A video of Oklahoma beating down Texas, 63-14, with the music of Stevie Ray Vaughan...
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Mann Act, RICO, and FLDS Texas
FLDS Texas has recently posted on both the Mann Act and RICO in relation to the FLDS.
This is interesting, since the FLDS have a long history with white slavery violations. For example, in 2003, Warren Jeffs noted that if he had to hide the underage wives he would have to have someone to watch over them, since he would be on the run (or at least traveling). In 2004, Jeffs made the statement that none of the marriages are 'underage', since 'Priesthood' marriages are assigned by God and therefore OK (despite being illegal). We know that Rod Parker asked Jeffs if he had any underage wives, and Jeffs just smiled at Parker until Parker basically said nevermind (BTW Warren, if you write about privileged communications, it is no longer privileged)...
We know that between October 2002 - August 2006, Jeffs performed over 500 marriages. We know the dates and locations of those marriages, and the names of the brides. We know that they used numerous locations (such as Caliente, Nevada and Mesquite, Nevada) to conduct the illegal weddings and that the brides were often transported across state lines. We know that the Mann Act applies to polygamous marriages (see Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946)) and that there are more serious penalties for when the bride is under 18. Or course, that is appropriate, since the court has held that polygamy is immoral, and is akin to prostitution, stating that "polygamous practices have long been branded as immoral..." (Cleveland, at 17).
In other words, since the FLDS men treat their women as prostitutes, if they move them across state lines, they get to go to prision, just like the other pimps...
This is interesting, since the FLDS have a long history with white slavery violations. For example, in 2003, Warren Jeffs noted that if he had to hide the underage wives he would have to have someone to watch over them, since he would be on the run (or at least traveling). In 2004, Jeffs made the statement that none of the marriages are 'underage', since 'Priesthood' marriages are assigned by God and therefore OK (despite being illegal). We know that Rod Parker asked Jeffs if he had any underage wives, and Jeffs just smiled at Parker until Parker basically said nevermind (BTW Warren, if you write about privileged communications, it is no longer privileged)...
We know that between October 2002 - August 2006, Jeffs performed over 500 marriages. We know the dates and locations of those marriages, and the names of the brides. We know that they used numerous locations (such as Caliente, Nevada and Mesquite, Nevada) to conduct the illegal weddings and that the brides were often transported across state lines. We know that the Mann Act applies to polygamous marriages (see Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946)) and that there are more serious penalties for when the bride is under 18. Or course, that is appropriate, since the court has held that polygamy is immoral, and is akin to prostitution, stating that "polygamous practices have long been branded as immoral..." (Cleveland, at 17).
In other words, since the FLDS men treat their women as prostitutes, if they move them across state lines, they get to go to prision, just like the other pimps...
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The FLDS, the Feds, and Canada
You know, the Feds served a search warrant on the YFZ Ranch at the same time that Texas conducted its raid. We know from Ranger Long's answers to Picaretta that there was a Grand Jury held or planned.
Where are the indictments?
We know that underage girls were transported from the Short Creek area to the Ranch to be married, whether to Warren or one of his fellow-abusers.
Where are the indictments?
We know that money was changing hands, whether to be laundered or to pay off the father of the latest white-slavery victim.
Where are the indictments?
We know the evidence is there - Canada had no problem filing cases against Blackmore for a multiple of financial crimes.
Where are the indictments?
There are several explanations, none of which are particularly satisfactory.
Where are the indictments?
We know that underage girls were transported from the Short Creek area to the Ranch to be married, whether to Warren or one of his fellow-abusers.
Where are the indictments?
We know that money was changing hands, whether to be laundered or to pay off the father of the latest white-slavery victim.
Where are the indictments?
We know the evidence is there - Canada had no problem filing cases against Blackmore for a multiple of financial crimes.
Where are the indictments?
There are several explanations, none of which are particularly satisfactory.
- The Feds have sealed indictments and are waiting for the first full moon to serve them.
- The Feds are too chicken (well, actually another word comes to mind, but chicken is more family friendly).
- The Feds are incompetent.
- Someone high up in the Justice Dept. pulled the plug (see #2, above).
Thursday, June 18, 2009
FLDS Attorney Mindy Montford, Part III
Or what not to do as a defense attorney...
DO NOT PISS OFF THE POLICE WITH PUBLIC STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA ABOUT THE POLICE MAKING BAD ARRESTS...
As reported earlier, Noel Didear was stopped and arrested for DWI near 6th Street in Austin when Mindy Montford was arrested for Public Intoxication. When Didear was taken to jail, the original magistrate refused to sign the probable cause affidavit, probably based on Didear's refusal of the sobriety tests and his refusal of either a breath or blood test (which is most likely the advice given by Montford).
As noted in DWI Total Refusals: The Prosecutor's Perspective (Corby Holcomb, Travis County Attorney's Office, presented on July 29, 2008 at the State Bar of Texas Advanced Criminal Law Course in San Antonio, TX, available thru the State Bar), "if you reduce or dismiss total refusal DWI cases due to lack of evidence, then you are sending the message to that individual and to society that a person, no matter how intoxicated they may be, need only refuse to take any test and they can beat a DWI charge."
Hmmm.
Isn't Travis County the place that Didear was arrested? It seems that the Travis County Attorney makes a concerted effort to prosecute these cases... The article also states:
"Article 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: "It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys... to see that justice is done." Justice, of course, is not served by securing convictions at all costs, but neither is justice served by reducing or dismissing arguable DWI cases merely because the evidence is thinner than the prosecutor wished it was." [emphasis added]
Obviously, when Montford's partner and attorney, Pat McNelis, started to snipe verbally at the officer involved in Montford's case, he brought attention to the case and also to the County Attorney's Office.
Two thoughts. First, when you start speaking of retalitory arrests, you raise potential liability issues for the agency. Second, the way to limit those same issues is to refile the case. The defense attorney's immediately accused the police of "judge shopping," as if that were illegal... As the KXAN article noted:
"So-called "judge shopping" is not illegal but is considered unethical in some circles if it is used as a way to skirt the spirit of the law against double jeopardy."
Note the term 'some circles' in the article. Those circles are almost exclusively defense attorneys, ACLU types, and liberals.... Prosecutors and police do not consider it unethical for a very simple reason - it isn't. Also note that the double jeopardy claim is a red herring - anyone that passed Con Law knows that jeopardy doesn't attach on a probable cause determination.
Now Didear gets to pay for an attorney in a DWI case - and that lawyer owes McNelis a big thank you for prodding the police enough to motivate them to refile the case... Of course, Montford shouldn't be happy with it, since the finding of probable cause for the DWI offense now means that her case is significally weakened...
Oops.
DO NOT PISS OFF THE POLICE WITH PUBLIC STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA ABOUT THE POLICE MAKING BAD ARRESTS...
As reported earlier, Noel Didear was stopped and arrested for DWI near 6th Street in Austin when Mindy Montford was arrested for Public Intoxication. When Didear was taken to jail, the original magistrate refused to sign the probable cause affidavit, probably based on Didear's refusal of the sobriety tests and his refusal of either a breath or blood test (which is most likely the advice given by Montford).
As noted in DWI Total Refusals: The Prosecutor's Perspective (Corby Holcomb, Travis County Attorney's Office, presented on July 29, 2008 at the State Bar of Texas Advanced Criminal Law Course in San Antonio, TX, available thru the State Bar), "if you reduce or dismiss total refusal DWI cases due to lack of evidence, then you are sending the message to that individual and to society that a person, no matter how intoxicated they may be, need only refuse to take any test and they can beat a DWI charge."
Hmmm.
Isn't Travis County the place that Didear was arrested? It seems that the Travis County Attorney makes a concerted effort to prosecute these cases... The article also states:
"Article 2.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states: "It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys... to see that justice is done." Justice, of course, is not served by securing convictions at all costs, but neither is justice served by reducing or dismissing arguable DWI cases merely because the evidence is thinner than the prosecutor wished it was." [emphasis added]
Obviously, when Montford's partner and attorney, Pat McNelis, started to snipe verbally at the officer involved in Montford's case, he brought attention to the case and also to the County Attorney's Office.
Two thoughts. First, when you start speaking of retalitory arrests, you raise potential liability issues for the agency. Second, the way to limit those same issues is to refile the case. The defense attorney's immediately accused the police of "judge shopping," as if that were illegal... As the KXAN article noted:
"So-called "judge shopping" is not illegal but is considered unethical in some circles if it is used as a way to skirt the spirit of the law against double jeopardy."
Note the term 'some circles' in the article. Those circles are almost exclusively defense attorneys, ACLU types, and liberals.... Prosecutors and police do not consider it unethical for a very simple reason - it isn't. Also note that the double jeopardy claim is a red herring - anyone that passed Con Law knows that jeopardy doesn't attach on a probable cause determination.
Now Didear gets to pay for an attorney in a DWI case - and that lawyer owes McNelis a big thank you for prodding the police enough to motivate them to refile the case... Of course, Montford shouldn't be happy with it, since the finding of probable cause for the DWI offense now means that her case is significally weakened...
Oops.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Public Intoxication Arrests and the Law, RE: FLDS Attorney Mindy Montford
OK, what was meant to be an interesting little news item has mushroomed, in a large part because people don't understand the law. So here is your quick lesson on it.
First, to make an arrest for a criminal violation, an officer is required to have probable cause, which is far less than proof of an offense. As SCOTUS has repeatedly held:
"Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the [*176] belief that" an offense has been or is being committed."" Bringar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), at 175-176, citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), at 162.
Additionally:
"The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same -- and [*232] so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), at 231-232, citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), at 418.
Many of the internet wannabes are mistakenly under the impression that PC requires proof - it does not. Texas case law on this is crystal clear as to what is required for PC to arrest for Public Intoxication.
"A person commits the offense of public intoxication if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that person may endanger himself or herself or another. The danger need not be immediate; potential danger to oneself or others suffices to show endangerment. Under Texas law, any area to which the public, or a substantial group of the public, has access, is a public place. When reviewing an arrest for public intoxication, an appellate court must decide whether the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest; we must determine "whether the officer's knowledge at the time and under the circumstances would warrant a prudent person's belief that appellant had committed or was committing the offense."" Escamilla v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2815 (Tex. App. Texarkana, 2006, pet ref'd)
The officer could also determine that the mere presence in the vehicle was an indicator of potential danger.
"The potential danger existed in this instance because appellant, ... could have, absent proof otherwise, attempted to drive the Honda from the scene in an intoxicated condition, thereby constituting a clearer danger." Peddicord v. State, 942 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1997), at 110.
So in this case you have a person (Montford) that has been drinking, who is in a public place, and who may be a danger to herself or others. This is the textbook definition of probable cause, but it does not mean that she is guilty of the offense. That will take proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
So despite the wishes of the tin foil hat thinkers, there won't be a lawsuit, nor a settlement for wrongful arrest....
First, to make an arrest for a criminal violation, an officer is required to have probable cause, which is far less than proof of an offense. As SCOTUS has repeatedly held:
"Probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within their [the officers'] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the [*176] belief that" an offense has been or is being committed."" Bringar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), at 175-176, citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), at 162.
Additionally:
"The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain common-sense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same -- and [*232] so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), at 231-232, citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), at 418.
Many of the internet wannabes are mistakenly under the impression that PC requires proof - it does not. Texas case law on this is crystal clear as to what is required for PC to arrest for Public Intoxication.
"A person commits the offense of public intoxication if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that person may endanger himself or herself or another. The danger need not be immediate; potential danger to oneself or others suffices to show endangerment. Under Texas law, any area to which the public, or a substantial group of the public, has access, is a public place. When reviewing an arrest for public intoxication, an appellate court must decide whether the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest; we must determine "whether the officer's knowledge at the time and under the circumstances would warrant a prudent person's belief that appellant had committed or was committing the offense."" Escamilla v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2815 (Tex. App. Texarkana, 2006, pet ref'd)
The officer could also determine that the mere presence in the vehicle was an indicator of potential danger.
"The potential danger existed in this instance because appellant, ... could have, absent proof otherwise, attempted to drive the Honda from the scene in an intoxicated condition, thereby constituting a clearer danger." Peddicord v. State, 942 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1997), at 110.
So in this case you have a person (Montford) that has been drinking, who is in a public place, and who may be a danger to herself or others. This is the textbook definition of probable cause, but it does not mean that she is guilty of the offense. That will take proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
So despite the wishes of the tin foil hat thinkers, there won't be a lawsuit, nor a settlement for wrongful arrest....
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Another FLDS Attorney Arrested for Drunkeness
FLDS Texas reported that Mindy Montford, who represents Annette Jeffs, was arrested for Public Intoxication by the Travis County Sheriff's Office on Saturday in Austin. According to the link to the Austin Statesman article provided by FLDS Texas, Montford was arrested on San Jacinto St, where it intersects with 6th St.
Apparently the vehicle that she was a passenger in struck a pipe and was pulled over. Montford popped out of the car to 'advise' her friends of their 'rights' and was arrested for Public Intoxication about 20 minutes later.
Montford's law partner and attorney, Pat McNelis complains that 'no further investigation' was done before the arrest and that it was a 'retalitory arrest'. By 'further investigation', I would assume that he means that their were no field sobriety tests or breath tests conducted for intoxication. Of course, for P.I., there is not a requirement for either - all that is required is that the officer has probable cause to believe the Montford was in public (she voluntarily exited the vehicle), was intoxicated (presumably she had been drinking) and that she was a danger to herself or others (if the driver was being arrested, she may not have been able to get home without driving or other factors).
We haven't yet heard yet from the law enforcement side of the story - so I would be a little skeptical of taking everything her attorney says at face value...
