Questions answered . . .
Why question Merril Jessop in relation to Teresa Jeffs' situation? Here is how Natalie Malonis explained it to Judge Barbara Walther last week according to a transcript of the deposition:
''I think this witness has information about the way that the financial structure's set up and how my client and her family, their needs are taken care of, their living expenses, you know, how much control and choice they have over their own destinies. He's got information as an authority figure in the church over the structure of the church and that kind of thing. . . . He does have information that's relevant to how this family can support themselves, which goes to the safety of the child.''
The judge decided to let the deposition proceed and said she would rule later on any questions not answered. A hearing took place Monday on the unanswered questions, but Walther has not yet issued an order.
I went through the deposition to see for myself what kinds of questions Merril was asked and how they related to Teresa's case, which is already the subject of news and blog reports.
A lot of questions struck me as being posed on behalf of all the people who would like to depose Merril but have not been able to, such as many questions about the United Effort Plan Trust. What does a question about whether Merril was involved in the sale of the Apple Valley property in Utah have to do with Teresa Jeffs, for example? Likewise, of what relevance is it whether he still drives?
Any way, I listed all the questions in two categories: Those answered, and those to which Merril invoked the Fifth Amendment.
It is a long list, so I will break this into two posts. I will post one list now and, wow, it's late, the other later today.
First, the questions answered.
1. Would you go ahead and state your name on the record?
2. Are you here today under subpoena and a notice of deposition?
3. Have you seen that document or a copy of that document that I handed you or were the contents of it communicated by your counsel?
4. And that's how you knew that you were supposed to be here?
5. How would you prefer that I address you?
6. Do you go by Merril?
7. And what is your address, Merril?
8. What is the street that that residence is on?
9. Is that the building number or designation?
10. Do you know the zip code there?
11. This address that you gave me, is that a particular residence on the YFZ Ranch that was the subject of a law enforcement investigation since April of this year?
12. Are you following the advice of your counsel and choosing not to answer based on your Fifth Amendment right against incrimination?
13. And on all these questions when your counsel has invoked this privilege are you following in the advice of your counsel and choosing not to answer?
14. Are you following the advice of your counsel?
15. Are you following the advice of your counsel?
16. Do you have children?
17. Are you going to answer the question?
18. Do you have a son named Raymond Jessop?
19. And are you going to take the advice of counsel and not answer it?
20. Are you currently under indictment?
21. In Schleicher County or . . .
22. Have you seen that before? (A copy of his indictment.)
23. What is the charge that you’re currently under indictment for? Is the charge conducting a ceremony prohibited by law under the Texas Family Code, is that your understanding?
24. Do you know what you’re under indictment for? Have the charges been explained to you?
25. And it is conducting a ceremony prohibited by law, is that the charge?
26. Not have you done that, but is that the charge, is that what they’re accusing you of?
27. Are you currently under indictment for any other charges?
28. Does your indictment that we just talked about, does that relate to Raymond Jessop at all?
29. Does it related to any of your other children?
30. Do you know where Raymond Jessop lives currently?
31. Are you taking the advice of your counsel and choosing not to answer that question?
32. Is that on the basis that it might incriminate you, is that your understanding?
33. Do you recognize what that is? (Shows Merril ''Private Priesthood Record of President Warren S. Jeffs Record, January 2007 through June 6, 2007.'')
34. Do these appear to be the kinds of records that are kept within the FLDS? (Merril's response: ''I've never seen any like it.'')
35. Have you ever kept any records within the FLDS?
36. Do you have a daughter named Naomie?
37. Do you know what state Naomie lives in?
38. When was the last time you saw her face-to-face?
39. A month ago?
40. Was it in the state of Texas that you saw Naomie approximately a month ago?
41. Do you know Annette (Jeffs)?
42. Are you subscribing to what she is stating, that you're not going to answer those questions because you fear that it's going to incriminate you?
43. Hands Merril Exhibit No. 4, Motion in Limine from Jeffs' Utah trial (a transcript of Jeffs' jailhouse conversation with his brother Nephi Jeffs) and asks if he's seen it before.
44. You don't recognize it?
45. Have you ever visited Warren Jeffs since he's been in prison?
46. When was the last time you visited him?
47. About a month ago?
48. Do you have an understanding of whether Texas corporations are registered publicly or are of public record?
49. Are you not going to answer that question?
50. And is the reason for that because of a fear of self-incrimination?
51. Mr. Jessop, are you okay?
52. Are you hearing my questions?
53. Are you awake?
54. Can you state specifically what offense he might be in fear, or let the witness state what he is afraid of being incriminated by answering directly whether he drives an automobile? (Merril's answer: ''Probably because I can't see.'')
55. Do you know where Ms. Annette Jeffs and her children live, what city?
56. Do your bond conditions prohibit you from traveling outside of Texas? (''No.'')
57. Are there any conditions to your bond? (''No.'')
58. Did you review that (document titled Declaration of Trust of the United Order Trust of Texas) with your counsel?
59. Do you recall the date that the investigation began when law enforcement first came on the ranch, do you remember the date?
60. (Following questions asked by Jonathan R. Davis, ad litem for a minor male sibling) Would you state your date of birth, please.
61. And where were you born?
62. And did you go to elementary school?
63. Where did you go to elementary school?
64. And did you go to high school?
65. Did you finish through, what, seventh or eighth grade, something like that? (''Eighth grade.'')
66. Is there a grocery store at the YFZ Ranch? (''There is a storehouse.'')
67. (Asked by Natalie Malonis and answered by Merril's attorney) Have you been personally served with citation in a CPS case involving X (a minor daughter)?
68. Are you aware you're listed as a witness in some discovery documents n any of the CPS cases? (''I'm not aware.'')
69. You haven't had a discussion about testifying? (Nods.)
70. So somebody's talked to you about what facts you would testify about? (''No.'')
71. When your counsel has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege on your behalf, I just want to clarify that on all of those questions it is your choice not to answer those because of a fear of incriminating yourself? (''It's my choice to follow the counsel's direction.'')
72. What I want to know is that on each of those questions is your choice not to answer because your answer could incriminate you? (''On the advice of counsel I would answer yes.'')
73. Is that correct, based on her explanation of the law to you, you don't want to answer those questions because it might incriminate you? (''As I understand it, yes.'')
43 Comments:
Wow, Walther must be proud of her Dedman School protege after this masterful interrogation. She really struck gold. I think the best one of all was, "Are you awake?"
The exchange where Malonis instructs her teacher on the basics of Fifth Amendment pleading was telling. Walther doesn’t have a clue, apparently, and if we haven’t had her ruling yet, it’s probably because she’s having the AG’s office write it for her.
How old is Merril now? He was asked if he was awake and he said that he doesn't drive because he cannot see. Just wondering how old he is now. Also, is he still taking more young wives? I am sure he looks like a real prize now! LOL!
That seems like an aweful lot of questions Malonis asked, and a lot of research must have went into them. I'm pretty sure the state isn't funding Malonis' own research, so either she's getting the funding from somewhere else, or the state is doing the research and drafting of questions for her. Is the latter legal? Wouldn't that be considered a conflict of interest to work with the adversarial party on drafting deposition questions?
This woman's definately working for someone other than Teresa!!!
"Who?" is the question.
And Merril is definitely working for someone other than the general membership of the FLDS!!!
"Who?" is the question.
I posted this on iperceive, but feel it is pertinent. I especially take issue with Natalie's question: "What I want to know is that on each of those questions is your choice not to answer because your answer could incriminate you?"
I am wary of “assuming” guilt on any/all of the questions where Merrill invoked the fifth. Based on the fact that he’s already been charged in Texas, has a daughter in foster care with the possibility of losing permanent custody (which may lead to “siblings at risk” being declared and ultimately taken), the fact that he is apparently under federal investigation, it would make sense that he would FOLLOW his lawyer’s advice to invoke the fifth for so many questions, particularly when answers can potentially impact so many different possible investigations.
The natural downside to invoking the fifth is that it creates a sort of prejudicial environment. There becomes a presumption of guilt, the assumption being that if you aren't guilty, you wouldn’t take the fifth. So, while there is a protection in the law against self-incrimination, there is a natural consequence that makes you look guilty when you invoke it. It is unfortunate, but true. That does not mean it is right.
Keep in mind that Merrill IS innocent until proved guilty, and that presumption is guaranteed in the law to everyone, which is the ONLY way to strive for a fair trial.
The definition given at Answer.com is pretty simple and makes it clear that while the right to invoke the fifth may shelter the guilty, it also helps protect the innocent against self-incrimination. That means that it is widely understood that INNOCENT people CAN incriminate themselves, and therefore NEED to ability to invoke the fifth amendment for their own protection. Therefore, it is detrimental and harmful to the INTENT of the fifth amendment to assume guilt simply because someone invokes it.
Further, even the most benign “seeming” questions can lead to charges based on polygamy/bigamy (regardless of the age of the participants, as in the Canada charges). Questions such as where do you live or who are your children, or how many children do you have open the door to questions about having children with more than one woman (who might be wives?), “cohabiting” in a particular household, etc.
Frankly, I’m not terribly impressed with Texas’s ability to define a household, let alone respect even the most simple explanations without turning them into something dark and nefarious. I traveled to Texas and sat through the joke of a 14-day hearing and couldn’t believe the crap the state tried to pull on the ranch families. Let’s not forget that Texas has not shown any tolerance toward this community, toward polygamy in general or toward their religious beliefs.
Gee MPB, you do know that polygamy is a crime don't you. Why should law enforcement show "tolerance" towards a crime. Should law enforcement show "tolerance" towards drug dealers, murders, rapist?
Guess law enforcement should show "tolerance" towards drunk drivers?
So sorry you were driving drunk, wrecked into a mini-van filled with 5 children and killed all, here let me buy you another beer and try to drive a little safer as you make your way to the next bar.
You missed my point, Deb, the point being that polygamy can be prosecuted (as COHABITANT bigamy), and simple questions such as "where do you live" and "who are your children" can be used to "incriminate" people who practice it.
The only way to prosecute polygamists who do not commit fraud (a general element of bigamy) by securing more than one marriage license is to define bigamy as "cohabitation" with more than one partner. You don't even have to be married at all, Deb. If you shack up with more than one person, you can be prosecuted for bigamy.
Cohabitant bigamy is the way polygamists are targeted, and by which they are publicly characterized as criminals, and yet everyone else whose conduct falls under the same definition is ignored.
According to Utah's bigamy statute (which, I understand, was used as a model for Texas' modified version), a person is guilty of bigamy if that person has a spouse and "cohabits" with another person, or "purports" to be married to another person.
Further, you do not have to actually even "have a spouse" (marriage license) in order to be prosecuted. If a person simply cohabits with more than one partner in a committed way, that person (or persons) can still be prosecuted for bigamy due to the common law statute that considers any shacking up couple "married".
Hence, any common law couple who then decide to open their relationship to a third party can be prosecuted for bigamy.
Now, the state of Utah has said that this is such a mess that it is not going to prosecute consenting adults who do this (or consider themselves polygamously married while they do it), but that doesn't stop the public maligning of "polygamists" as criminals.
Again, the point is that I recognize that it is against the law as the bigamy statute is defined, but that definition is so broad that it makes thousands of non-polygamous believing cohabitants guilty of bigamy, too, and equally criminal in their CONDUCT.
After all, we are talking about "conduct", because even the Reynolds' notorious decision asserted that a person's belief is not criminal, just the person's acting on that believe (conduct).
If thousands of non-polygamists commit the same CONDUCT, but call it by another name, it is hypocritical to call one criminal and ignore the other.
Bigamy should be targeting FRAUD, not consenting adult relationships that are extra-marital or outside the scope of marital licensing.
How are the questions relevant to establishing a trust for TJ?
Where polygamy is practiced by consenting adults, Deb, with all parties consenting, then there is no victim, unless you adhere to the paternalistic idea that adult women are not competent to make their own decisions and need to be rescued from them when they depart from society's standards of what is appropriate.
The problems the FLDS are facing are due to possible underage marriage situations, but that doesn't change the fact that too many people simply detest polygamy for polygamy's sake and are not willing to make the distinctions necessary to focus the argument appropriately.
It also does not change the fact that the presumption in the law is that people are innocent until proved guilty. Invoking the fifth because you MIGHT incriminate yourself should not be considered proof of guilt or it completely undermines the INTENT of the fifth amendment. The fact is that that allows for the guilty to have some shelter, but provides a greater protection for the innocent who may incriminate themselves were it not available.
mpb
Texas law allows a trier of fact to make inferences regarding someone taking the Fifth Amendment in a civil case.
It doesn't require a negative inference and given the right facts I'm sure a good lawyer could spin a story to avoid that negative inference.
So, it's not automatic. It's not like you claim the Fifth and people automatically assume you're guilty. Most Judges are probably going to look at the totality of the circumstances.
Now for Merrill, Willie and crew, the totality of circumstances probably wouldn't lead to any positive inferences.
This post has been removed by the author.
Deb,
If you have something to say then say it, and stop using dumb sarcasm to try to make your point. I thought your comment in response to my attempts to straighten out my identity on this Blog were stupid and arrogant. So contribute something to this discussion other than stupid arrogance.
Txblogger
It's probably not very relevant, but the lawyers didn't raise that issue in the deposition, so it's off the table now.
MPB,
"It also does not change the fact that the presumption in the law is that people are innocent until proved guilty. Invoking the fifth because you MIGHT incriminate yourself should not be considered proof of guilt or it completely undermines the INTENT of the fifth amendment. The fact is that that allows for the guilty to have some shelter, but provides a greater protection for the innocent who may incriminate themselves were it not available."
That's a good point MBP and something that everyone should consider. ;)
Ron, it may not be off the table. As I stated in Kurt's blog:
It looks like even though objections weren’t made to these out-of-scope questions, the objections are nonetheless preserved, at least in some states:
“Objections to the competency of the deponent, or to the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility at trial of the testimony or of the materials produced are unnecessary and are not waived by failure to make them before or during the deposition.” Such objections are automatically preserved, so they need not be made at depositions.
link
Silver,
I wanted to let you know that I used another identity "Silver.Rose" on another thread in which you posted, and when my reply posted, my nick was shortened to "Silver."
I didn't realize it was going to do that and will not use this nick any more on this blog. I did not mean to offend you or cause you distress. It was not an attempt to undermine your personna or deceive in anyway.
Best Wishes,
SilverRose
This post has been removed by the author.
Brooke I wasn't aware "nods" and "no's" were answering questions.
Likewise, of what relevance is it whether he still drives?
***************
Brooke documents will show you that Merril brought two children to YFZ in 2007, remember? The two girls from Nevada? The mother who continued to work in Nevada, while Merril took her children to the ranch. The mother who we all found in court is actually also a wife of Merril.
One of the girls kept asking Merril where her mother was, why she hadn't called or come to see them? Who Merril told to shut up about it.
The oldest little girl was 10yrs old, the one who gave testimony about her mother.
I understand you have your blinders on Brooke, I think its time you took them off.
Merril would not even identify that Merrianne is his daughter.
But her darn sure said Raymond was his son.
Merril is 72yrs old, and knowing her was going to court for a deposition, any idioit would know to bring glasses if they couldn't see.
The problem with Merril taking the 5th on questions is there were documents produced in questioning.
For instance, whose name's were on the LLC for YFZ ranch, including Merril Jessops. When asked if that was his name, he refused to answer.
Rather stupid if you ask me.
Merril Identified that naomi, one of warrens wife's is his daughter, the one caught with warren in his arrest. But wouldn't identify Merrianne as his own daughter.
The deposition copy that I read had many of these questions unanswered. Why list, among questions answered, questions about how or why you are pleading the Fifth on some other question. What kind of game is that?
Natalie Malonis: How are you employed?
Amy Hennington: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: Are you employed?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: Do you have a source of income?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: OK. Do you own any assets?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: Okay. Do you have any personal debt?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: Are you a member of the FLDS religious association?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: Do you have a religious association?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
NM: Do you worship a higher power?
AH: My client is pleading the Fifth Amendment.
Attorney Jonathan Davis also ask Jessop questions. Mr Davis is attorney for Joseph Jeffs.
Well Merrill consecrated his assets in his construction company in Paige Arizona and the money from the Caliente Hot Springs into the Allred Hunting lodge we call YFZ today. He was a player in the finances and became the "Operations" guy at the ranch! Alot of money was flowing through his fingers!
Introducing or considerring the Mann-Act, Merril's Hot Springs Resort was used as the location of these underage unions which made him a party to marriages including Elissa's.
In the Rulon Jeff's deposition from 1989, in Jeffs vs Stubbs, Rulon explained in detail that only a handful of men were kept informed or participated in the operation of church assets and finances.
What was interesting, was when ordered to live off the ranch and away from certain men, whose cars were they driving, whose money bought food, whose money paid for outside apartments? It was all FLDS trust funds. No one had outside jobs while building YFZ ranch. They were being ordered to distance themselves, while all were dependent on church funds!
What Natalie and all of us want is simply the truth!
Most of us know how this will end and all of this blog and media frenzy is what feeds the expansion of issues and more questions. The courts, judges and lawyers, would of run out of questions if not for the two sides going at it.
While this causes the sun to rise and set for polygamist and those here, a recent pole showed most Americans only find this a remote curiousity! On the populated East & West coast people poled know more about BIG LOVE on HBO!
Unless you are FLDS, Kingston, Allred or Centennial Park, waiting to see if your group will be next, few outside American's care as much. In Texas, most Texans supported addressing the issues head on! Ignore Texans and fundamentalist and you have about 10,000 more people, activist or constitutionalist who care!
This in not an American mainstream issue and the image of traditional family values or conservative religion goes South with each story. Polygamy a small % might accept, pedophilia even less!
This may make good press for the SLC Trib, but Utah's image has continued to slip into the mire and mud of what the state was able to ignore for decades!
Flora Jessops book hit the bookstores, at the same time Debbie Palmers, more are coming!
How will this end??? Badly!!
Merrill Jessop is guilty without assumed innosence because of Warren's own defense in the St. George Utah trial. Warren used the location of Merrill's hot springs resort for dozens of celestial unions, with as many juvenile partners. Warren was circumventing state laws, ignoring the federal statute.
Merrill continued the practise in Texas, but in owning the resort and using it openly, he was a co-conspirator with Warren and could be charged under the federal interest. You can say under the state of Texas law there is a presumed innocense, but under the federal, Warrens own defense, has already Damned Merrill!
This post has been removed by the author.
Obstructionist said...
What Natalie and all of us want is simply the truth!
And those of us who are concerned about the decimation of our fundamental liberties just want Natalie and her cohorts to stop abusing the court system for political and monetary gain.
Silver Rose,
You didn't offend me at all. It was some comments other people made that I was reacting too. I guess I'm a little thin skinned, on some subjects. Actually, I consider you to be my cyber-sister.
Thanks for your gracious response, Silver. I have appreciated your posts and would be glad to be considered a 'cyber-sister.'
:)
SR
Txblogger:
"How are the questions relevant to establishing a trust for TJ?"
Ron:
"It's probably not very relevant, but the lawyers didn't raise that issue in the deposition, so it's off the table now."
Since they were not answered it may not be relevant, but if walther compels Merril to answer any questions avoided, would it not open the again to put it on that table?
Obstructionist:
"What Natalie and all of us want is simply the truth!"
Same line I have seen many PROSECUTORS use. Does walther's Special Prosecutor call you often to tell you of her struggles in uncovering the truth?
I did enjoy most of your comments here. They read like a hypothetical to be used to show walther why Merril pleading the fifth will stand
kbp
My thought is that Walther will give Merrill wide latitude in his taking of the Fifth.
He's already under indictment, plus if there are all these other probes they claim, ordering him to answer much would simply be too risky.
Two issues.
First, for MPB. Texas does not have a "Cohabitation" Bigamy statute. To prove bigamy in this state, you have to prove two marriages, one (the first) that is presumably valid, one (the second or subsequent ones) that are not.
The marriages may be common law marriages, but mere cohabitation, without the other factors that create a common law marriage will not support a charge of bigamy in Texas.
Although some of the language may be similar, you have to look to the case law for the application of the statute. In the case of Texas, it has been established for a long time that a) common law marriage will support a bigamy conviction, and b) mere cohabitation won't.
Second, Ron is probably correct on the motion to compel. She will require an answer on some of the questions, but if there is a question, she will err on the side of caution.
Deb
The fifth amendment has been taken away from the FLDS, so wouldn't you agree that we should take it away from you because you
do not have the ability to honor the constitution and allow others
to live free????
I wish someone could explain to me why the FLDS do not simply say that all followers will only have one legal marriage at a time, but may have one or more additional significant others in their lives, now, and for all eternity.
Shyster,
They can, but they can't celebrate a marriage ceremony or 'sealing' for the illegal second (or subsequent) marriage, they can't refer to the pair as husband and wife, they can't have the appearance of being married, etc.
If they do, it's bigamy, and a felony offense in this state.
Somehow I don't think that the FLDS will accept shacking up as a viable option...
They consider it immoral, I suspect. But Texas (along with most states) has made the immoral legal and the moral illegal.
Oleblue said...
"Somehow I don't think that the FLDS will accept shacking up as a viable option..."
OPTION?
As far as the government is concerned?
Why are people so STUPID?
I was taught that this was the land of the free, boy was I wrong!
I was BRAINWASHED!!!
Pliggy said...
I was taught that this was the land of the free, boy was I wrong!
I was BRAINWASHED!!!
---------
Weren't we all. The US has denied freedom of religion to many of its citizens, but the US has also signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948. Seems to me that the FLDS should be complaining to the UN. It should embarrass this fake land of the free in front of all the world.
Article 18 of the Declaration:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Well, First Amendment, since you're so excited about the validity of the UN's declarations, here are a few that you might want to look at:
Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
Article 32
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.
2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular: (a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;
(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.
Article 34
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
Post a Comment
<< Home