What’s My Line?

Below is the affidavit filed by Willie Jessop in the Utah Supreme Court in support of The FLDS Church’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ.   If I have time later, I can really have fun with this.  For now, let’s briefly look at Willie’s affidavit compared to statements he has previously made under oath.

Picture 21

 

Right out of the gate, Willie steps up and identifies exactly who he is and who he “represents”:

“I a member and duly authorized representative of the Petitioner Association, which comprises an informal association of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the “FLDS Church” or the “Church”). I am also a member in good standing of the FLDS Church, and a beneficiary of the United Effort Plan Trust, which is the subject of this action.”

  1. FLDS member
  2. “duly authorized representative” of FLDS
  3. Member of the UEP beneficiary class

Is that the same thing as “spokesman”?   Just curious because Willie doesnt mention who authorized him and what they authorized him to do on their behalf.   I’m pretty sure Willie tried to pull this stunt when he and Shurtleff were palling around and making settlement proposals in the UEP probate case.   I’m pretty sure also Judge Lindberg addressed that squarely when she said she has seen no evidence that Willie is a representative of anything with any authority to represent anyone or bind them contractually or otherwise.

It’s also odd that in Utah Willie is a “duly authorized representative” but in Texas he’s just Willie Jessop and doesn’t speak for anyone or have any authority to act for anyone else…at least that’s what he said under oath to  the House Human Services Committee of the Texas legislature.

But in his deposition in January, he couldnt answer those questions because the answer would have incriminated him on some unknown criminal offense ranging from witness tampering to money laundering and everything in between:

Q. In your dealings with litigation involving the UEP who do you represent?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his right remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon the fact that there are ongoing criminal investigations being conducted by both the state and federal government.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

 

Q. Who gave you the authority to represent anyone in UEP litigation?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations which are being conducted by both the state and federal government.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

 

Q. Okay. Are you asking for affirmative relief in litigation concerning the UEP?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by the federal and state government.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

 

Q. Are you a member of the beneficiary class of the UEP trust?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon on advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his right to remain silent under Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by federal and state authorities.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

 

Q. Okay. Do you know how to identify who is a member of the beneficiary class of the UEP trust?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invokes his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. He is doing so because of ongoing criminal investigations by both federal and state government.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

 

Q. Okay. Has any — has any particular person given you authority to represent them in litigation involving the UEP trust?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: Upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon criminal investigations by federal and state government.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Are you refusing to answer based on instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

.  .  .

 

Q. Okay. Are you associated with the FLDS religious organization?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: At this point, upon advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer and invoke his rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and remain silent — he’s -= as well as the Texas Constitution, but he’s doing so based on the fact that there are ongoing criminal

investigations being conducted by the state and federal government.

 

MS. MALONIS: Okay. Are you instructing him not to answer?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: I’m instructing him not to answer.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Okay. Are you not going to answer the question?

 

A. (By Willie Jessop)I will follow the legal advice of my counsel.

 

 

Q. Okay. Do you hold a position of authority within the FLDS community?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: On advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent under Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by both the state and federal government.

 

MS. MALONIS: Okay.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Do you refuse to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

 

Q. Do you have any decision-making power within –over the FLDS group in Texas?

 

MR. SCHAFFER: On advice of counsel Mr. Jessop will refuse to answer that question and invoke his right to remain silent pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Texas Constitution. This is based upon ongoing criminal investigations by both state and federal government.

 

Q. (By Ms. Malonis) Okay. Do you refuse to answer based on the instruction of counsel?

 

A. Yes, ma’am.

What’s really going on here?

Advertisements

~ by FLDS TEXAS on October 21, 2009.

43 Responses to “What’s My Line?”

  1. Thanks. It was great to reread that, and your point is well taken.

  2. i just forwarded this to drew darby and the other members of the house committee where he was “just willie jessop” not representing anyone. Maybe they need to hold him in contempt. then he can join his brothers in crime in a texas jail.

  3. oh yeah, i forgot to add that wee willie is an idiot!!!

  4. ProudTexas, that was a wonderful idea.

    Was he under oath when he said that? I cannae remember.

  5. He was under oath

  6. Can interested parties file ‘friend of the court’ briefs to the Utah Supremes? If so, someone needs to send him a transcript of this and his hearing testimony.

    I wish I knew a lawyer who was licensed to practice in Utah.

  7. I’m sure the UEP lawyers or Arizona AG is on it …

  8. i’m pretty sure the utah ag isn’t on it.

  9. LOL Good bet proudtexas

  10. HA HA Oh how true! And once the Utah Supremes see how willing he is to lie, they wont be so quick to get sucked into their drama queen antics.

  11. Every one should go send darby an email.

    http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=72&rep=drew.darby

    and let him know about willie’s lying ways.

  12. I dunno. Just because he pleads the 5th in Texas doesn’t require him to plead the 5th in Utah.

  13. Yeah, alin, but WHY? That’s the point. What would it hurt to say that he was, indeed, part of the FLDS in Texas? He certainly has been seen speaking for them enough in Texas on the news, etc. Then to come forward as the spokesperson for the petitioners….there’s what we call being disingenuous going on here. And to translate for Linda, that means LYING.

  14. i don’t think you can pick and choose your place to plead the 5th. you either plead it or don’t. and yeah, we’re not necessarily talking about him pleading the 5th, i’m talking about him telling a committee hearing that he wasn’t the spokesperson for the flds and then signing an affidavit saying he was the spokesperson.

    i’ll leave the legalities to darby and the others, but wanted them to be aware of it.