Apparently the vehicle that she was a passenger in struck a pipe and was pulled over. Montford popped out of the car to 'advise' her friends of their 'rights' and was arrested for Public Intoxication about 20 minutes later.
Montford's law partner and attorney, Pat McNelis complains that 'no further investigation' was done before the arrest and that it was a 'retalitory arrest'. By 'further investigation', I would assume that he means that their were no field sobriety tests or breath tests conducted for intoxication. Of course, for P.I., there is not a requirement for either - all that is required is that the officer has probable cause to believe the Montford was in public (she voluntarily exited the vehicle), was intoxicated (presumably she had been drinking) and that she was a danger to herself or others (if the driver was being arrested, she may not have been able to get home without driving or other factors).
We haven't yet heard yet from the law enforcement side of the story - so I would be a little skeptical of taking everything her attorney says at face value...
Monday, June 8, 2009
Follow Up on Rozita, the Rangers, and the FLDS
About a week ago, I posted on Rozita and and article in the Eldorado Success. Needless to say, the two sides, the ones for protecting the children from abuse and the PPSG had very differing opinions on it.
WC called it 'spin.' An anonymous poster wants Rozita to face attempted murder charges for her role in the removal of the children-victims. Hugh is more convinced than ever that it was an LE conspiracy, based in part on Rozita's foster mother working at a child-abuse call center.
Soozie thinks that the conspiracy theorists are blind to the facts. Jam Inn chuckles at the 'fact' I moonlight as a janitor at the Tom Green courthouse. Rebeckah pokes fun at the attempted murder charges.
Since the original post, additional information has come to my attention. First, in the news article, it mentions Candi Shapley promently. While I knew that Candi was scheduled to be the first victim to testify against the FLDS and Warren, and I knew that she pulled out, causing the cases to be dismissed, I was not aware of the back story, and subsequent history.
First, Candi received enormous pressure from family members that were still part of the FLDS to withdraw. In addition, it has been noted that her father, William "Bill" Shapley, was reinstated into the FLDS after having been excommunicated, and that Candi became reluctant to testify after that. Additionally, it has been alleged that her mother moved directly into her line of sight at the trial to remind her her about her twin daughters, who some have alleged were in Canada under the control of the FLDS. The judge found Candi in contempt and incarcerated her, but she still refused to testify. OK, first, this witness had no problem in testifying before the Grand Jury, nor in speaking out on the case. If I were to speculate, it would not be difficult to believe that she would in fact refuse in order to testify to protect her children, even risking incarceration.
Subsequent to that, we find Candi where? In Colorado Springs. Rozita claimed to the Rangers that she was helping a friend, but refused to provide information on the name of the friend. Could that 'friend' be Candi?
Hugh feels that Rozita had to have gotten inside information from someone.
Rozita, meet Candi; Candi - Rozita...
A much simpler explanition than a law enforcement conspiracy theory....
WC called it 'spin.' An anonymous poster wants Rozita to face attempted murder charges for her role in the removal of the children-victims. Hugh is more convinced than ever that it was an LE conspiracy, based in part on Rozita's foster mother working at a child-abuse call center.
Soozie thinks that the conspiracy theorists are blind to the facts. Jam Inn chuckles at the 'fact' I moonlight as a janitor at the Tom Green courthouse. Rebeckah pokes fun at the attempted murder charges.
Since the original post, additional information has come to my attention. First, in the news article, it mentions Candi Shapley promently. While I knew that Candi was scheduled to be the first victim to testify against the FLDS and Warren, and I knew that she pulled out, causing the cases to be dismissed, I was not aware of the back story, and subsequent history.
First, Candi received enormous pressure from family members that were still part of the FLDS to withdraw. In addition, it has been noted that her father, William "Bill" Shapley, was reinstated into the FLDS after having been excommunicated, and that Candi became reluctant to testify after that. Additionally, it has been alleged that her mother moved directly into her line of sight at the trial to remind her her about her twin daughters, who some have alleged were in Canada under the control of the FLDS. The judge found Candi in contempt and incarcerated her, but she still refused to testify. OK, first, this witness had no problem in testifying before the Grand Jury, nor in speaking out on the case. If I were to speculate, it would not be difficult to believe that she would in fact refuse in order to testify to protect her children, even risking incarceration.
Subsequent to that, we find Candi where? In Colorado Springs. Rozita claimed to the Rangers that she was helping a friend, but refused to provide information on the name of the friend. Could that 'friend' be Candi?
Hugh feels that Rozita had to have gotten inside information from someone.
Rozita, meet Candi; Candi - Rozita...
A much simpler explanition than a law enforcement conspiracy theory....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
