Response to Raymond’s Bad Acts

Picture 4


~ by FLDS TEXAS on October 1, 2009.

56 Responses to “Response to Raymond’s Bad Acts”

  1. Wow, I want a copy of the witness list and exhibit list. Any chance of seeing those?

    Mr. Stevens must not realize that distancing himself from Warren Jeffs is probably his idea and not Raymonds.

  2. has any determination been made yet on the admissibility of evidence obtained from the raid?

  3. hhg – no it hasn’t. I think it was Blues who surmized that Judge Walther might rule on it on a case by case basis, as to whether each individual defendant had standing to object to the warrant. I’m guessing most don’t have standing individually.

    I think the various Motions in Limine will be discussed tomorrow at the Pre-Trial hearing.

  4. This motion makes reference to a so-called “cyanide poisoning document.” Anyone know what that is? I don’t remember hearing about it before.

  5. Raymond doesn’t have standing to contest the warrant – he was not living at the YFZ at the time of the raid.

    I’m working on a post on Steven’s filing – his argument is weak, legally, and goes against case law. I was surprised to see him cite CCP Art. 37.07, which specifically states that TRE 404 and 405 do not apply to prior bad acts… Kinda hard to make an argument for excluding it based on one thing when the statute you cite says the opposite.


  6. lol, sounds like either the FLDS need some better lawyers or they need to stop asking their lawyers to defend the indefensible.

  7. LOCK UM UP!!!! 🙂

  8. Looks like this trial is already under way. It seems to me that pleading guilty would save the FLDS having all this get drug through the mud and having the world know them as the

    “Roman Polanski Pedophile Priesthoodies”

    But hay thats me. Let the record show they are doody on toast.

  9. any chance of seeing the exhibit list or witness list?

  10. Do you really think the AG would release that to the public? I don’t

  11. it is usually part of the freedom of information act.

  12. on a pretrial hearing?

  13. well maybe not until the trial, but its worth a try isn’t it. gotta wonder if janet, lenora, maryanne, rhoda, mary, elizabeth, et al are listed as witnesses for the defense.

  14. Judicial records are not covered by the Open Records Act in Texas.

  15. So, to sum up this document basically says, “We don’t want you to submit any of your evidence because it would show what a total dog our defendant is and the jury would then likely sentence him to a million years plus one in the hoosgow.” right? 😉

  16. way to burst my bubble blues 😦

  17. you are so right rebeckah!!!

  18. Oh, I forgot to add, “And besides, you haven’t proved any of it.”


  19. well they don’t have to prove much about janet or lenora. they both have kids with raymond’s dna born when they were each under the age of consent.

    is it just me, or is there something icky about marrying sisters, cousins and aunts. gives a new meaning to keeping it all in the family.

  20. It’s just the legal version of LadySadie’s excuses list. 🙂

  21. not sure how rosemary jeffs fits into the picture, but of raymond’s wives:

    maryanne, lenora and teresa are all full blood sisters, janet is their cousin and elizabeth and rhoda are their aunts.

    mary j and marie j are either sisters or cousins.

    that just leaves poor rosemary who with the last name of jeffs somehow fits into the first family grouping.

  22. Well it was discussed how we tell our children they will be siblings for life, they just take it a step further and even make sisters share the same sperm.

  23. that’s really taking sisterly love to a new dimension.

  24. In most of America, that’s just icky.

  25. I have never heard of ‘extraneous misconduct evidence’—is there anyone here who can give me a brief primer on the concept?

    Many of the actions listed in Raymond’s Very, Very Execrable Behavior are also criminal acts. If this ‘extraneous misconduct evidence’ is admitted as evidence in the current case, does that limit the state’s ability to charge him with those crimes separately, down the road?

  26. i don’t think so greetings, but i’m not a criminal or an attorney, so my knowledge on this matter is limited.

  27. Found this on twitter:

    “SoapTown_USA @soapsindepthcbs Only on soaps can your brother also be your uncle, your 2nd cousin twice removed and your father in law”

    Guess soaptown USA and Soapsindepthcbs haven’t met the FLDS yet.

  28. I get it—‘extraneous misconduct evidence’ is the old lady at the corner saying, “He always was a little s—t. I remember how he used to set fire to cats.”

    I have been browsing Texas appeals and can’t see any justification for the response’s assertion that “The state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt with competent and admissible evidence that Mr. Jessop perpetrated any of these transactions. Mr. Jessop has not been convicted of any offense concerning these transactions, as required by Rule 609 of the Texas Rules of Evidence.”

    In fact, it seems that I found quite the opposite, after reading a number of appeals. For example, “An extraneous offense is any act of misconduct, whether resulting in prosecution or not, that is not shown in the charging papers. Rankin v. State , 953 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. Crim . App. 1996).”

  29. woo hoo greetings – you’re turning into quite the little sleuth.

  30. Yeah, the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ stuff is obviously dumb…but beyond that, I don’t know.

    I WAS in a murder trial jury once, and at the sentencing thing, me mostly heard how the murderer did society a favor getting rid of the scum who was beating his sister half to death….but in the end if I recall the judge did what the heck he wanted at sentencing.

  31. Proud, you can still get them from the clerk, it’s just not under the Open Records Act. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

  32. oh cool. i’ll check with them tomorrow.

  33. forgot to say – you rock again blues!!! 🙂

  34. blues – why’d ya take down the post making fun of willie? i was enjoying it.

  35. State expert witness list consists of three or four foresic analysts, Musser, Carolyn Jessop total of 8 witnesses.

    One list is for the guilt/innocence or punishment phase.
    J. Jeffs Jessop, T. Jeffs Jessop, Annette Jessop, CASA, several FBI agents, Sally Ann Wayman Jeffs, lots of Texas Rangers, CPS, Custodians of records Bank of America and Well Fargo Bank, Musser, Malonis, and C. Jessop,

  36. Thanks Anon @ 11:07

  37. TBM, if you’re around—am I correct in thinking that the extraneous misconduct stuff doesn’t have to be proven with a conviction in the guilt phase but it does have to have been adjudicated in the punishment phase?

  38. Greetings

    The State is giving notice of their intent to introduce those acts during the trial and not during the punishment phase.

    The relevant rule is Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence which says:

    (b) Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon timely request by the accused in a criminal case, reasonable notice is given in advance of trial of intent to introduce in the State’s case-in-chief such evidence other than that arising in the same transaction.

    Basically, you have to show some other purpose for the evidence other than showing that the accused is a “bad” person. For this particular motion, evidence of polygamy goes to intent and motive. Some of the other stuff like illegal banking transactions I just don’t see how their going to shoe horn into the case.

  39. “For this particular motion, evidence of polygamy goes to intent and motive. Some of the other stuff like illegal banking transactions I just don’t see how their going to shoe horn into the case.”

    A pattern of disrespect for the law and total obedience to Warren?

  40. I’d imagine if they were going for that they’d be working on building a case for Warren being personally responsible for each and every child sexual abuse. Otherwise, Raymond’s obedience to Warren would have nothing to do with his sexual assault on his child brides. Maybe the disregard for the law should count, though. 😉

  41. I think the obedience to Warren speaks to motive. He didn’t go out an seduce just any under aged girl. He took the ones that were give to him.

    But honestly, I think they are trying to get a message to him that they have him on other things. I bet they can back up most of that, maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt but well enough for a grand jury or they would not have entered them.

  42. Is the pretrial hearing today?

  43. I think so.

  44. yes from 10:00 – 12:00 according to the court’s calendar.

  45. A pattern of disrespect for the law and total obedience to Warren?

    That’s not a bad theory. I think some of it is what I call “kitchen sink” lawyering. Since the State has to give notice before they can use any of this, they might as well list anything they may go into whether they’ll likely use it or not.

  46. If it’s true that’s it is inadmissible during the trial the only reason for bringing this stuff up is to contaminate the jury pool.

  47. “If it’s true that’s it is inadmissible during the trial the only reason for bringing this stuff up is to contaminate the jury pool.”

    No, the reason for bringing it up is to see if they can get it in. That’s what the pretrail motions are for and they happen in most criminal cases. Go talk to some criminal lawyers before coming here and trying to “contaminate” the readers with your intentional ignorance.

  48. Ron, I agree. Kind of like bartering over an oriental rug. The merchant is going to ask for twice his break even point, you’re going to start at half of what you are willing to part with and then you are both going to try to work back to a sale.

  49. No, the reason for bringing it up is to see if they can get it in. That’s what the pretrail motions are for and they happen in most criminal cases.
    So what if they already know they can’t get it in yet file anyway?

  50. Ali

    Well, if they didnt want to face all this in court they should have lived pure clean lives that they purported too.

    UH OH WHUUUPS someone looked under the rug and saw the dirty business of the FLDS.

    There will be a lot of rulings, convictions and sentencings coming up you dont like. But its too late to tell those boys to behave.

    They showed up in Texas lying and with their nose up in the air, now we find they are just another petty criminal syndicate preying on little children.

    Doesnt look like that is too welcome in Texas.

    Remember the Tony Alamo!

  51. Alin – their job is to prosecute. It is no more dishonorable to try to be the most successful prosecutor than it is to be a good defender. Defense lawyers routinely protect the guilty. Our system counts on having someone to do that. So this is a matter of debate and barter to help lead to a final decision. There does not always have to be a black and white absolutes.

  52. That has got to be one of the funniest papers I have read in forever. Thanks I needed that. I love how these guys work. Like I have said before…. Welcome to the Molestial Kingdom… I am gonna be a God…. and nothing I do can be used against me in man’s court of law. Good stuff. Just because he did the crimes how dare us GENTILES try to use that against this MAN who will be a GOD. Watch out… He will likely try to become the God over Texas as revenge. Move over Jesus here comes Raymond LOL

  53. Thanks, Ron. I guess I was just trying to figure out whether there were different rules about this extraneous misconduct in the guilt phase and the punishment phase.

    The financials and aiding-and-abetting might be relevant in two ways—first, to show that Raymond was a member of Warren’s inside circle, one of the “power players” who were given young virgins as rewards. Second, there might be a financial side to these sexual transactions about which we are blissfully unaware.

  54. “So what if they already know they can’t get it in yet file anyway?”

    Obviously they COULD get it in so your question is rather moot, isn’t it?

  55. Betty I had a brief moment’s amusement of that pair of hands haggling out of sight beneath the cloth, over the price of … that rug.

  56. I want to be First Gawdess of Texas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: