Leroy Jessop is not Indigent

Advertisements

~ by FLDS TEXAS on January 19, 2011.

17 Responses to “Leroy Jessop is not Indigent”

  1. Surprise ! Leroy’s stalling technique did not work.

  2. Such a shame that Leroy forgot to mention the $71,000+ dollars he received as “personal needs”.

    This also shows how the members work without being paid wages for different FLDS companies. If the Justices need to know who Leroy is related to Richard Jessop and Fredrick Merril Jessop, I’d be happy to let them know that Richard and Leroy are “brothers by different mothers” and Fredrick Merril is their father.

  3. That post above is mine. I was typing my name in the box and hit enter accidentally. Will some admin fix it please.

  4. Fixed ProudTexan, thanks for posting.

  5. I’m betting the IRS is not aware of those gifts, either. Anything over $10K a year has to be reported.

  6. “…appellant has thirty days from the date of this opinion to pay or make satisfactory arrangements to pay the clerk’s and reporter’s fees in this cause.”
    ————-

    Any idea what those fees amount to?

    Apparently his legal counsel is acting pro bono in his behalf, so I wonder what the big deal is regarding clerk and reporter fees.

    Just stalling the judicial process and trying to force judicial mistakes somewhere along the way for future appeal (ad infinitum?), I presume.

  7. I don’t for a minute believe that Hurley is working pro bono. He’s being paid, he’s not that stupid.

  8. The court caught him fibbing. OOOPS! Not AGAIN!

    Dang, dont you hate that when religious nutjobs are caught lying?

    Too bad Leroy didnt hand out at a REAL hunting lodge instead of a children chicken ranch, looks like he got poaching and lying to the court too!

    ——————————-


    The financial records introduced in evidence show that appellant received $72,900
    in personal needs distributions during the years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

    Although the question before
    the court was whether appellant was indigent at the time of the 2010 hearing, we believe that this
    evidence was relevant to that question for at least three reasons.

    First, the documentary evidence
    contradicts appellant’s testimony that the personal needs distributions were generally for $50 to
    $200, and that he had never received more than $3000 in a single year.

    The magnitude of the
    discrepancy calls into question appellant’s credibility”

  9. The rhetorical vagueness, responding when questioned with confusion and obvious evasions in reply sure poits out the fundamental attempts to avoid divulging any truth or direct information. Reminded me of Willie’s deposition over Teresa Jeffs case. Leroy forgot to yawn and lower his head, like Uncle Merril does, while losing conciousness between the questions.

    Tomfoolery straight out of fundamentalist playbook.

  10. “The magnitude of the
    discrepancy calls into question appellant’s credibility”

    LMAO

    In other words Leroy

    You were lying your ass off and they caught you doing it!

    Hope the fundies catch the language – I know its a little high-falutin’, but in laymans language, Leroy was branded a LIAR and his petition thrown out.

    Now he can pay on his own just the way he always did!

  11. To me his answers are so far removed from reality that they border on perjury. His replies to qiestions are very similar to merrili’s answers when he was questioned in the child support hearings. Hint, this tactic did not work for merril and did not work for LeRoy so it is time for a new tactic.

  12. There is no evidence that appellant has children

    I may be confused, but wasn’t he comvicted on the DNA evidence of the baby he had with his child bride?

  13. Perhaps what was meant by that, was that he didnt offer any evidence of family wives and children expenses, as that would have opened up room for discovery.

  14. Because – why should the state give him free stuff if he is a bigamist with a bunch of wives and a herd of kids.

  15. I think that the Justices go by what is offered in the pleadings and to that extent there was no mention of his various wives and kids. The fact that he had been convicted of sexual abuse of a child who was his wife was not before the court.

  16. Can we say that effectively his lying butt was laughed out of court?

  17. I’m beginning to wonder if some of these folks are just born without the genetic code for truthfulness and honesty. Scrambled DNA.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: