding of exculpatory evidence and tampering with evidence were learned well by Texas Ranger Philip Kemp and AG Lisa Tanner in Kemps Mineola fantasy. Now, those lessons learned are being used in barbie’s “Court”.

Material that could ONLY have come from the Custodian of Record, Johhnie Hanna, is now showing up on porn sites across Texas, Arizona and Utah. Un-redacted possessions of the FLDS are being falsified and submitted to the Court’s by Wisan’s Attorney’s as fact, dispute the fact that their mere possession is illegal.

Once again, what we have is a “The end justify’s the means” attitude from barbie, The Texas Rangers, Natalie, Wisan, Shirtless and Denise.

The Chain of Custody of this material is irrevocably broken, let alone the question of it’s authenticity. Would I trust Wisan not to sit at a typewriter and invent his own scenario? Would Kemp commit Perjury on the stand? Would they hide exculpatory evidence?

The ball is now in the court of the Gimp with a Limp. You need to find a patsy you can blame this on barbie, because if you don’t, you just might be sitting next to Philip in prison.

QUITE NATURALLY, I RECOMMEND THE RANCH SUE EVERYBODY AND HIS MOTHER.THEY NEED TO START WITH THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE UNLESS THEY GET A FRONT PAGE APOLOGY FOR PROMOTING THE PUBLICATION OF UN REDACTED AND PRIVATE INFORMATION OF FLDS MEMBERS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

20 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

  1. Alright Hugh - I feel I have to call you on your claims that Blues “outed” Regina or Vulture. Seems a bit of a stretch since Regina always signed her posts with her first name and her screen name was “rericson.” Besides applying your standards she was “news” since she had injected herself into several high profile criminal cases.

    As to Vulture - since he puts his name and location on his blog how can your really “out” someone who does that?

    I’m not getting into rudeness since that’s an “eye of the beholder” sort of thing. It’s readily apparent that you two mix about as well as oil and water.

    And as to me not being a lawyer until you see my bar card, well, just keep the fiction that I’m not a lawyer. You can just say I play one on the internet. However, as a fictional lawyer, I don’t think I’ve every mislead Bill and have tried to answer any questions he’s posed to me directly and honestly.

    1. Ron in Houston on February 11th, 2010 at 11:13 am
  2. Rarely do I mince words. Some folks call it vulgar or crass, but if you don’t want to hear the honest truth, don’t ask Bill Medvecky a question.

    Actually, that’s one thing I like about you - there is no question where you stand.

    Although, I do have to admit - I feel I have a very high tolerance for things vulgar and crass but sometimes you even make me cringe a little.

    2. Ron in Houston on February 11th, 2010 at 11:01 am
  3. I think Brook should win the dumber then HECK award, and as her runner uppers, 3rd
    1st place TBM, 2nd Natialie, 3rd place and dip sh*t who thinks the site is very informate!
    What the h*ll is Brook thinking? Or is she smoking the same stuff they she Rosietia?!

    3. pins on February 11th, 2010 at 1:49 am
  4. Thank You, Bill for addressing this. I would be surprised if Brook is one of the behind scence players,

    4. Sally on February 11th, 2010 at 1:29 am
  5. Obstruction of justice…….. now all it takes is a phone call to the feds or the State AGs office. Took a while to get to the unminceing of words.

    Make the call Bill and report on the progress of the investigation. Since I presume that you are a citizen of the US perhaps the feds are the correct place to start. A concerned citizen with your files and background in the mess should be able to keep a few fed agents supplied with enough leads to keep an agent busy for quite some time.

    See if the feds take the bait….laws have been broken…….golly gee Marie…………any good citizen would report a crime.

    5. ZXC on February 10th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
  6. Rarely do I mince words. Some folks call it vulgar or crass, but if you don’t want to hear the honest truth, don’t ask Bill Medvecky a question.

    Among other things, tampering with evidence in a criminal case is Obstruction of Justice.

    There are rules concerning the Chain of Custody of evidence that has to be strictly adhered to, or the evidence can be tainted, destroyed, altered or fabricated from its original state.

    The prospect of the evidence to be used against me found to be in the hands, and under the control of a Johnnie Hanna, Natalie Malonis, Bruce Wisan, Philip Kemp, Brooke’s Long, Flora Jessop, Carolyn Jessop, Dan Fisher, Randy Mankin, Angie Voss or Becky Musser would give me great concern; Enough to challenge the validity and integrity of that evidence.

    It appears that every crack pot, asshole anti FLDS in the Country has possession of the material stolen from the Ranch, and the latest documents coming out of the woodwork don’t even contain a proper evidence Stamp. NOTHING stops a Natalie or a Brucie from writing their own “Diary” on behalf of WSJ and adding it to the “Evidence” already cataloged.

    Further, contained within that evidence are supposedly pictures of children who are claimed by the State of Texas to have been sexually abused.

    It is against “The Law” to publish these “Victims” unredacted.

    Yet the C.S. has posted them with the blessings of Texas and barbie.

    6. Bill on February 10th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
  7. If I remember correctly………. at the time when the information was being made public there was quite a stir about just why Barbie didn’t seal the “evidence”. The “evidence was not sealed untill AFTER it was leaked, such a convienient set of events if you wanted to skirt the rules.

    Since I assume that Barbie eventually sealed the “evidence” is the stuff floating around the internet legal to read or posess? We talk of standing to sue for releasing confidential church information but in all reality porn is porn and it is illegal to possess photos of youngsters or show picture of minor “victims”. ANY DA can bring charges against those posessing or handling porn.

    If in fact the “evidence” is illegal to posess or diseminate ala Barbies sealing of the documents then why don’t the various DAs and or courts bring charges.

    If in fact I just don’t get Bills metaphoric explanations of the events others do not get it either.
    If it is illegal…….rant and request answers………..if it is not illegal then there is no foul. If it is illegal there are a lot of court officers that are ignoreing their jobs.

    The attempt to wander around legal definitions and oh shucks the issue is as bad as LE and their big whoops every time the accusations against the church were proven wrong.

    so……..is it illegal to see or posess the states “evidence”. Don’t mince words or lay on metaphor.

    7. zxc on February 10th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
  8. I think TBM has way crossed over the line from someone who gives “opinions”.

    Here’s a few reason:

    1. From the name of his/her site, case law sited, legal conclusions given, it give the appearance this person is a lawyer. They never denied they were, even when asked directly.

    2. This person provides information they received “privately”. The shooting post was one major example. I think when you state you know private info regarding a crime - you probably don’t get to keep your identity a secret.

    3. They have publsihed private details about other bloggers.

    8. * on February 10th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
  9. Next time I’ll use “testicles”.

    As for the identity of the C.S.s, I’d certainly like to know so that I could turn the information over to the FLDS.

    There are certain people; Rozita, Natalie, Carolyn, Flora, Dan and Becky that you CANNOT libel or slander
    because they ARE what they have been called.

    That hasn’t stopped me from goading them into trying to sue me so I can get them under Oath, but in the case of TBM and the Rangers who are feeding him with the private documents stolen from the Ranch, we WILL be finding out through word press who he is and who is behind the KP sites in addition to Natalie.

    It isn’t the first time that LE wasn’t satisfied with the pace of Justice (As they see it) and have taken matters into their own hands.

    9. Bill on February 10th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
  10. Ron,

    Whatever TBM is, is rude and also threatening in a vague sort of way. TBM has been VERY specific about addressing his opponents, often revealing not commonly known things about them, making it easy for someone with a search engine to zero in exactly on those people. Where they are, where they work, etc.

    TBM also has “outed” Bill, though Bill didn’t care and I believe had already outed himself with regards to some elements of his past.

    TBM outed “Just Ducky” who went on to have a stroke.

    He outed “The Vulture” though the “Vulture” posts his name on his own blog as clear as daylight.

    The PURPOSE of stage whispering clear and exact details about people is to draw attention to them. In this hothouse environment, I’d say that’s to draw attention to in an uncomfortable way. TBM’s repeated references to my profession with his careful uses of my full and correctly spelled name are cases in point.

    Combine that with TBM’s anonymity and it’s really an ugly thing to do, and frankly, TBM deserves to have TBM’s picture posted here, there and everywhere, along with a map, with a pin in it, showing where TBM works and lives. Because that is what TBM is doing.

    Don’t deny it. It’s a common device to keep LOUDLY mentioning some aspect of a person’s life so as to draw attention to it. TBM is bullying people. Unfortunately for TBM, I don’t respond to bullying by knuckling under, neither does Bill, neither does “The Vulture.”

    As to rudeness, “I don’t believe we have been introduced” is the operative phrase. You may call me Hugh, but you may NOT call me “Hugh McBryde.” It’s rude. I know YOUR first name, but not your last. You are welcome to be as familiar with me, as I allowed to be with you.

    Combine all of that with TBM’s slap happy posting of reams of unredacted personal material which contains the names of people who are complete innocent bystanders, and what we have is a skulking coward in TBM.

    And no, I don’t think anonymous person’s claims to be legal experts should be taken seriously. You sir, are not a lawyer, until I have your bar card number, and neither is TBM.

    10. Hugh McBryde on February 10th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
  11. You are absolutely correct Cupcake. It’s extremely voyeuristic to delve into people’s lives as much as the readers of the dictations as done and I don’t swing that way. Not only that, but evidence that we have no legal right to view doesn’t impress me, when, well, we shouldn’t be looking at it in the first place if we respect what our nation was founded on. There is a cost from not living in a totalitarianism government and the cost will be some people getting away with crimes. I can live with that.

    11. Alinusara10 on February 10th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
  12. Does anybody really care who TBM is? I don’t. To me, he’s just another weirdo playing on the internet.

    Hugh (aka Pharisee) gets upset that he posts his name and is not anonymous and that other folks who are anonymous get taken seriously. He feels that anonymous folks should not be taken seriously.

    Eh, whatever. You are right, we’re all just weirdos playing on the internet.

    12. Ron in Houston on February 10th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
  13. Bill - I think you’re a bit too metaphorical for zxc.

    13. Ron in Houston on February 10th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
  14. Does anybody really care who TBM is? I don’t. To me, he’s just another weirdo playing on the internet.

    14. Cupcake on February 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
  15. I read a small portion of Warren’s dictations. I understand that documents filed in court are public records, but Pliggy convinced me that reading Warren’s dictations is an invasion of the FLDS members’ privacy. Also, I did not enjoy reading the comments because the KS are so nasty.

    I would not like it if LE raided the LDS temple and personal information about what LDS members said to their prophet was made public. I’m sure the Catholics who are following the FLDS story would not like it if what they said to their priests in a confessional was made public. So why do so many LDS Mormons and Catholics think it is acceptable for them to read Warren’s dictations?

    Now I just stay away from those sites. If I want to read about the FLDS, I come here. No, I don’t give a rat’s *ss about what TBM or the KS say about me.

    15. Cupcake on February 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
  16. I find it fascinating that Brooke Adams is treating “TBM” like “Deep Throat” in the Watergate investigation. Either she knows who TBM is, and won’t identify TBM (an anonymous uncorroborated source of questionable ethics and legality) or she doesn’t, and that puts her on even shakier ground.

    She hinted at more to come later on the sources of the material. This could be worth a big bag of popcorn.

    16. Hugh McBryde on February 10th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
  17. The people publishing this are heinous, because of all the innocent people’s lives that are exposed in the dictations, among other things.

    17. WC on February 10th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
  18. Apparently, Wisan has joined Malonis in abusing the legal system to make stolen documents public. This latest reckless move, along with Shurtleff’s ridiculous threat, is an indication that they fear the jig might be up. And I have no doubt that Wisan has boxes of documents stacked next to the shredder, in case the Supreme Court puts the kibosh on their little game. Bad enough that Brent blabbed about the conspiracy that brought Wisan to power, but he surely doesn’t want to be hung by his own paperwork.

    18. Julie on February 10th, 2010 at 11:22 am
  19. Sorry,

    I assume people who read this blog follow it closely and know what’s going on around them.

    Read Brooke’s blog today. If you have further questions, let me know.

    As for directing you to the porn sites, I don’t advertise the C.S.s. Never have.

    As for filing a suit, if I had standing with the courts, I would be sitting in the courtroom today. Those who do have standing is the FLDS and I wholeheartedly encourage them to sue the State’s balls off as well as anybody who ever came within 5 feet of the children during captivity.

    19. Bill on February 10th, 2010 at 11:21 am
  20. Where is the “stolen evidence”? You mentioned porn sites, and other places that the alleged “stolen” evidence appears. Where are those places? You mention that it is illegal to distribute the “stolen” evidence. File charges.it is not expensive to file a complaint in either Federal or state court. File the complaint and follow the process to its conclusion.

    A lot of accusations fly on this site and a lot of threats of lawsuits abound. Is this site content on throwing out accusations without evidence just as LE and the booksellers did to the FLDS.

    20. zxc on February 10th, 2010 at 11:01 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*