Wednesday, April 13, 2011
NOW UTAH WANTS A "MULLIGAN" TOO.
photo credit: Trent Nelson
Utah Supreme Court weighs whether to step into FLDS trust case
(Now that the shit hit the fan and they got whacked, they want another shot at it.)
Utah Supreme Court justices questioned attorneys Tuesday on whether a federal judge elbowed out the state’s highest court when he ruled the state of Utah acted illegally in taking over a polygamous sect’s land trust.
“Isn’t that the sort of thing a state court should weigh in on before a decision of this magnitude is made?” asked Justice Thomas Lee during a rehearing of two pending appeal cases related to the trust.
(They HAD the chance back in August, 2010 and somebody on the Court came up with the idiotic idea of laches. NOW, they want to do it all over again, this time, trying to steal the trust "Legally".)
The trust case turned into a standoff this week when a state judge stepped up to defy a federal injunction temporarily returning control of the trust to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
(If you want to call telling a Federal Judge to "Fuck off" a "Standoff", then I guess you might be right. Normally it's called Contempt of Court.)
“We’re at a pretty monumental crossroads here,” Lee said.
(Yeah, I would say so. Telling a Federal Judge to fuck himself isn't the smartest thing Lindberg could have done to advance her Judicial career.)
“We have two court systems lobbing controversial court orders.”
(We have a State Court choosing to ignore a Federal Court's Ruling.)
But the Utah Supreme Court could still be holding a trump card in the increasingly complex court battle.
(At least that's what the Utah Supreme Court hopes and prays. I sure do wish the Utah Court could show us ONE case where the State overruled the Federal Judiciary on Constitutional grounds.)
When U.S. District Judge Dee Benson made his decision, he was considering a case that the state high court had already dismissed because justices decided the FLDS waited too long to challenge the state takeover.
(Unlike the State Court, Benson KNEW that there's no such thing as laches applying to a Constitutional Right (Separation of Church and State).
Even though cases usually can’t be tried more than once, Benson decided he could rule because the Utah Supreme Court dismissed the case before considering the sect’s argument that the takeover violated the Constitution.
("USUALLY" is the operative word. Anybody recall Rodney King? When the State failed to convict, the Fed's moved in and did it for them. The Fed's pull that skam ALL the time with the State's blessings.)
But Benson didn’t ask the Utah Supreme Court if its decision was binding.
(It sounds like the Supreme's are saying the FLDS should have ignored the Ruling they made in August. Was this another "Not intended as a factual statement" on the part of the Supreme Court? Should the FLDS just have ignored them because they really didn't mean it?)
“We reviewed the facts. They were all presented to us,” Justice Matthew Durrant said. “If one’s claim is of significant magnitude, can one sit on that claim indefinitely?”
(Do the words; "Unalienable Rights" mean anything to you, you moron?)
If the justices decide their ruling was binding, it could sideline Benson — and his decision last week to temporarily give back control of the communal property trust to the FLDS Church.
(All the Justices have to do is to Rule that the State Courts trump the Federal Court's and Constitutional Law. The last time somebody tried that was 150 years ago at Ft. Sumpter.)
It would be the first time in six years that the Warren S. Jeffs-led sect would run the $110 million trust that holds most members’ homes, businesses and land in Hildale and Colorado City, Ariz., as well as those in a Canadian settlement.
(Irrelevant to the case at hand. Utah doesn't get to choose who the Pope is going to be.)
The Utah Supreme Court is also weighing how Benson’s decision affects two other pending cases it is considering in the long-running legal battle over the trust.
(They are "Considering" it about as earnestly as the Court is considering the criminal charges against Brucellosis.)
One deals with whether a handful of sect members should have a legal voice in the case and the other is about whether longtime FLDS attorney Rod Parker should be disqualified from representing the group.
(What case would that be? The one that was "Dismissed" last August? Why would they rule on a dead case?) (Do they REALLY believe they control who represents the FLDS? If they dismissed the case, what exactly would Rod be representing them for that is before the Court since August?)
Attorneys for the FLDS Church say the court should stay those decisions until the federal case — including an appeal of Benson’s decision — is worked out.
(Attorney's for the FLDS should be TELLING the Utah Supreme Court that it should not be suborning Contempt of Court by one of their bimbets.)
Attorneys for Utah and Arizona, as well as the accountant who runs the trust, disagree, saying the high court should make its own decisions, including the one that could affect the federal case.
("Runs" is actually past tense. As of Benson's Ruling, they no longer control the Trust and are in Contempt as long as they continue to ignore the Federal Courts Ruling. I would have asked for a DAILY monetary sanction against Lindberg until she complies, or gets herself a LEGAL Stay of the Federal Court Order.)
In the background, a series of recent excommunications by Jeffs and an internal church power struggle mean it’s unclear who’s a member of the church and who would be in charge of the trust if it changes hands.
“Someone’s got to sort this out,” Lee said.
(I know you have a pretty good ego Mr. Lee, but who runs the Church is absolutely none of your fucking business, just stick to Constitutional Law and get out of the Trust business as you've been properly Ordered by a REAL Court of Law.)