  15. Why would Willie Jessop plead the 5th? He was NEVER in Texas till after the raid.
    He has just been a big mouthed fat doughboy the last few years.
    Ive not heard of any Federal Grand Jury investigating Willie Jessop.
    Maybe Willie is psycho?

  16. Alin said:
    Just because he pleads the 5th in Texas doesn’t require him to plead the 5th in Utah.

    No, but if he doesn’t, it shows a couple of things.

    First, it shows he’s an idiot. Texas can use any statements under oath in Utah in Texas, as can the Feds. By failing to preserve his rights in Utah, he is handing information over to the authorities on a silver platter.

    Second, it shows that he was abusing the discovery process. If he is comfortable enough to comment on those matters freely in Utah, it shows that he wasn’t really afraid of prosecution, and would be liable for sanctions. Gee, wasn’t there a motion for sanctions just before the case was non-suited?

  17. Second, it shows that he was abusing the discovery process.

    Someone in the FLDS abusing the judicial process? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

  18. “Your winnings, sir”

  19. Stanford study explains Duane

  20. Thanks for the link, Ron. Added that to my Delicious bookmarks for trolls.

  21. Love it Ron. “Net Troll, he has no special powers and he’s really mad about it.”

  22. I enjoyed reading (again) this snappy dialogue between Wee Willie Winky and Natalie Malonis, but I actually wrote to Drew Darby about Willie’s testimony before the Texas subcommittee (which I watched live on streaming video). If Wee Willie perjured himself before that committee by saying under oath that he didn’t represent the FLDS, then Drew Darby ought to know about it.

    But I’m no Texan, so I hope some of y’all wrote him as well.

  23. i emailed rose and hildebrand for good measure. i can’t vote for them, but figured they ought to know about it.

  24. Willie may not have been an “official” representative of the FLDS when he testified in Texas.

    Ron, that stanford study was interesting but I have no illusions that most commenters on this blog agree with me.

  25. The topic title asks What’s Willie’s line?

    Answer: CROOK

  26. i’m talking about him telling a committee hearing that he wasn’t the spokesperson for the flds and then signing an affidavit saying he was the spokesperson.
    ============================================
    Umm he is still not a spokeperson. The closest he comes to that is a duly authorized representative is this specific pleading.

  27. What are we to do with you jokesters and your fish heads and lies, alin?

  28. then he should have told the committee that’s he’s a duly authorized representative. he told them he wasn’t anything but just willie jessop.

  29. then he should have told the committee that’s he’s a duly authorized representative.
    =================================================
    At the time he was neither a spokesperson nor a duly authorized representative.

  30. Tell us all about that, alin.

  31. I thought I did?

  32. “Umm he is still not a spokeperson. The closest he comes to that is a duly authorized representative is this specific pleading.”

    Duly authorized by who? I could claim to be a “duly authorized representitive” for one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eaters, but that don’t make it so.

  33. Well, we are all fairly certain that he’s the duly authorized spokesperson of a chimera, but the question is whether he perjured himself or not. I can’t answer that, since it’s a specific legal concept.

    In practical terms, I think his testimony in Texas is true—Wee Willie is looking out for Wee Willie and nobody else. But it’s entertaining that he convinced the Utah AG that he represents the FLDS rank-and-file, isn’t it?

  34. Heh! Rebeckah I didn’t think of that. I’m sure Utah Supreme Court will ask him. If I had to hazard a guess and this is just a guess mind you, maybe the FLDS has a board of church elders who elected him.

  35. The Lord showed me while with
    the attomey to not allow him to participaæ in
    reporting the Willie Jessop incident to the
    authorities, but to just instruct him how to deal
    with the FBI. I hesitated at first and as the
    lawyer was leaving, the Spirit said: “Just tell
    him.” I did so and the lawyer agreed to do as
    instructed.

    Part of Warren’s Priesthood record January 16, 2007.

    What did Willie do? Does anyone know?

  36. No alin, not yet. This isn’t a mindreading group.

  37. No alin, not yet. This isn’t a mindreading group.
    ===========================================
    I’m not sure what you are talking about.

  38. Yah, Alin, let’s both pretend.

  39. I think the most comical thing about this affidavit is Exhibit A which is a quote from Ben Bistline.

    Ben is probably the MOST hated apostates there is. (Or he is second to Flora as the most hated). And they are quoting his book in this document ????

    Man are they desperate!

  40. The FLDS bypassed ‘a board of elders’ some decades back, much to their downfall. If they decided to have one now it would probably be a good thing, but it would be a major break in doctrine.

  41. Alin,

    The Utah Supreme Court won’t ask him. I doubt that there will even be oral arguments on the motion. Appellate courts rule on the record, and do not hear testimony, if there is testimony needed, the matter will be remanded to the trial court (Judge Lindberg) to hear the evidence and make findings of fact. She would be the one to judge the credibility of the witness, and considering that Wee Willie already accused her of wanting to sign an “extermination” order, I don’t think that Willie really wants to go back into that court…

  42. Ben is probably the MOST hated apostates there is. (Or he is second to Flora as the most hated)
    =============
    “Joseph Musser is the origin of all apostate groups and their patron saint.” –Rulon Jeffs

  43. Gee cement,
    Is this the same Joseph White Musser who prophesied that a temple would be built on the Berry Knoll?

    And then Rulon Jeffs turns around and says this about him?

    Oh no, it couldn’t possibly be so. Willie wouldn’t support a prophesy by someone his former prophet considered to be an apostate.

    No way!

Comments are closed.

 
%d bloggers like this: