Attorney General’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
~ by FLDS TEXAS on July 13, 2009.
Posted in The Evidence
deputydog1 said this on July 13, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Yes siree, Thanks FLDS Texas Admin!
Anonymous said this on July 13, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Awesome, just awesome.
Boots said this on July 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I’m not a lawyer but I think that translates to: “We gave you MORE than a fair chance to prove your case and you failed miserably.” Too bad they’ll probably ignore it like they ignore any legal stance they don’t like.
Rebeckah said this on July 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM
They still think they are protected because they are calling child molesting “their religion”!!!
“Additionally, the Texas Religious Freedom Act, § 110.001 et seq, Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code expressly provides affirmative statutory protections against State actions
which encroach upon the free exercise of an individual’s religion. The Act provides that, when
the State puts a substantial burden upon a person’s free exercise of religion, it may serve as a
defense in any judicial proceeding,”
Stamp said this on July 14, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Not when it comes to sexual assaults against minors, religious protection is out the window. The catholic church has been going through this same thing for years.
deputydog1 said this on July 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I’d been waiting for this, Goldstein’s a month or two late isn’t he? Same song and dance? I’ve not read it myself, too much going on. Are you serious, they think they can get out of criminal charges against their children by calling it religion? IN TEXAS?
GrannyToad said this on July 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM
My impression is that is their defence on the crime of Bigamy in general, in Texas, regardless if it is practiced on children or adults.
But they sorta live in a whole different world, too, with women being sweetly submissive and all.
As a Texas woman myself, I can tell you it is perfectly possible to be sweet, without being submissive ::snort::
Boots said this on July 14, 2009 at 4:15 PM
UEP CAUSE No 1016
State vs FM Jessop
State Closing Brief – Motion To Suppress
NOTICE OF FILING OF STATE’S PROPOSED ORDER…
Then the Order is signed by the Judge.
Here, you have the prosecution actually writing Orders for a judge to sign, instead of a judge independently issuing the Order. You have the prosecution actually dictating how a judge should rule. All she has left to do is to rubber-stamp the Order of the Prosecution, not an actual Order of a judge or a court at all.
I am sure that you can get plenty of mileage out of this dark and loathsome legal fact and flaw in their enforcement of the law and their administration of justice, and bring some crucial legal reforms in the process.
Anonymous said this on July 14, 2009 at 4:33 PM
That legal brief filed by the defense was amazingly powerful. This entire case will be studied by law enforcement officers for years on how “not” to conduct an investigation.
Alinusara10 said this on July 14, 2009 at 6:28 PM
The indictments had NOTHING to do with Religion. It had to do with breaking the Law of Texas by committing sexual assaults on underage girls, impregnating them.
Anonymous, Judge Walther said in court, She would issue her decision in this case in writing. And NO she would rubber stamp anything.
The defense brief was alot of words, with NO substance as to probable cause.
If CPS or LE get a call that a child is being abused, whether it’s a residence, a commercial building or a church, they have probable cause to go investigate!
deputydog1 said this on July 14, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Unfortunately they did nothing to investigate before they went in disrupting the lives of 700 some people.
Alinusara10 said this on July 14, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Alinusara, they didn’t have to, they had probable cause! CPS can go and investigate child abuse without a warrant, but they did get one.
deputydog1 said this on July 14, 2009 at 6:50 PM
The search warrants did NOT have FLDS on them, they had YFZ Ranch.
The AG brief doesn’t say FLDS religious group, it says, State of Texas vs Merril Jessop.
deputydog1 said this on July 14, 2009 at 7:10 PM
YFZ Land LLC was never registered as a religious or charitable organization. The regiestered agent of YFZ Land LLC was david Allred who neither lived there or in the state of Texas.
deputydog1 said this on July 14, 2009 at 7:20 PM
I’m just curious as to how you have an “expectation of privacy” for a residence that you don’t actually claim you live in. I wonder, if I’m visiting my brother in Connecticut and they break down his door to search for illegal drugs or somthing (with a warrant of course) do I actually have a right to privacy on my suitcase? Hmmmmm, Ron, Texbluesman, any thoughts?
Rebeckah said this on July 14, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Brooke Adams published her story on Goldstein’s brief at 10:43:15 AM MDT.
That was a scant 55 minutes after Goldstein submitted his brief to Schleicher County (10:50 am CDT).
The brief being 102 pages long, it is difficult to believe she read it, noted the salient passages, and crafted a polished story, which was then reviewed by her editor, in that amount of time.
Ergo, Brooke had an advance copy, a gift from her pals at the FLDS. Does that violate a code of ethics? I don’t know; I’ve asked for an opinion from a newspaper editor. Does it impugn her impartiality? Darned straight it does.
Greetings from New York said this on July 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM
YES it certainly does!
deputydog1 said this on July 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Greetings from New York,
Please also note that Brooke took her personal vacation time with her friend, Michelle Roberts of the AP, and if I am not mistaken, the reporter on this story’s beat for the Houston Chronicle.
For my own opining on the integrity of walking a line between objective reporting and advocacy I’ll refer to an old post I made at TBM’s place [as soon as I fix a couple of glaring typos made in the heat of the moment…just so I don’t have to re-write the same opinion, and waste more time on Ms. Adams, again.
I simply have an opinion that Brook Adams is not an objective journalist, but rather an apologist for polygamists. I think anyone who reads her stuff will see the same thing.
Quoting everything Brent revealed about his drug use [probably a result of trying to dull the pain of what he lived through]is about like writing a book review of the New Testament, listing all the sins of St. Paul, without including a thing the man ever did that was good or right.
I cannot answer your question as to how I would have written it differently, because I’m an honest person, who admits their bias, unlike she who claims to be objective.
I’m not the one claiming to be objective here; she is, by the very nature of her position.
That’s my opinion.
May 25, 2009
I did want to mention that I was faced with the very same choice myself.
I’ve worked as a reporter, and the more I investigated this story, the less objective I became. I was able to confront that in myself, admit it, and move out of the field of reporting altogether.
The responsibility of anyone, writing for a publication or broadcasting “news” across the airwaves is an honorable if heavy obligation.
I stepped back from that career path, because I have personal integrity. I chose to take the harder, more honest way of declaring myself to be an anti-polygamy advocate.
Perhaps this is a case of “It takes one to know one”? I have been a reporter and walked the line I was supposed to. When the line became too uncomfortable for me personally, I changed career tracks.
I don’t see objective journalism in Brooke’s reporting. I see consistent advocacy.
I have been an advocate for a while now, so like I said: maybe it takes one to know one.
May 25, 2009
And Greetings, some of us have to put ourselves out there, because if we don’t, exactly who will? If you for one second think the FLDS Priesthood don’t know exactly where I live…you are naive.
If I am in compliance with the law, all they have to do is look up my tags or voter’s registration for that.
Sometimes, depending on who you are, plain sight is the safest dang place in the whole world to be.
Boots said this on July 14, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Anon – it is always the practice for attorneys to submit proposed orders for the court to sign. The court does not sit down and type their own orders. Goldstein can submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as well – but he won’t because for him to prevail he would have to come up with findings that Brookes Long intentionally fabricated information or included information he knew was false to get a search warrant, and for these defendants to have standing to challenge the warrants he would have tcome up with a finding that each and every resident of the Ranch exercised dominion and control over the entire Ranch and each one of it’s structures just by virtue of living in one of the structures — ie he would have to persuade the court that the whole Ranch is one giant communal household, so everyone there has the same expectation of privacy at every single point on the Ranch (that’s absurd, by the way).
Those are the only relevant issues. It all boils down to whether these defendants have standing and whether Brooks Long fabricated or included information he knew was false in his affidavit. That’s it — everything else in that 100 page hodge podge is irrelevant to the motion to suppress — it’s an intentional effort to confuse the issue and stir up public sentiment and media attention. Goldstein knows he’s lost this one.
FLDS TEXAS said this on July 15, 2009 at 10:13 AM
and for these defendants to have standing to challenge the warrants he would have tcome up with a finding that each and every resident of the Ranch exercised dominion and control over the entire Ranch and each one of it’s structures just by virtue of living in one of the structures — ie he would have to persuade the court that the whole Ranch is one giant communal household, so everyone there has the same expectation of privacy at every single point on the Ranch (that’s absurd, by the way).
Which made a lot of our mouths drop when the state put forth the same position. I read the AG’s Brief. It looks like they gave up and assigned the case to someone who just graduated law school.
Alinusara10 said this on July 15, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Are you a law school graduate?
Boots said this on July 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.