“THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.”

During the questioning of the residents, they were told over and over again that they had no right to refuse to answer questions, since the attack was not a criminal procedure, but a civil matter and the same rules again stself-incrimination did not apply. Even the Gimp with the Limp voiced this BS concerning the DNA sample taking.

Now of course, there is no difference between civil or criminal, everything found or told is being used against the men in a criminal proceeding.

At this point, some smart lawyer needs to ask the basic question; "At what exact time did this situation change from civil to criminal, and who gave this Defendant his Miranda Warnings prior to being questioned?

Were they all told that the CPS and CASA dykes were acting as LE and any and all Statements they made to them could, and would, be used against them in criminal trials?

When were the dykes deputized? Were they identified as being law enforcement?

Finally, when the men surrounded the Temple and got on their knee’s and cried (Which greatly amused the goons) one of the goons tried to start a bloodbath by firing off his service revolver into a bunch of bushes. The bullets stuck in a tree. The question is; who fired those shots, and how did the witness react?

As some smart assed Judge once said: "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". In that spirit, I remind my lawyer friends that Pints on Appeal have to be brought up at Trial. barbie will most certainly find the questions "Irrelevant", but let’s keep in mind she has 0 batting average in real court’s. She received and either denied or ignored in excess of 1,200 Motions that were later overturned by the Appeals Decisions.

There’s no doubt that barbie can use smoke and mirrors to railroad the men into prison temporarily, but just as the children were freed from her abuse and neglect, so too will the men. Her blind hatred for the Mormons will ensure that outcome.

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

Money Making Options

Monetise your blog with text ads

Post meta

This entry was written by Bill and posted on March 13, 2010 at 9:07 am and filed under barbieland. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

Post “THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.” to digg.

Post “THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.” to Reddit

118 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

Ron,

The precedents regarding a plural marriage to a minor, including those from the Rodney Holm’s case, do apply in the scenario you give and would in MLJ’s case if he was to make the same argument.

There are only a few polygamy cases to read up on to see how the courts came to such conclusions, which all seem to be same; the alleged victims involved were all incapable of deciding for themselves because they had not yet reached the age of consent.

I’ve read all such cases I know of and am still left trying to figure out how those courts could determine that one under that age is capable of making a decision for herself, with approval of her parents or a judge, ONLY when it is not a plural marriage.

Any argument about it being a decision to violate a law sort of falls victim to the idea minors can be charged as adults - they’re evidently held responsible themselves for deciding to violate the law.

Being one that feels all should have the right to do anything that does not impose upon the rights of others, it’s difficult to convince me that a great many of the laws we have today are in place to protect the people. The violation of a law that is contingent upon the marital status of the alleged perpetrator is certainly hard to justify in my mind when there was no party which can show their rights were imposed upon.

Those rulings leave me concluding that evidently the courts decided the alleged victims were incapable of making a sound decision of whether or not to marry because they made the unsound decision to ALSO participate in a crime - plural marriage is conduct unacceptable in the minds of the majority because they selectively follow the same Scriptures.

I do realize that none of this changes what various courts have ruled over time and how they may continue to rule. SCOTUS, as evidenced in the Lawrence ruling, may not rule the same on “bigamy” if Texas goes forward with that case of “bigamy” that involved a consenting adult. I do not anticipate any of the cases to be heard by SCOTUS if the SW evidence is suppressed, and probably none on the factors from a minor’s involvement (too political if even available).

3. kent on March 21st, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I can’t wait to see how the Rodney Holm’s case will be used here in this little debate!

Here’s the limited significance of the Rodney Holm case. Rodney like a bunch of the current defendants was convicted of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor. He tried to make a religious freedom defense in the federal courts. He was shot down on each and every level.

Now granted, any Texas YFZ defendant will appeal to a different district court and a different court of appeals. However, I just don’t see how the federal issues raised by Holm will be decided any differently by a new set of federal courts.

4. Ron in Houston on March 19th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
All general searches are illegal.

5. Julie on March 19th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
What occurred to change their minds so dramatically? Very likely the prospect of having Texas lawmen appear in a courtroom not controlled by Walther. Either they didn’t want to suborn perjury, or they didn’t want to have the SW invalidated, giving the FLDS a victory that would call into question the Texas show trials.

Julie - here’s the elephant in the room you’re ignoring. They’d already been in court in front of very smart and well experienced FLDS lawyers. If the FLDS wanted to prove they were perjuring themselves or whatever, they had their chance.

If you want to win a local audience, you don’t to a thousand miles away and try to put on a show.

Like I said Julie - show me any document that shows that this was an illegal search or that there’s even a “tree” to give poison fruit and I’ll be the first to retract.

6. Ron in Houston on March 19th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
The defense did not want another judge.

I can’t wait to see how the Rodney Holm’s case will be used here in this little debate!

*****************

That sentence just about resembles a violation of civil rights in itself.

I bet more of us here are upset by it than MLJ was.

7. kent on March 19th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
In Sept of 08, WJ’s Arizona attorneys first filed a motion to suppress direct and indirect evidence. The prosecution responded that the motion was premature, that they had disclosed two items from YFZ but they weren’t going to use them, and that the defendant didn’t have 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches of YFZ. The state’s reply goes on for 31 pages, requesting the defense motion be denied in its entirety. But after fighting this battle for a year, the prosecution folded completely and agreed to what the defense initially asked for–suppression of direct and indirect evidence. What occurred to change their minds so dramatically? Very likely the prospect of having Texas lawmen appear in a courtroom not controlled by Walther. Either they didn’t want to suborn perjury, or they didn’t want to have the SW invalidated, giving the FLDS a victory that would call into question the Texas show trials.

8. Julie on March 19th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
No offense to ZXC or Duane, but Texas never treated minorities well.

9. Cupcake on March 19th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
The ultimate appeal is to the federal courts.

Well, technically it’s not an appeal - but you’re right they can have their day in federal court. Let me ask you this - given that Rodney Holm lost at every level of the Federal courts, what makes you think these cases are going to be different?

Outside of the brutal theocracy of Texas

Well, my wife is Buddhist, my neighbors are Jewish, I’m a secular humanist, and a bunch of the neighbors a few miles away are Hindus. Funny, no theocracy here. Granted we’re not fundamentalist Mormons, but there aren’t a whole lot of them anywhere.

Once it moved to San Angelo, it could be tried in any of four courts.

That’s not the way it works. YFZ is in Schleicher county - that means your favorite Judge - Barbara Walther presides. She could call in a visiting judge to help her try YFZ cases but only if they have the budget to support it.

However you call it, it’s fruit of the poisonous tree. And no way would they have agreed to any stipulation except they had no confidence in Conn ruling it was a good search. Any other conclusion is KS spin.

I tell you what, I’ll agree with you 100% if you can show me any document that supports that conclusion. That’s simply your spin on what’s been published so far.

Balls in your court Julie.

10. Ron in Houston on March 19th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
75 years! The average sentence for statutory rape is around 5 years, but of course, in this case, a Mormon wedding was involved, so that makes it worse than murder. What a travesty. These rednecks in Texas shouldn’t be allowed to have their own government.

11. Julie on March 19th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
1. RiH: Besides, the ultimate appeal is not to the Texas Supreme Court but to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The ultimate appeal is to the federal courts. Outside of the brutal theocracy of Texas, things are a little bit different. There’s a constitution, for instance, which gets more than lip service.

2. RiH: “it’s always going to fall into the 51st Judicial District and is always going to be before Judge Walther.”

Once it moved to San Angelo, it could be tried in any of four courts. In fact, other judges were brought in when the state was still flying high, before the appeals court rained on their mass kidnapping.

3. RiH: “Arizona has said from pretty much the first time that Piccarretta raised the issue that they weren’t going to use that evidence.”

No, until this final and complete capitulation, the state hadn’t said they weren’t going to use evidence that wouldn’t have been uncovered except for the search–evidence that was not part of the search. However you call it, it’s fruit of the poisonous tree. And no way would they have agreed to any stipulation except they had no confidence in Conn ruling it was a good search. Any other conclusion is KS spin.

12. Julie on March 19th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Thomas,

I agree with you completely about the verdict being about hate.

The KS argue that the FLDS men hated because they are sexual predators, but the FLDS men are not like the sexual predators who abduct, rape and murder children and women. The FLDS men are no threat to mainstream society. They did not rape the girls; they married them.

13. Cupcake on March 19th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
OK Julie - let me tell you realistically while it has nothing to do with whether I’m “brimming with confidence or not.”

1. “apart from supreme court rulings”

Well, unlike you guys, courts totally compartmentalize things. What happened in some civil CPS case has nothing to do with what happens in a criminal case. Besides, the ultimate appeal is not to the Texas Supreme Court but to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

2. “how about that Texas is afraid of trying any YFZ case in front of any judge other than Walther”

Well, here’s the deal - unless you can magically transport YFZ to some other county it’s always going to fall into the 51st Judicial District and is always going to be before Judge Walther. I don’t know that they’re afraid, but they know that Walther is a conservative, “tough on crime” sort of judge.

3. or that Arizona is so afraid of getting it kicked out they stipulated they wouldn’t use any fruit of the poisonous tree?

Arizona has said from pretty much the first time that Piccarretta raised the issue that they weren’t going to use that evidence. There’s no finding there’s a tree let alone a poison one. They stipulated to what they had said all along - they won’t use the evidence. Anything other interpretation is pure spin.

14. Ron in Houston on March 19th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
The lastest FLDS victims got 75 years. Waht a demonstration of pure hate on the part of the rednecks of West Texas. And the rest of the country remains complicit in its apapthy.

15. THOMAS on March 19th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
The Salt Lake Tribune has reported that Merrill was sentenced to 75 years. He must serve half of his sentence before he can paroled.

16. Cupcake on March 19th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Ron,

I don’t have anything against Hugh, and I never have. I like Hugh. I hope that the two of you will work out your differences.

As for TBM, he’s a different matter. I have disliked TBM ever since he came here and threatened Bill and Bill’s family. Stay away from TBM because he’s the Perez Hilton of the FLDS saga– a no talent nobody trying to make a name for himself by putting down other people.

17. Cupcake on March 19th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Ron
Well for so “many” apparently you can find NONE. You, like your buddy Hugh, are simply puffing yourselves up and blowing smoke out of various orifices. Perhaps that’s why you two blowhards just about came to virtual blows the other day.

Look it’s pretty simple you said many respected legal minds HAVE declared - you apparently cannot cite even 1.

Corn beef and cabbage time is over. Put up or shut up.
(pasted all because it is so far down the list here)

In my defense; I’m still eating leftovers!

I’ll try to look up one or more to cite in all the articles I’d saved, it is just very time consuming as there is not one specific word or phrase to use that would make the search all that simple. I actually did it with “warrant”, but that was not specific enough to reduce the load. Also did some phrases in online serachs, but it brings up thousands of hits.

I do recall that on more than one occasion there were talking heads discussing the problem of location - a residence v. village - and how that was a big problem.

I’m not real clear on what the “puffing” and “blowing smoke” is about. I comment about what I read, what I get from it and my opinions are added in at times. Often I do that in the form of a question because I’m uncertain how or why something happened.

As for Hugh, I’m not sure why or even if he was upset at me. I’m not in any way upset at him. I suspect he’s been pre-occupied with something else in his life lately or has just grown a bit disappointed in topics related to the cases involving the FLDS.

18. kent on March 19th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
If you want proof that ZXC is right when he says that the same people who gloat about the convictions are the ones that believe the State’s lies as the children were taken, go look at yesterday’s comments at the SLT site.

The Texans who post there are trying to minimize the horrors of the raid. They deny the FLDS children were given SANE exams, etc.

I had to laugh when I read their comments because they reminds me of Nazis denying the Holocaust. I think that most of us saw te article about Texas’ Christian conservatives rewriting history books to suit their purposes. Well, Texans will be rewriting the history of the raid too.

19. Cupcake on March 19th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Ron: but if I’d really seen ANYTHING that might hold out much hope for having the search warrants overturned, I’d say it.

Well, let’s see…apart from supreme court rulings, how about that Texas is afraid of trying any YFZ case in front of any judge other than Walther? How about that the rangers are afraid to arrest Rozita Swinton, or that Arizona is so afraid of getting it kicked out they stipulated they wouldn’t use any fruit of the poisonous tree? So it appears that the prosecution in two states aren’t as briming with the confidence you have.

20. Julie on March 19th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Yeah Ron, you can look at it that way. Why should it be illegal if “normal” swingers can do it? If it is ok unless religiously motivated, what other activities should be outlawed that are otherwise ok unless grounded in a religious belief?

Duane, I never said the argument didn’t have merit. It’s a bit odd on the level that religion views marriage so sacredly.

21. Ron in Houston on March 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am
but at heart he’s right there with Buster Blues and his redneck friends

Oh, Julie if only you knew just how wrong you are.

If he is a lawyer, he’s very likely an ADA somewhere. Certainly everything he says is from the viewpoint of the prosecution.

You know, it’s funny how both sides of this issue like to shoot the messenger. After getting into a big pi$$ing match over at FLDS Texas I was accused of being one of those evil CRIMINAL DEFENSE attorneys.

As to my viewpoint, I’d say that it’s neither defense or prosecution, it’s the cold bitch slap of reality. I don’t hold myself out to be a criminal law expert, but if I’d really seen ANYTHING that might hold out much hope for having the search warrants overturned, I’d say it.

I’ll be the first to admit that the factual reality behind the search warrants sucks. However, a sucky factual reality does not necessarily a make great legal reality.

22. Ron in Houston on March 19th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Look people, Rons legal analysis is just that…legal analysis. We all know that every man on trial will get convicted and every conviction will result in long sentences. Those guys will be fried with or without legal commentary and a bit of legal commentary might just help everyone understand why.

Lawyers argue law not emotion and when done with a case they all gather for a beer or a round of golf as the subject of the case either heads home or off to jail.

Those people that gloat over the convictions are the same people that believed the States lies as the children were taken or flooded the phones to Hildebrands office to give ole Harvey an attaboy. Every juror answered “no problem” when asked if they could be impartial and Barbie gloated as she signed the warrant and watched her victims arrive for arraignment.

The system was set up to convict and it convicted……….Ron is a messenger here and no amount of disagreement with him will change the fact that the FLDS are being railroaded by “the system”.

Playing games for an agenda is the way Texas justice works folks and just as the Tx governor said early on….. The FLDS needed to think twice about breaking Texas law because the bigots make the law to suit their agenda and State paid zombies will carry out the inquisition. Just look at the system as job security for Nazis and get over any idea about justice or freedom of religion.

23. ZXC on March 19th, 2010 at 9:50 am
“I may not agree with Ron, but I don’t consider him one of the good old boys.”

I do. He tones it down on this site, but at heart he’s right there with Buster Blues and his redneck friends. Leave it to Ron and he’ll interpret the first amendment so that it means the exact opposite of what it says. He’ll erase the fourth amendment altogether, and as for the second amendment, that’s only for those practicing the state religion, otherwise, forget it. If he is a lawyer, he’s very likely an ADA somewhere. Certainly everything he says is from the viewpoint of the prosecution.

24. Julie on March 19th, 2010 at 8:03 am
This is what Ron posted on “that other blog” in reference to the motion filed by the Defense.

Guess what guys? This is actually what I’d call the “Duane defense.”
Hey, I’m just a swinger who does this wacky thing called a “celestial marriage.”

Yeah Ron, you can look at it that way. Why should it be illegal if “normal” swingers can do it? If it is ok unless religiously motivated, what other activities should be outlawed that are otherwise ok unless grounded in a religious belief?

25. duane on March 19th, 2010 at 12:35 am
Dazzle,

While Ron may not be on “our side,” he does help to make our discussions interesting. He has provided some good information about Texas law. At least Ron isn’t calling us names or threatening us. Or falsely accusing us of abuse because they are in denial about their feelings of hatred for the FLDS.

The other sites are so full of hate that I can’t stand to read them. I can’t stand the haters and bigots who post at those sites. Those people do everything they can to make reading those sites unpleasant for anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.

26. Cupcake on March 18th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
There was also Judge Anthony Napolitano and the Director of the Florida Chapter of the ACLU.

Contrary to what the C.S.s think, I do not expect everyone who posts on this site to agree with us, only that they do not take particular pleasure in seeing the women and children of the FLDS hurt.

I may not agree with Ron, but I don’t consider him one of the good old boys. If I did, he wouldn’t have printed a word on this site. I don’t listen to assholes, and I’m not interested in anything they have to say.

27. Bill on March 18th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Ron there was Jeffrey Toobin the CNN legal annalist

28. THOMAS on March 18th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Oh Ron, I think your 2 faced, you come here trying makes sense, then go 2 anothers sites and make a a$$out of yourself!

Awe Dazzle, I love you too. Look, I’m trying to contribute to the discussion. I try to give you honest information on the law. When I’m giving my opinion I’ll be sure to tell you.

I’m not here for love and adoration and frankly anytime Bill wants to tell me to shove off, I’ll be more than happy to do so.

29. Ron in Houston on March 18th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
Considering the fact that many very respected legal minds have declared, since very early in the case, that the SW’s wouldn’t weather an appeal

Well for so “many” apparently you can find NONE. You, like your buddy Hugh, are simply puffing yourselves up and blowing smoke out of various orifices. Perhaps that’s why you two blowhards just about came to virtual blows the other day.

Look it’s pretty simple you said many respected legal minds HAVE declared - you apparently cannot cite even 1.

Corn beef and cabbage time is over. Put up or shut up.

30. Ron in Houston on March 18th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Have they made a decision on how many years!

Oh Ron, I think your 2 faced, you come here trying makes sense, then go 2 anothers sites and make a a$$out of yourself!

31. dazzle on March 18th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
If my memory serves me correctly, God didn’t tell Adam and Eve to “Go forth and play Bingo”, or, “Go forth and
start a kazoo band”.

I assume the boy knew what he was taliking about when he told them to “Multiply”.

Just about every religion out there, with the possible exception of the Shakers, wanted the flock to keep the sheets warm, so unless the AG favors “Spilling his seed” (Another Catholic No-no), he can expect the FLDS to keep multiplying until the Mormon’s out number the Baptists.

32. Bill on March 18th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
If any woman in that group stated that she married any man in that group in order to raise children for the church and produce souls to educate with Gods direction Kent that woman would be like many religious women in any “mainstream” religion.

I mentioned Catholic docterine because I am Catholic and have been ‘educated” by my church in a very similar docterine. Produce children and rear the souls for God is as common in many Christian sects today as it is for the FLDS.

33. ZXC on March 18th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
ZXC,

The “purpose of the marriage” could have many reasons. Giving birth, pleasing parents, the Prophet, on & on… and the prosecutor has a good chance of have been correct in what he said.

It does not really change a great deal of anything, I just questioned how he felt there, as he lacks knowledge of the fact about why she would marry. I doubt she explained to him why.

34. kent on March 18th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Ron,

It is nearing 2 years since the raid and it would be quite time consuming to search for that “cite” in old media archives. (if time permits, I’ll look for some.)

When the raid had initialed the discussion at Grits the main topics were first on the SW and then taking ALL the children hostage. There may be links to a few cited on the SW in those archives, as I recall Scott quickly mention it whenever he saw commentary that fell in line with his opinion on the subject.

The most recent action relating to that SW fiasco should qualify as at least being from a somewhat “respected legal mind”, one which evidently did not feel it would muster the test at the state ?district? court level - Matt Smith (if I have the prosecutors name correct). And Judge Conn was ruling it was certainly something that was due for that test, so he didn’t come across as seeing the SW as bullet proof.

As for the “mandamus ruling by the 3rd COA” you “could make a vigorous rebuttal” on, just getting started by identifying how “there [was] an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child[ren] or [any] child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare” would be a tough task. If I recall correctly, I think you may have 2-3 of the 469 taken.

Adding on an explanation of what authority they used to question ALL the 12 or 14-17 YO girls and you’re making that rebuttal worth about as much as the paper it’s on cost.

You’d have better luck showing how foolish the minority opinion of the SCOT ruling was.

On the cost factor of new trials, the Texas AG’s office would have little or no trouble finding the funds if they wanted it done.

35. kent on March 18th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
How could Beck NOT be at least familar with these groups?

Here own sister took money from the Diversity Foundation. Her brother-in law is related to Dan Fischer. I think another organization gave money to her other sister for her court case.

They got Becky to come to Texas right away - so why did they pick Becky?

You think they would have pulled from one of the many anti-FLDS organizations.

My guess she is actually part of one of these groups.

36. * on March 18th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
With the testing having shown the children above normal in education, I’m not sure what to make of that request. - kent
——-
These children have both healthier minds and bodies. I know what to make of that request. They want to accuse the parents of keeping thier children uneducated so as they will be easy victims of abuse.
————–
Schools would be the insurance policy for a new industrial order which, as an unfortunate by-product of its operations, would destroy the American family, the small farmer, the landscape, the air, the water, the religious base of community life, the time-honored covenant that Americans could rise and fall by their own efforts.

Compulsory schooling has been, from the beginning, a scheme of indoctrination into the new concept of mass man, an important part of which was the creation of a proletariat. According to Auguste Comte (surely the godfather of scientific schooling), you could create a useful proletariat class by breaking connections between children and their families, their communities, their God, and themselves.

http://www.spinninglobe.net/condunces.htm

37. Dormette on March 18th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Next is purpose of the marriage. While it seems irrelevant to me, it’s also assuming what is in the mind of the alleged victim based on what know-it-all “experts” have studied (or just profess to knowing!!!)

Kent..The purpose of marraige for the FLDS is the rearing of children and according to the State that is an unacceptable purpose. The Catholic Church and many other churches also claim that the purpose of marraige is to bring children into the world to respect and ‘fear” God. Churches are up in arms about Gay marraige and cite the inability to have children as one reason to oppose gay unions.
There is nothing new in a religions desire to bring children into the world to worship God and the FLDs are no exception to a custom of marraige for procreation in order to honor a creator.

38. ZXC on March 18th, 2010 at 4:27 am
Well, the jury convicted him in 62 minutes. I am not surprised. I’ve kown all along that he would be convicted and will receive a lengthy sentence. Poor man! I hope that God will give him the courage and strength to face and endure his sentence.

39. Cupcake on March 17th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
YOU should read what YOU said at Grits early on

…though I am uncertain if you’d “respect’ that source!

Early on it was clear to me that CPS overreached. However, over time my perspective on this case has changed. Yeah, CPS overreached, but I began to sense that something did not “add up.”

And “respect” for a source has nothing to do with “right” or “wrong.” I was 100% wrong on the mandamus ruling by the 3rd COA. I could make a vigorous rebuttal of their legal reasoning but in the end their ruling is their ruling.

Anyway - don’t give me the corn beef and cabbage defense - you owe a cite when you stop cooking that stinky stuff.

40. Ron in Houston on March 17th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Ron:
“Cite please. I haven’t seen anybody I respect say anything of the sort.”

Busy cooking corned beef and cabbage for guests. Just a refresher, YOU should read what YOU said at Grits early on

…though I am uncertain if you’d “respect’ that source!

41. kent on March 17th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
It’s ironic that the FLDS is even citing “Lawrence” in their Motion.

They also mention “Reynolds” so if the SW fails, they will have a double whammy on their hands, and guess who is going to get the credit? The same dude responsible for bringing “Lawrence” to the SC.

I agree they don’t have to provide a mountain of evidence, but they should have covered their asses.

As Kent so rightly said, if the SW takes a dive, the entire progrum goes down the drain because without that evidence, the State presented nothing but a pack of bitter dykes.

42. Bill on March 17th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Bill

Of course in the hot seat you’re going to want the state to have to come up with massive amounts of evidence. You’d want them to have to double or triple corroborate every stick of evidence.

Whether you or I agree or not, that’s simply not the burden the state has.

I’m still digesting the Emack bigamy dismissal motion. It’s interesting since Texas put a definition of marriage in its constitution. I’ll let you know more after I’ve read more of it.

43. Ron in Houston on March 17th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Ron you are willfully find if you dont think there is something with the search warrants. The FLDS are waiting for a real court of law.

44. THOMAS on March 17th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
I have no doubt that walther and the state would just love to force the expense of a second trial for all of them.

Actually, I’m think the opposite is true. Schliecher county has already had to apply for a grant to cover the costs of these trials. I don’t think they have the budget to support multiple trials.

Considering the fact that many very respected legal minds have declared, since very early in the case, that the SW’s wouldn’t weather an appeal

Cite please. I haven’t seen anybody I respect say anything of the sort.

45. Ron in Houston on March 17th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Ok Bill……bills and receipts.not if things are not in your name……..people ya worked for or with, kinda like the men and women at the ranch for instance……….. Dr. visits Bill, the Doc is FLDS……………. Walmart ????? The women did the shopping.

Forget about the State placeing even one FLDS member on the stand Bill. Besides…the child is his.

46. ZXC on March 17th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
A problem for the state without the “fruit of a poison tree”, if they do not have additional evidence, is how they can try him or any again after an appeal.

I have no doubt that walther and the state would just love to force the expense of a second trial for all of them.

As for the proof he was there, the before & after evidence, when added to the evidence that he is the father and she was 15, is difficult to overcome.

For any that have not seen the articles:
Here is a short one from the Dallas News on the verdict, which includes;

“Prosecutors alleged that Jessop attempted to delete photos and other documents connecting him to the alleged underage bride. “

I have to wonder how you can conclude somebody “attempted” to that. It’s obstruction of justice if proven, so I take it the authorities implied that is what happened and the reporter ran with that conclusion of fact. Doesn’t really matter, but strange they have to add that in such a limited article.

Another from the SLTrib.
In it I see a couple lines worth mentioing;

The “prosecuting attorney Eric Nichols gave the first closing argument …referred back to evidence “taken from the sacred church archives,” “

and

“”The purpose of the celestial or spiritual marriage is to be placed in a position to bear children to achieve her eternal salvation,”"

I see 3 things of interest there. The first is those darn church records. You have to wonder what church is safe!

Next is purpose of the marriage. While it seems irrelevant to me, it’s also assuming what is in the mind of the alleged victim based on what know-it-all “experts” have studied (or just profess to knowing!!!)

The last I’ll drag on about here is the prosecutor evidently told the jury that the only sketchy evidence he had showing MLJ was in Texas when the alleged victim became pregnant is all a product of the search warrant used to confiscate those, in his words, “sacred church archives.”

Considering the fact that many very respected legal minds have declared, since very early in the case, that the SW’s wouldn’t weather an appeal, it looks like Texas may not have much worthwhile for a second stab at bankrupting the church.

47. kent on March 17th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
There’s no evidence that’s been presented to the Jury, INDEPENDENT of the stuff they stole from the Ranch.

Ron, let’s put on your thinking cap:

If I were to investigate whether or not Ron in Houston was in fact in Houston in a given time period, would I be able to find things like bills, receipts, people you worked for, people who worked for you, people you went to dinner with, Dr. Visits, people you met in Wallmart, SOMETHING to COO BERATE the evidence I stole from your office?

Here’s something else to think about:

Read the Motion to Dismiss in Keate’s “Bigamy” charge.

In my humble opinion, Texas opened up another “Lawrence” defeat when they charged the men with Bigamy, it’s going to take down Hilderbrands Anti-Mormon Statute, possibly ALL of it including the enhanced sections.

48. Bill on March 17th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
*

Have you really followed this case? They have documents where he’s helping build the temple. They have documents where he’s telling Warren he’s running the heavy equipment at the site.

I think what you’re doing is saying that the state didn’t prove that he was at the ranch on the exact date of conception.

Like I say, that’s a “legal reality” question rather than a factual one.

The factual reality is simple - he was at the ranch.

49. Ron in Houston on March 17th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Ron:

There is a factual reality. The fact that he was at the Ranch is simply a factual reality.

=================================================

Did you see him at the ranch at the exact time of conception?

People without 9-5 jobs often travel.

There is some evidence which might place him there around the general time but no direct evidence he was there at the time of conception.

Now if his wife testified he was there or something like that - that would be evidence he was at the ranch. I would even take another person at the ranch seeing him everyday for about a month.

So if Walthers was doing her job she would have said the State did not prove their case.

50. * on March 17th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I couldn’t agree more. One of the most crushing blows they encountered was loosing the children back to their parents.

The State (Hilderbrand) used CPS and CASA to get the Mormons out of town. When that failed, they HAVE to convict the men to get vindication.

Still, CPS and CASA, by pulling such an outrageous kidnap that the general public revolted, showed themselves for the thieves and vultures they are.

They do to families on a daily basis, what they did to the Ranch children. It’s just that it wasn’t done on such a noticeable scale.

The children of America owe the Ranch children a huge debt. They put the spotlight of awareness on a cancer called CPS and CASA.

Google “Dead CPS children” and read what’s really going on around the Country now that folks are no longer looking at them as “Saviors” but as perpetrators of abuse and neglect.

51. Bill on March 17th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
There’s no reason not to put all their eggs in one basket, for once the search is out, so is the DNA. Then it doesn’t matter where he lived at the time. In any case, these trials are intended to distract the public and the church from the real issue–the abuse of hundreds of children by agents of the state. While everyone is otherwise occupied, all these state criminals can get away, like the vermin they are.

52. Julie on March 17th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Besides Becky’s “Expert” testimony which was irrelevant to whether or not Leroy committed the “Crime” he was charged with, the State relied exclusively on “Evidence” that was obtained illegally.

I would have thought that the State would have come up with local gas receipts, credit card records, a tax return, ANYTHING independent of the “Evidence” that, if it is thrown out as I expect it to be, GUTS the case and the Court will have nothing.

The fact that Texas can’t put one good old boy on that stand and say, “Yeah, I saw him in town.” or, “Yeah, I saw him working during that period, tells me there is no “Evidence” that he was there.

Duran likes to tell people how many times he was out on the Ranch. He never saw Leroy there in 2006?
Davey had a spy on the Ranch according to him. That spy can’t independently verify Leroy’s being on the Ranch?

All their eggs are in one basket, and when the “Evidence” is removed, there is no case left.

Yes, there’s a baby. But where was it conceived? Without that “Evidence”, the State was silent on the subject.

In the meantime, while waiting for the guilty verdict to come down, the only mitigating factor is in deciding how long he waits in prison be3fore the Appeal free’s him.

I think the Jury needs to hear from the horses mouth just how “Impacted” LeAnn considers herself and her family.

53. Bill on March 17th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Julie

In my book there are two realities at work.

There is a factual reality. The fact that he was at the Ranch is simply a factual reality.

Then there is the legal reality. Did the state meet it’s burden? Was the evidence used to prove the factual reality the fruit of a poison tree?

We can certainly disagree of the legal realities here. I respect your opinions on that.

I’m not crowing that he was at the ranch. I’m just saying that despite anyone’s views on the legal realities the simple fact is he was at the ranch.

54. Ron in Houston on March 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am
yep, he was at the ranch……..yep, he was the father of the two children…… yep the “bride” was 15……….. all within the religious bounds of a bible used by a vast majority of the Christians in this country. When you target a religion you have to be sure that you target a minority religion and demonize the group properly.

Now all we need to do is apply the same standards to all the unwed fathers of all the teens that have children in Texas and fill a few more prisons. Nothing like the prison industry to
stabilize our weak job market.

55. ZXC on March 17th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Ron LE and CPS were at the ranch illgeally.

56. THOMAS on March 17th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Ron: “He was at the ranch!”

Yes, you and your pals can dance around with the fruits of this general search, singing, “He was at the ranch! He was! He was!”

57. Julie on March 17th, 2010 at 10:17 am
It is an important protection that the state always be put to their burden.

BUT

He was at the ranch!

We can argue about whether the state really met their burden but the reality is MLJ was at the ranch.

58. Ron in Houston on March 17th, 2010 at 9:30 am
FLDS TRIAL: Jessop letters read in court

Closing arguments ~~tomorrow~~ today (it’s late, had to edit!).

Today’s highlight in the paper centers on records used in an effort to place MLJ on the ranch around 8/20/06, when she was 15. The only date mentioned was 4/24/04, which may place MLJ there working then.

In a letter from MLJ to Jeffs, he asked if the alleged victim could stay home after graduating 8th grade and the letter must have indicated he lived at the ranch (or so they say the “code” indicates such). It does not say if they have school records to show an age of any in that grade.

With the testing having shown the children above normal in education, I’m not sure what to make of that request. It’s open to arguments every direction.

MLJ was on the ranch in 2004 (living or just staying to work I don’t know)

Evidently just about the time the alleged victim was out of 8th grade he was living there.

And when the raid took place, he was at the ranch.

So, I’d guess the jury will presume he was there in 2006 also.

59. kent on March 17th, 2010 at 2:08 am
Cupcake Becky is saying what the judge, the prosecutors and jurors want to hear.

60. THOMAS on March 16th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Here’s another problem I have with Becky testifying. Would you expect your worst enemy to give a fair and an accurate assessment of you? I would not. I am inclined to believe that the testimony of one’s worst enemy would be very biased. I believe one’s worst enemy would say and do everything she could to make one look bad. Very bad.

Personally, I would take anything and everything that Becky says with a grain of salt.

61. Cupcake on March 16th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
It’s the reason why, when asked a specific question, most politicians will respond; “I don’t recall”.

Ya can’t exactly say in response “You’re a liar!”.

What you can do is to expect the response to the question and have documentation to the association to “Refresh” the witnesses testimony showing them to be either a liar or a moron.

62. Bill on March 16th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Ron, Who does she work for?? I’ll tell you. Dan Fischer and your great state of texass!!

63. Paul on March 16th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Question to Becky: “Are you familiar with groups who are attacking the FLDS way of life?” Calfas said. “No sir,” Musser said.
Does anyone else see this as interesting? Possibly setting up a perjury charge?

Paul - until they invent a device that can actually read people’s thoughts it’s almost impossible for an “are you familiar” question to be the source of a perjury charge. It gets even more difficult when you link “are you familiar” with some other criteria such as “attacking the FLDS way of life.”

64. Ron in Houston on March 16th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Question to Becky: “Are you familiar with groups who are attacking the FLDS way of life?” Calfas said. “No sir,” Musser said.
Does anyone else see this as interesting? Possibly setting up a perjury charge?

65. Paul on March 16th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
There may be another factor working here that we have not considered;

We already know that the only way a whole lot of what’s occurred is due to the very large presence of shehe’s in CPS, CASA and the anti-FLDS pole dancers, so maybe Becky just doesn’t see herself as a lowly woman, but as an Amazonian Warrior defending her She Gods.

Unlike her friends from CPS and CASA that walk the streets of San Angelo with their hands in each others back pockets, maybe Becky’s penis envy has gone so far out of control, she see’s herself as an Elana Bobbitt Fan Club member?

In any case, I would move to strike her Testimony as Hearsay, and when barbie denies it, at least they have preserved the Point on Appeal.

Why the Defense allowed the Ranger to testify to what he was told by other Rangers about the guns found on the Ranch is a prime example of the Hearsay Rule being enforced selectively, who gives a shit about what he may have heard or been told by other people, he is testifying to what HE personally knows and did.

66. Bill on March 16th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
The only problem I have with what may be “hearsay” is how it has been used to qualify Musser (and others) as “experts” on a multitude of topics so they may conveniently explain the HOW’s & WHY’s on the lifestyles of ALL the FLDS members (unless, of course, she’s made a copy on her studies of the subject available for the defense to review).

The testimony and wild tales from some of these “experts”, and any former members they have communicated with since dropping out (sources for their studies), most often centers on the restrictions imposed on female members. These “experts” and sources - both products directly or indirectly of former “brainwashed” victims deprived of an education - tell us all women are locked away in their homes to prevent communication with those outside of those homes, while they explain what takes place in ALL the other member’s homes.

Write a book (or sign it as yours) and you’re an “expert”, and then any that may have experienced a few similar events in their life are also “experts”, because all households within that following are classified as identical.

If “only men hold the power of the priesthood”, then I have to suspect that Musser is an “expert” at identifying “PRIESTHOOD RECORDS” because they are records she, as a woman, was not allowed to see before the raid (except when she peeked at then when Rulon was asleep!).

67. kent on March 16th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
If Becky is testifying to knowledge reserved only to the FLDS men, then someone must be telling her about that knowledge. Shouldn’t that be considered hearsay?

Cupcake - on one level you’ve got a point. However there is a difference between being taught doctrine and testifying about what somebody said yesterday.

Here’s an example. I have personal knowledge that my lab results at my last physical were normal. I can testify to that fact. However, if you dig down how do I “know” it? Well, the doctor told me and the lab report said it. Ultimately those are hearsay, but that doesn’t change that my knowledge about my lab results is admissible.

If you think about it - a whole lot of the knowledge we acquire as humans comes through hearsay.

68. Ron in Houston on March 16th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Goes into the front grill of a 1958 Buick, and out the trunk.

Smith and Wesson 500 500Mag, 4 Inch, Stainless Steel, Adjustable Sights, Rubber Grips, 5rd
smith_500_4.jpg

Caliber: 500 S&W MagnumCapacity: 5 RoundsBarrel Length: 4″ (3″ + 1″ Compensator)Front Sight: Red RampRear Sight: Micrometer Click Adjustable Black BladeFiring System: N/AGrip: Hogue Rubber Energy AbsorbingTrigger: .400″ TargetHammer: .430″ TargetExternal Safety: N/AFrame: X-FrameFinish: Satin StainlessOverall length: 10-1/4″Material: Stainless SteelWeight Empty: 56 ouncesOther Features:Most Powerful Production Revolver in the World Today Massive 500 S&W Magnum® Cartridge 2600 ft/lb. Muzzle Energy A Hunting Handgun For Any Game Animal Walking Recoil Tamed with Effective Muzzle Compensator Hoque Sorbathane® Recoil Absorbing Grip Internal Lock Ultimate Defensive Carry and Dangerous Game Backup Handgun Easily Removeable Muzzle Compensator for Different Recoil Reduction Effects and to Accomodate Different Types of Ammunition Comes with 2 Compensators - 1 for Lead Bullet and 1 for Jacketed Bullet Ammunition Muzzle Energy Capability in Excess of 2000 ft/lb. in a 56 oz. Package.

Don’t ya just LOVE the NRA?

69. Bill on March 16th, 2010 at 11:02 am
As the coffee mugs in my house very clearly state:

“Daddy’s the boss, right mommy?”

The fact of the matter is that if Becky and her failed friends actually believed the nonsense they tell gullible Texan’s, they would be hiding in fear of these “Monsters”.

Any reasonable “Cult” would have sliced their throats from ear to ear by now.

70. Bill on March 16th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Jihad…..did someone mention Jihad. Gotta have a tank for Jihad and those Texans have all the tanks.

71. ZXC on March 15th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
A friend of mine who is not FLDS has a cannon with a ~2 inch inner diameter that he made. We had some fun firing it off on the 4th of July. If his home was raided based on a hoax phone call, would the police point to that cannon as justification for their illegal search warrant?

Fight Bigotry!
439-0!

72. Karateka on March 15th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Should we pass a LAW in Texas restricting the caliber and type of firearms FLDS are allowed to own?

73. duane on March 15th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Has anyone here fired a .50 caliber rifle? No, I haven’t, but I have fired a 30-06 and blew a large turtle to smithereens. ok I was younger then. I can imagine what a .50 caliber could do. So maybe, just maybe, the person who owned that gun thought it would be cool to cradle a BFG and blow s**t up!!! Perhaps jackrabbits, or line up 8 watermelons in single file and see if the round can blast through all of them. Point is, this particular gun is perfectly legal to own in Texas. Again, I don’t know of anything that suggests the FLDS folks are arming themselves to the teeth and are planning to wage violent jihad. Why is it even an issue if they own a .50 cal, AR-15, or what not? Should we pass in Texas restricting the caliber and type of firearms FLDS are allowed to own?

74. duane on March 15th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
The constitution allows citizens to have guns and form private militias. Primarily to protect themselves from the government and others.

The more crap these lawyers stir, the more job security they think they have.

75. WC on March 15th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Kent makes a good point. If Becky is testifying to knowledge reserved only to the FLDS men, then someone must be telling her about that knowledge. Shouldn’t that be considered hearsay?

76. Cupcake on March 15th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Maybe Bill should have said ‘it’s God’s world, and women shall follow men’.

As for Becky, she may not believe in the Scriptures now. She’s evidently progressed to a level of EXPERT knowledge she testified was reserved for ONLY the men in the FLDS.

77. kent on March 15th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Ron: “As to the second point I did tell you exactly where I found it - it was reported in the El Dorado Success as being from the interview given by Ranger Long to Michael Piccarretta.”

I don’t think you did find it in the Success. I think you found it on that execrable Texas FLDS site. No one, including, Blues, apparently bothered to shell out the money to actually read the article, if indeed there was one. And the statement, according to Blues, was that a .50 cal gun and a night scope had been found, not a .50 cal gun with a night scope. One little word, and you’ve made it sound much more sinister. This is a propaganda technique, and you, Ron, are a propagandist.

78. Julie on March 15th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Dear Becky:

It’s a man’s world, get over it honey.

Alright Bill, I’m calling you out on this one. Read that one again.

I’m calling serious BS on that one…

79. Ron in Houston on March 15th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Dear Becky:

It’s a man’s world, get over it honey.

80. Bill on March 15th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
What’s the going rate for paid witnesses in good old boy Country?

I’m an expert of the childcaring abilities of dykes, and I can certainly testify to the sexual proclivities of cops who like to sodomize children.

I figure my life experiences are about as relevant to the trial as Becky’s are.

81. Bill on March 15th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I think Ron just had a little fun tossing in that remark (’shooting cars and trucks…) to stir response.

Guilty as charged - to a point. I’m a big military and warfare student and one of the reasons for 50 cal sniper rifles is that one shot into the engine block of a car and it’s toast.

82. Ron in Houston on March 15th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Then why did you bring it up? And if it’s true, why don’t you point to where you found it?

Well, Ms. Julie, as to your first point, it was a contrary point to the argument that it was “just a bunch of hunting rifles.” Sorry, but a 50 cal rifle with a night vision scope could possibly be a hunting rifle but that claim simply looks more than a little absurd. Yeah, they’re going hunting elephants a night. Right!

As to the second point I did tell you exactly where I found it - it was reported in the El Dorado Success as being from the interview given by Ranger Long to Michael Piccarretta.

Now is that propaganda? Am I a propagandist? I’ll say this - that’s the only unusual weapon I’ve heard about. No modified AR-15’s. No AK-47s. Like I said, it hardly sounds like there was an arsenal of assault rifles but there wasn’t just a bunch of hunting rifles either.

83. Ron in Houston on March 15th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Texas expert, Rebecca Musser, provided some important information for the prosecution today.

Telling the jury “only men hold the power of the priesthood, which she defined as “the power of God on earth.”” Also, at another point during her testimony, she then told them about some of the “sacred forms”, which, as a result of her previous position, she was able to identify as the “priesthood records”.

I assume they must have had PRIESTHOOD RECORDS boldly stamped in the headers.

Anyway, that’s important to the prosecution, just as all her testimony which shows the females are brainwashed at an early age. Relevant in the case, similar to any events that might be the excuse used to confiscate the records, like the 37 YO that left all investigators certain they’d found evidence of a child bride

(In a whisper, so no jurors will hear me !)
…when they took all those children, even those underage.

************

I think Ron just had a little fun tossing in that remark (’shooting cars and trucks…) to stir response. Most of us (ME!) are guilty of that at times.

84. kent on March 15th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Ron: “As several people have said, if it’s true it’s no big damn deal.”

Then why did you bring it up? And if it’s true, why don’t you point to where you found it?

It is true that the women and children had nail files and paper scissors, weapons that were fortunately confiscated before anything bad happened.

85. Julie on March 15th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
If anyone can be detained then it should be treated as a criminal code and all persons should be given all rights they would have in a criminal case. These cases (child welfare and institution) aren’t just about money and property: they are about detaining and holding individuals apart from their families and homes and as such cannot be called mere civil cases.

86. JMR on March 15th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
If it’s legal to own them, and they have them, what bloody difference does it make what caliber they are?

87. Sazzie on March 15th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
ZXC

Honestly - I don’t care. Like I said, I think EVERYONE is “spinning” or “lying” or whatever.

It’s not like there was an arsenal of assault rifles but then again it’s not like it was simply a bunch of “hunting rifles” either.

The “truth” is somewhere out there in the middle.

Plus, in the end it’s all irrelevant.

88. Ron in Houston on March 15th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
This whole issue about assault weapons and a 50 cal rifle would be easily resolved with a freedom of info request. Ron is not , in my opinion” making an issue he just stated that the ElDorado paper reported the 50 cal. and LE mentioned assault weapons. Of course “an arsenal of weapons” became seven guns and if a 50 cal was even burried under 10 ft of concrete MSM and or LE would have been screaming about a cannon.
Just solve the problem with a FIA request and prove one more possible lie false..such an easy solution to the assault weapons accusation whether the weapons were legal or not.

This entire affair was brought about by false accusations that fell apart as soon as the truth hit the light of day………….put the truth out there and watch another lie fizzle and be an exaggeration that LE will not be able to sink their teeth into. It is called credibility Sazzi…pure and simple.

89. ZXC on March 15th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
You guys are hysterical. I make one comment about a rifle and you guys go nuts. I’m a propagandist or whatever.

As several people have said, if it’s true it’s no big damn deal. However, it appears that both sides are somewhat distorting the facts. Clearly a 50 cal rifle with a night vision scope is not your typical “hunting rifle” nor is it what would be known as an “assault” rifle.

And yes, to just kill varmits something like an AR-15 would make a good weapon. I wouldn’t use it for something I was trying to eat because the tumbling action of those smaller caliber NATO rounds tend to tear up too much inside the animal.

90. Ron in Houston on March 15th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
ZXC - I was making a funny!! (or not)

I have no problem with anyone’s second amendment rights.. Hell, I’m surprised, being in Texas, that the didn’t have more guns… I know I would have….

91. Sazzie on March 15th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Yes Sazzi, gun racks are a norm in rural Tx and there are many good reasons for carrying a rifle. I carry a chinese SKS in my truck, oh no folks, an assault rifle. Those 7.62 mm rounds tear a coyote to pieces rather than just punch a hole and leave them to run off. Ya see sazzi there are practical reasons to carry a rifle and those reasons are as legal in Texas for me as they are for ranch residents.

Ron mentioned the 50cal. rifle and those rifles do have a purpose it is just that if anyone went to the trouble of requesting the public records we would know for sure the quantity and make of those rifles once and for all. All the talk of “assault weapons” would be silenced and the issue put to rest once and for all.

Just for the record folks an “assault rifle” makes an excellent deer rifle as well as a pretty good varmit gun and a 50 cal has a pretty good reach for keeping coyotes at a safe distance but if someone wanted to verify the info rather than argue about it the info is public. I just wonder why LE said nothing about a rifle as odd as a 50 cal, they could have made quite an issue out of its existance.

92. ZXC on March 15th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
lol… this is Texas we’re talking about.. aren’t gun racks standard issue in the pickup trucks y’all drive???

Sorry - couldn’t resist.

93. Sazzie on March 15th, 2010 at 11:16 am
The FLDS were armed to the teeth, all right. The following weapons were confiscated from women and children in the Fort Concho concentration camp: pens, fingernail clippers, staplers, paper scissors, and the needles used by a 13-year-old diabetic girl.

94. Julie on March 15th, 2010 at 10:33 am
When Ron jumps on the “Those poor little girls are getting raped” bandwagon, I’m the first to call him on it.

But in this case (The rifle) he merely repeated what he saw in the press. I’m sure that if the goons found an “Assault rifle” on the Ranch (Besides their machine guns and other soldier toys), we would have seen pictures of it blown up to poster size.

The fact that they didn’t just meant that they knew that for every picture of an FLDS rifle, the Ranch could show children with goon guns in their faces ready to blow them away.

95. Bill on March 15th, 2010 at 10:14 am
The .50 caliber rifle of the type that was allegedly found is perfectly legal to own in Texas. So why is it such a big controversy that someone in the FLDS allegedly owned one? There is not a shred of evidence that the FLDS dabble in gunplay, engaged in or plotted any acts that could be construed as “violent”.

96. duaneh1 on March 15th, 2010 at 9:24 am
“Ron brought out the fact that a 50 cal rifle was on the ranch.”–ZXC

—
Ron didn’t bring out any facts; he just made an unsubstantiated assertion, just as Flora did when she painted FLDS settlements as armed camps: “They are very much armed. They have many, many weapons. The possibility for violence is there…We’re talking about David Koresh, Jim Jones and 9-11 all wrapped up in one nice little package. These guys are very dangerous.”

Ron is a propagandist, just without Flora’s psychotic hysteria.

97. Julie on March 15th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Sorry kent but the gated community and the watchtower were two of the justifications for LE to use to use a tank and swat teams in their ranch assault. We heard about the arsenal of weapons as well as stories of the likelyhood of violence from a well armed group of religious extremists.

Of course violence never occured and the few rifles that were on the property were never used but with the tendancy for LE to stretch the truth it is a mystery as to why LE didn’t advertise the 50 cal rifle as some type of threat to justify the use of force.

The cult commandos harped about every accusation by LE at the time of the raid as another sign of the churches power and control of its members…….a 50 cal. rifle kinda gets some attention yet the maggpies kept their mouths shut………why? Was a 50 cal rifle on the premisis and why did MSM report 7 hunting rifles at a time when everyone was looking for any real or imagined threat? Heck, even now a mention of the weapon stirs a few questions even more than the “assault weapon” accusation.

98. ZXC on March 15th, 2010 at 5:22 am
It’s a given Ron does not hunt big game…

…and it’s also a given that the a 50 cal, stored inside a locked cabinet inside a locked vault inside a locked Temple (inside a “gated compound with a gaurd tower”!), is not relevant to whether or not there was a sexual assault victim or an assault rifle on the ranch.

99. kent on March 14th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Ron brought out the fact that a 50 cal rifle was on the ranch. Was it a hunting rifle? What do you hunt with a 50 cal. and how much of the game is left after a “clean” shot?
Was there a gun collecter on the ranch? Where is the rifle now. Were the rifles returned to the men? If the rifles were returned there should be a paper trail. If the rifles are in the cops posession ther should be a paper trail.

Public records folks!

100. ZXC on March 14th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Angie Voss went on & on about how “worried” she was for the safety of the children because of all the men in trees with rifles & night vision goggles. And then on cross, she had to admit she was talking only of LE, NOT the FLDS, so there went the impression she was trying to make–that the FLDS men were evil & scary, when in fact, it was her buddies who were the guilty parties.

101. Riki on March 14th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Julie:

I’m not using my husband as a source. My husband likes Bill, but my husband is very busy. Sometimes he asks me to post or send something to Bill for him (like the Baptist minister vs. bikini barista story.)

102. Cupcake on March 14th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Cupcake,

Most cops in the U.s. are now trading in their .357s for .50 Smith and Wesson pistols.

They ARE in a war you know!

103. Bill on March 14th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Cupcake, you ought to find a better source than your husband.

104. Julie on March 14th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I don’t know if there is a .50 caliber hunting rifle on the Ranch, I’m sure if there were, you would have seen some goon standing before the camera’s displaying it to “Prove” how brave they were in going into this nest of murderers with guns drawn.

I’m told that Max can be a vicious little guy when he wants to be, and these poor policemen needed to protect themselves against him if he went off.

Even if there was one on the ranch, they are now fairly common, most of your local friendly policemen have them strapped to their leg in case some jaywalker gets out of hand.

I prefer the Smith and Wesson 500 Magnum with a 4 inch barrel and recoil suppressor. You never know when a boar will cross your path, and you don’t want to be left out gunned.

105. Bill on March 14th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
My husband says that, according to the Geneva Convention, 50 cal (or higher) are not to be used on human beings — only on vehicles. Why would the FLDS have 50 cal? There was no valid reason for them to have 50 cal on the ranch. Did the Texas Guard sell or give it to them? You can’t just buy 50 cal unless it is a Desert Eagle handgun.

My husband says if he shot 50 cal, he would probably dislocate his shoulder. 50 cal is so loud that if anyone on the ranch shot one, you would have heard about it long before the raid occurred.

We do not know if the report put by the media was true or accurate. Since when was the media ever right? The media relies on sensationalism to sell a story.

106. Cupcake on March 14th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Perhaps, Ron, you’re thinking of the “Ranger Long Rifle,” which is a sniper rifle, but wasn’t at the ranch.

Now you keep going on about this rifle as if it had some importance, but you haven’t yet pointed to a link to prove that it didn’t come from the fertile imaginations of the KS.

107. Julie on March 14th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Julie - I don’t vouch for the truth of the 50 cal rifle claim. However, it was reported in the media as coming in the interview that Ranger Long gave to Piccaretta.

Like Kent said, it’s perfectly legal to own such a weapon and yeah, it could be classified as a “hunting” rifle if you’re hunting all those elephants and rhinos out there in El Dorado.

It’s that damn relativism again. On one hand the named gun could either be a pretty significant military style rifle or a “hunting rifle.”

It just depend on whose perspective you’re looking from.

108. Ron in Houston on March 14th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Kent: “I believe Monday or Tuesday the jury will hear of from Becky Musser, the “expert”…They’ll also get to hear from Dan Fischer’s hypnotic quack expert…”

—
All of the ex-members ought to be asked about their relationship with Larry Beall–if he was their therapist, and if he hypnotized them.

109. Julie on March 14th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Most folks forget that the excuse they used to attack WACO was that they had machine guns (Not).

Then the excuse they used to bar b que the children was that they were being sexually abused. (Not).

In Arkansas, they KNEW that the children were being used to make porn movies which is why they attacked. (Not).

Ruby Ridge, “illegal” guns again (Not).

Time after time, the original “Reason” is usually some cops fantasy or paranoia.

The only good thing is that now and then, the cops get their own asses blown away in the process.

110. Bill on March 14th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Ron:
On the subject of weapons - seems that I recall that one of the weapons found was a

…50 cal

…sniper rifle with a

….night vision scope. (I have to research to see the source of this info.)

Anyway, while that is not an “assault rifle,” it’s also not exactly a “hunting rifle” either. That is, unless you consider cars and trucks prey.

That lengthy description may create damning interpretations in the minds of some regarding what was found, but even if it is accurate I’m certain it is legal to own and I have not read of any claims about the YFZ residents shooting “cars and trucks” or anything else.

Of course large game guns run up to 80 cal, but I’ve never read of any having their children taken because they owned one.

Meanwhile, the point of WHY the Texas Ranger falsely testified that they confiscated assault rifles stands. The fact that it was fabricated illustrates much of what the Texas authorities have done in this case - their objective is to make someone they feel is guilty appear to be guiltier.

********

For a more interesting topic, consider how walther ruled the defense could NOT introduce evidence or testimony relating to the children being taken hostage, BUT she has also ruled Becky Musser could testify.

It appears the single exception to the entire history of the lives and following of all FLDS members is any that relates to Texas illegally taking the children of the YFZ Ranch.

I believe Monday or Tuesday the jury will hear of from Becky Musser, the “expert”, on how she has witnessed suffering of all those underage wives, which is so bad that the poor victims have been suppressed from learning that they are victims.

They’ll also get to hear from Dan Fischer’s hypnotic quack expert as he explains to the jury how he has deciphered ALL the psychological problems the FLDS men create, BUT walther will not even allow an in-camera review of redacted clientele records to prove he even has a clue on WTH he is talking about. They’ll just have to TRUST that he is the expert as he says he is - absent any specific questions on clients he gained this amazing knowledge from.

111. kent on March 14th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Yep, the usual KS propaganda. This time from Ron.

112. Julie on March 14th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
50 cal with night vision is from the interview Long gave to Michael Piccaretta and was reported in the El Dorado Success.

113. Ron in Houston on March 14th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
On the subject of weapons - seems that I recall that one of the weapons found was a 50 cal sniper rifle with a night vision scope. (I have to research to see the source of this info.)

Anyway, while that is not an “assault rifle,” it’s also not exactly a “hunting rifle” either. That is, unless you consider cars and trucks prey.

114. Ron in Houston on March 14th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
A little off subject, but when have CPS/LE ever told the truth to the mothers and children from the Ranch???

115. PurpleGirl on March 14th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
The Texas Rangers had to testify that they were ordered to take ALL recording devices (video, tape…) at the ranch after their bosses found out everything was being recorded. That’s rather embarassing, when they also had to admit recording such events was legal and so taking such devices may NOT have been included in walther’s ‘take-everything’ SW! Texas has since found out they did not get ALL the sources which held that data for the record!

==========================================

It sounds like the Rangers clearly engaged in criminal behavior. I wonder why “the law is the law” crowd isn’t calling on them to be charged.

116. * on March 13th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Seven hunting rifles were found on a ranch with a population of 700…………

Can you imagine how many rifles LE would have found if the ranch had become a hunting lodge? Especially a hunting lodge for high rollers from Vegas? (I’m thinking of people like Sandy Murphy, Rick Tabish, the Binions, etc.)

Has it ever occurred to you that the people of West, Texas probably would not have been happy if any outsider(s) purchased the ranch?

117. Cupcake on March 13th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
They have a fairly good reason to worry about what evidence the Ranch has about the raid.

When the goons scoffed about a tank, swat teams and snipers, the Ranch produced color pictures of the above. NONE of those pictures of the goons in their Halloween costumes came from media or them, they were all taken by the Ranch.

Likewise, on the stand, Angie said she was looking for “Sarah” in the very beginning and not rifling through personal diaries and papers at the Ranch.

Then the Defense produced pictures of her and Brownie drooling over pictures and documents on the floor of one of the bedrooms in a house, and she got all pissed off that one of the men on the Ranch climbed a ladder and took pictures through the blinds.

As it turned out, the goons would confiscate every single camera, cell phone and video recorder they could find, but they were too stupid to see if the memory cards were still in them.

The pictures we all found most amusing were the pictures taken in the school. I guess Angie and her pals didn’t know the school bathrooms are monitored.

118. Bill on March 13th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Seven HUNTING rifles were reported by the media after the “arsenal of weapons” lies had proven false.

It is always interesting to see how LE describes weapons. An old .22 that is used for hunting squirls can become a Semi auto rifle…a coyote rifle that was made in china can become an assault rifle..a .45 pistol can become a “military weapon.

The definition of “weapons” is always interpreted by LE in their favor.

Seven hunting rifles were found on a ranch with a population of 700…………there are more rifles in a single family home in much of Texas than were on that ranch. It would be interesting if the FLDs described the rifles and stated their purpose and we will know for sure just how LE sees things and defines things to their advantage.

In one instance we have a possible child in a safe to justify opening the safe…………sure am glad noone reached to cover their head when the cops let off a round or two at the church………we could have had “reaching for a non existant weapon” to explain a death or two.

119. ZXC on March 13th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Knowing there are many recordings (audio & video) and pictures Texas is not aware of YET, since the discovery requirements the FLDS face are much more limited UNTIL they file a suit, I have to wonder if there are any recordings that would indicate that some portions of the evidence Texas presented resulted from a YFZ resident being informed they did not have the right to refrain from incriminating themselves.

There has been little presented that I am aware of that relates to defendants directly volunteering information that incriminates them.

When any incriminating testimony is given by others, it becomes a much more difficult task to suppress that information.

It may be best to just stick to the strong points for appeal they are presently going with and save the rest for evidence in a lawsuit (can any of you say “cha ching” a BILLION times?).

For any which doubt that the ranch has such evidence, think back to a few times when the state changed their minds on making certain evidence open to the public …after they had called the press to tease them on what would be shared IF that evidence was made public!

The only idea Texas has on what the limits may be - regarding what the FLDS may have in the way of recorded data of what happened during the ranch raid - is that they may have recordings of everything.

It must have really sucked for Texas authorities when they started confiscating phones from those women that were not allowed to communicate with the rest of the world(!) and they saw just how much had been recorded and the call records indicated it had been shared with sources they could not control …and they were then not certain what had NOT been recorded!

Another interesting point this brings up is whether Texas has shared all they did find in those cell phones or any other devices that may have recorded what took place during the raid. If Texas was being selective about what they said evidence recovered on those devices, and if the ranch has records that indicate there was more to be shared in that discovery, Texas is just creating another problem for itself.

The Texas Rangers had to testify that they were ordered to take ALL recording devices (video, tape…) at the ranch after their bosses found out everything was being recorded. That’s rather embarassing, when they also had to admit recording such events was legal and so taking such devices may NOT have been included in walther’s ‘take-everything’ SW! Texas has since found out they did not get ALL the sources which held that data for the record!

************

Just so that I may clarify something reported in the Go San Angelo article (which I had linked in a comment on a previous post), that reporter, Mathew Waller, had written that Texas Ranger Aaron Grigsby’s testimony told the jury that; “…Law enforcement personnel said on previous days that several legal hunting rifles and assault rifles were recovered.”

Under cross examination by the defense attorney he was unable to describe any assault rifles found on the ranch and records WILL indicate there were none.

The obvious reason for that Texas Ranger fabricating those assault rifles in his testimony was an effort to counter the impressions being left in the minds of jurors of HOW the TEXAS ARMY went after the cooperative and docile fathers, mothers & children at the ranch.

Maybe that will help the jurors to understand that those Rangers were worried about the men who were kneeling and crying in front of their Temple entrance might have jumped up to unlock the doors, ran to open the safe, worked the combinations to open the cabinets and then moved church records so that they could get a hunting rifle or two and shoot to kill that TEXAS TANK!

120. kent on March 13th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

2 Trackbacks

By Антон Павлович on March 24, 2010 at 10:32 am

Приветик Всем!…

Even the Gimp with the Limp voiced this BS concerning the […….
By “THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.” | Free the FLDS … Criminal Me on March 22, 2010 at 11:58 pm

[…] the rest here: “THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER, NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.” | Free the FLDS … By admin | category: civil criminal | tags: 285-dealing, being-questioned, council, […]

Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society