Elissa Wall's Petition For $15 Million Bond

*Pages 39-51 and 94-97 of Exhibit D, the Deposition of Bruce Wisan, as well as the entireties of Exhibits
R & S, have been redaction from this version.

Michael A. Worel (12741)
Alan W. Mortensen (6616)
Lance L. Milne (14879)
DEWSNUP, KING & OLSEN
36 South State Street, Ste. 2400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone (801) 533-0400
Facsimile (801) 363-4218
mworel@dkolaw.com
amort@dkolaw.com
lmilne@dkolaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,

SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

M.J.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARREN JEFFS, et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
COURT TO ISSUE A $15,000,000
PROPERTY BOND ON UEP NON-
RESIDENTIAL, NON-WATER
RIGHTS, PROPERTY PENDING
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

(REDACTED VERSION)

Case No.: 070916524

Judge Keith Kelly

UNITED EFFORT PLAN TRUST, by Bruce
R. Wisan, as the Court-appointed Special
Fiduciary,
Third-party Complainant,
v.

ALLEN STEED, et al.,

Third-party Defendants.

*
2

Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, hereby provides the following memorandum
in support of her petition for this Court, pursuant to Utah R. App. P. 5 (f), which provides that an
interlocutory appeal may be on such terms, including the filing of a bond for damages, and
pursuant to Utah R. App. P. 8 (b), that allows that the when a stay is granted, it may be
conditioned upon the filing of a bond or other appropriate security in the trial court,
Plaintiff petitions this Court to issue a $15,000,000 property bond upon defendant United
Effort Plan Trusts (UEP) non-residential property, pending the resolution of the interlocutory
appeal. Plaintiff believes that the UEP should stipulate that the property bond can be placed upon
some properties that are not located in Utah.
ARGUMENT
It must be remembered that this is civil case involving the rape of a young girl. Both this
Court and Judge Peulers court have recognized that the UEP Trust can be liable to Plaintiff for
the actions of the former UEP Trustees in facilitating the sexual assaults upon Plaintiff.
In the past, the Special Fiduciary has recognized that the Plaintiff is a victim of sexual
assaults. In fact, UEP Trust attorney William Walker in the case of Cooke v. Town of Colorado
City, represented to the Court that there is a voluminous record of testimonial and physical
evidence that the FLDS Church, particularly through its Prophet Warren Jeffs and other
leaders, implemented, with an iron hand, a culture of strict control over the actions of FLDS
followers . This control was executed in part through emotionally devastating handling
techniques .*** The religious practices went so far as to dictate from the highest level of the
Church that local municipal leaders refuse to cooperate with the Utah courts appointed Special
3

Fiduciary for the UEP Trust. Mr. Walker further acknowledges that the FLDS were engaged in
purportedly religiously-motivated practice of marrying underage girls to adult men.
1

However, over the past year, the Special Fiduciary has changed his strategy from
challenging the legal liability of the UEP Trust for the actions of Warren Jeffs and the other
Trustees, and has turned into what appears to be the pre-reformed UEP Trust, one of blaming the
rape victim. The Special Fiduciary made deals with Warren Jeffs right-hand man Willie
Jessop, and claimed that Plaintiff is not a rape victim, but rather an extortionist, witness tamper,
and briber. This is done in an apparent attempt to divert the beneficiaries attention away from
the Special Fiduciarys actions in cannibalizing the Trust with his fees and the fees from his team
of attorneys, now exceeding $12 million.
It is important to keep in focus the essence of this case. This Court has recognized that
this is a high-profile multi-million dollar case .
2
The Special Fiduciary, in not joining with
plaintiff in objecting to the press access to records filed under seal in this case, has also
conceded that this is a high-profile case to which the public, through the press, should have
access to the evidence in the case.
At the hearing on the motion for the prejudgment writ, counsel for the UEP, as an
officer of the Court, testified to this Court that at the end of August, 2014, the UEP Trust
would have $10 million of non-residential property.
3
The underlying basis for the UEP counsels
representations to the Court that there would be at least $10 million of non-residential property

1
See Plaintiffs Response to Hildale Defendants Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony
Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings, Practices, and Beliefs, at p. 3, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
See Hearing Transcript from Hearing of April 3, 2014 at p. 105, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3
See Hearing Transcript from Hearing of April 3, 2014 at pp. 31-34.
4

was due to the fact that the Utah Supreme Court had not issued its decision in Wisan v. Hildale,
which allows the UEP to subdivide the UEP property. The Utah Supreme Court issued its
decision of Wisan v. Hildale, 2014 Utah 20 (Utah June 17, 2014).
4
Now that the property in
Hildale can be subdivided, much more property can now be designated residential. This, in turn,
allows the Special Fiduciary to allocate or distribute residential properties and homes to UEP
beneficiaries in an expedited manner.
A. Elissa Wall has repeatedly attempted to avoid the involvement of the UEP
Trusts residential properties to satisfy a potential judgment or bond.

Elissa Wall has always sought security from the non-residential properties of the UEP
Trust. The Special Fiduciary and his lawyers have repeatedly told the UEP beneficiaries and the
press that Elissa Walls lawsuit threatens the UEP beneficiaries ability to remain in their
homes.
5
Unfortunately, the Special Fiduciarys depletion of non-residential property in Utah and
Arizona likely necessitates the inclusion of some residential properties in the $15 million
property bond requested by Plaintiff, unless the Special Fiduciary stipulates that this Court can
issue a bond upon non-Utah UEP properties. Plaintiffs request for said bond is not unreasonable
considering the Special Fiduciary also supports a multi-million dollar bond in this case.

4
See Decision, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5
Deposition of Bruce Wisan, taken July 30, 2014, at p. 92-94, attached hereto as Exhibit D.
http://fox13now.com/2014/03/17/child-brides-lawsuit-against-warren-jeffs-returns/
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogspolygblog/57953807-185/wall-steed-uep-font.html.csp
http://fox13now.com/2014/05/21/child-brides-lawsuit-against-warren-jeffs-back-in-court/
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57967145-219/wall-trust-court-jeffs.html.csp

5

B. The Current Status of the UEP Trust.

The Special Fiduciary believes that this Court should impose a $5 million bond upon the
UEP Trust.
6
Very limited non-residential property is left in Utah. While the UEP Trust shows
$35,284,000 in Utah Land Parcels
7
,the only commercial property that remains in the Utah side
of the UEP is only has a tax assessed value of between $1 to $2 million dollars, and Judge
Lindberg has given the Special Fiduciary the discretion to sell the properties at 70% of value.
8

Thus, based upon the Special Fiduciarys estimation, there is only between $700,000 to
$1,400,000
9
of UEP Commercial property in Utah, far short of the $5,000,000
10
bond proposed
by the Special Fiduciary and well short of the $15,000,000 requested bond by Plaintiff.
Even more troubling, is the conflicting representations by UEP counsel and the Special
Fiduciary regarding the value and remaining Trust non-residential assets. The Special
Fiduciarys estimation of the Trusts remaining Utah commercial properties (approximately
$700,000 to $1,400,000) belies Mr. Shields representation at the hearing on the motion for the
prejudgment writ. At that hearing, Mr. Shields, as an officer of the Court, confirmed to this

6
See Wisan depo. at pp. 93.
7
See Exhibit 18 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit E.
8
See Exhibit 17 to Wisan depo., Order Approving Auction Sales of Real Property, attached hereto as
Exhibit F.
9
See Wisan depo. at pp. 67, 93, whereby Mr. Wisan testified that there was maybe 1 to 2 million in
assessed commercial property on the Utah side of Short Creek, but that Judge Lindberg was willing to
allow sales of such commercial properties at 70% of the assessed value.
10
See Exhibits 26 and 27 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibits G and H that show that large
verdicts are being awarded in the Creek, and Exhibit 28 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit I, that
shows the potential large verdict that can be awarded in a clergy sexual abuse case.
6

Court that at the end of August, 2014, the UEP Trust would have $10 million of non-residential
property that could be attached by this Court.
11

Of concern to Plaintiff is the Courts jurisdiction to impose a security bond upon UEP
Trust Property outside the state of Utah. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the $15 million bond set in
this case be upon non-residential property of the UEP Trust that is within the boundaries of the
State of Utah or that the Special Fiduciary stipulate to allowing a bond to be placed upon
Commercial Property outside the boundaries of Utah. The Special Fiduciary believes that there
may be another $1,000,000 in agricultural land on the Utah side of the Creek.
12
The Special
Fiduciary believes that there is $65,515,335 in UEP Arizona land parcels
13
, of which $13 to $14
million would be commercial properties.
14

Currently, the UEP Trust attorneys fees debts are currently at $2,408,000.
15
Judge
Lindberg just approved a reduced valued auction of Hildale properties totaling just over $1
million, all of which will go to pay the UEP Attorneys and the Special Fiduciary.
16
The UEP
Attorneys and the Special Fiduciary have already incurred expenses totaling more that $12
million, which must be paid through the liquidation of UEP Trust Properties. Yet the UEP

11
See Hearing Transcript from Hearing of April 3, 2014 at pp. 31-34.
12
See Wisan depo. at pp. 68-69. Again, with Judge Lindbergs order approving 70% value sells, the
value of all properties have likely declined by at least 30%.
13
See Exhibit 19 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit J.
14
See Wisan depo. at pp. 66-67.
15
See Wisan depo. at pp. 68-69.
16
See Exhibit 17 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit F.
7

Attorneys and the Special Fiduciary still claim they are owed between $1,000,000 and
$2,000,000.
17

Due to the limited non-residential properties located in Utah, the Plaintiff proposes that
the UEP stipulate to this courts issuance of the property bond comprising of Utah and Arizona
properties. This would avoid a security bond on residential properties of the UEP beneficiaries,
and allow the families to live without the fear or threatened attack on their homes, as represented
by the Special Fiduciary and UEP Counsel to the Trust beneficiaries. The Special Fiduciary
estimates that there is approximately $10 to $15 million of commercial property in the Trust.
18

Given the 70% represented value of property order approved by Judge Lindberg and the lack of
credibility that the Special Fiduciary has at this juncture, as discussed infra, a bond on the $10 to
$15 million of non-residential property is really a bond value of approximately $7 to $8.5
million.
19

If the Special Fiduciary seeks further payment of fees and costs, he can seek such through
sales of water rights and residential properties. In balancing the equities between whether the
Special Fiduciary or Elissa Wall should be required to seek payment of debts or a judgment from
water rights and residences, the Special Fiduciary and his attorneys should be the ones forced to
obtain such relief, not Elissa Wall.
C. The $15 million property bond is necessary to protect Elissa Wall from the
Special Fiduciarys liquidation of non-residential assets, the suspect property
sale/land grant to Willie Jessop, and the recently discovered activities
involving the Special Fiduciary.

17
See Wisan depo. at p. 79.
18
19
See Exhibit 18 and 19 to Wisan depo. attached hereto as Exhibits E and J.
8

The Court may recall that the UEP has claimed that plaintiff that she has been accused of
witness tampering, bribery and extortion based upon a settlement agreement between Allen
Steed and plaintiff. The Utah Attorney General has moved to intervene into discovery regarding
the settlement agreement between Allen Steed and plaintiff. The Utah Attorney General is going
to be involved in that discovery so that we can try to get to the truth of whats behind that
agreement.
20
Plaintiff has welcomed and stipulated to the intervention of the Utah Attorney
General in this action in order for the truth of the settlement agreement between plaintiff and
Allen Steed to be fully known and understood.
Witness Willie Jessop was deposed by counsel for plaintiff on April 7, 2014. Mr. Jessop
was involved in FLDS security from the 1980s, working his way up the ranks to be legal
coordinator and spokesman for the FLDS Church.
21
As part of his duties as the legal coordinator
for the FLDS Church, he worked to defeat the purposes of the UEP Trust, costing the UEP Trust
significant amounts of money.
22
Mr. Jessop also worked on behalf of Allen Steed in assisting to
prepare the settlement agreement that the UEP now complaints of between Allen Steed and the
plaintiff.
23
Mr. Jessops assistance to Allen Steed included assisting him in moving him past the
criminal charges against him to the case ultimately I think being dismissed.
24
Mr. Jessop

20
See Hearing Transcript from Status Conference of June 13, 2014 in case of In the Matter of the United
Effort Plan Trust (Hearing Transcript) at p. 38, attached hereto as Exhibit K.
21
See Deposition of Willie Jessop at pp. 13, 23-24, 26 attached hereto as Exhibit L.
22
See Hearing Transcript at p. 7.
23
See Hearing Transcript at p. 8.
24
See Jessop depo. at p. 173-74.
9

helped prepare the settlement agreement proposed by Allen Steed to plaintiff and personally paid
Mr. Steeds attorney to prepare the agreement according to Mr. Jessops instructions.
25

Mr. Jessop believed that the agreement proposed by Mr. Steeds attorney to plaintiff was
an amicable way to just settle it with it going on at that time .
26
Mr. Jessop was asked in his
deposition by the UEP Trust whether the settlement agreement was an agreement by Allen
Steed to refuse to assist the UEP Trust in this litigation. Mr. Jessop denied that was the purpose
for the settlement agreement, but rather the settlement agreement was an agreement to just let it
be over Allen wasnt going to just let the case be over.
27

This Court noted at the last hearing that it found nothing criminal about the settlement
agreement between Elissa Wall and Allen Steed and that no further discovery was needed on that
issue to clear Elissa Walls name.
28
Plaintiff has taken great comfort in the Courts statements
that there is nothing criminal about the settlement agreement between Allen Steed and plaintiff,
clearing her name of the claims made by the UEP Trust against her.
As acknowledged by the Special Fiduciary in his deposition last week, Mr. Jessop also
illegally and potentially fraudulently transferred over $6,000,000 of water rights from the UEP
Trust into a company called Southside Irrigation, LLC.
29
Then after being thrown out of the
FLDS Church and terminated as the legal coordinator of the FLDS Church in February of

25
See Jessop depo. at pp. 189-91.
26
See Jessop depo. at p. 194.
27
See Jessop depo. at p. 223.
28
See Hearing Transcript from July 1, 2014, at p. 9, attached hereto as Exhibit M.
29
10

2011,
30
Mr. Jessop began providing assistance to the UEP Trust in defending this lawsuit against
Plaintiff.
31

Willie Jessop also assigned the water rights back to the UEP Trust and agreed to
cooperate with the UEP Trust in defeating plaintiffs claims
32
, in exchange for a $400,000 land
grant. As the Special Fiduciary testified in his deposition last week, Mr. Jessop was given a
$400,000 land grant from UEP property for his assistance in re-assigning the UEP Trust water
rights, which he illegally stole from the UEP Trust in the first place. In essence, the Special
Fiduciary rewarded Mr. Jessop for doing what he (Willie Jessop) was legally required to do
anyway.
33
Mr. Wisan does not intend to tell the UEP beneficiaries of this $400,000 land grant to
Willie Jessop unless specifically asked.
34
In short, Willie Jessop stole UEP Trust water rights,
was excommunicated from the FLDS Church, struck a deal with the Special Fiduciary Bruce
Wisan to give the stolen UEP Trust water rights back, gave his investigative files on Elissa Wall,
Jane Blackmore and others to the UEP attorneys, and contractually agreed to provide information
to the UEP Trust if it helped in the defense of the UEP Trust.
35
Most concerning is that the UEP
Trust released any and all claims it has against Willie Jessop as part of the land grant..
36

30
See Hearing Transcript at p. 7, attached as Exhibit M.
31
See UEPs Memorandum in Support of Motion to Approve Settlement with Willie R. Jessop
(Approval Motion) at 5(e), p. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit F.
32
It was Mr. Jessops involvement that prompted the UEP Trust to make claims of witness tampering,
bribery and extortion against plaintiff.
33
34
35
See Exhibit 5 to Wisan depo. at p. 8., attached hereto as Exhibit N. Mr. Jessop had no obligation to
provide information that hurt the defense of the UEP Trust.
Mr. Jessop has fought against the Special Fiduciary for several years, even going as far as signing
a declaration that the special fiduciary has a conflict of interest because he is pursuing payment for
11

Bruce Wisan agreed to this deal with the devil
37
despite failing to ascertain whether
Willie Jessop has committed the same acts complained of by Plaintiff in this case; UEP Trust and
FLDS Church sanctioned pedophilia.
38
Willie Jessop considers underage marriage to be a
victimless crime.
39
In fact, Bruce Wisan claimed that a religious belief in underage sexual acts
with minors does not constitute pedophilia.
40

Plaintiff has been even more concerned about the rapid depletion of the UEP Trust assets
through liquidation auctions and deals made by the Special Fiduciary. Counsel for plaintiff
were stunned to observe UEP Counsel, Mr. Shields, inform Judge Lindberg that she needed to
approve what many consider to be a fire sale
41
of the UEP Trust property to Mr. Jessop, because
if you dont approve this, hell (Mr. Jessop) be mad. Mr. Shields further represented to Judge
Lindberg that we wont get the future benefit if she did not approve the payment to Mr.
Jessop.
42
As Mr. Shields also stated, the UEP Trust would just rather be a friend with him, as

himself at the expense of my interests as a beneficiary, the best interests of the church and the UEP and
the intentions of the settlors. See Exhibit 6 to Wisan depo., at 4 attached hereto as Exhibit O; Wisan
depo. at pp. 26-27.
36
37
A deal with the devil is a legal term of art where the medieval legend of Faust, who made a contract
with the devil inexchang for his soul for worldly gains. Faust, depending on which version of the story
you read, might or might not end up going to hell because he freelyand without duresssold his soul to
the Devil. Harper v. Ultimo, 113 Cal. App 4
th
1402, 1409 (Cal. App. 2003).
38
See Wisan depo. at p. 31-32.
39
See Exhibit 7 to Wisan depo, attached hereto as Exhibit P.
40
Id.
41
See Hearing Transcript at p. 11 (A lot of people are mad.)
42
See Hearing Transcript at p. 10 (emphasis added).
12

much as we can, than an enemy.
43
Plaintiff is concerned that other deals by the Special
Fiduciary have been entered into or are in the works have or will further deplete the UEP Trust.
To that end, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider with Judge Lindberg to have her
reconsider approving the Willie Jessop Sweetheart deal because the transaction made no sense.
Why would the Special Fiduciary give Willie Jessop $400,000 of property for the return of the
water rights he stole? And why was Willie Jessop compensated for his assistance to the UEP
Trust in obtaining information (Mr. Jessops files and testimony) that the Special Fiduciary could
have legally obtained by issuing a subpoena to Willie Jessop?
Plaintiff filed a request for oral argument with Judge Lindberg on July 15, 2014. Rather
than grant oral argument, Judge Lindberg summarily denied Plaintiffs motion to reconsider
without notice or advising plaintiffs counsel that she was going to rule on the motion at the July
18, 1014 hearing.
44
Said hearing was set to approve the UEP auction property sales, and the
Special Fiduciary testified at this hearing in front of Judge Lindberg.
Mr. Wisans deposition was taken on July 30, 2014. Plaintiff conducted discovery on
UEP Trust assets, liabilities and future obligations. Given the transaction with Willie Jessop,
plaintiffs counsel had grave concerns that Willie Jessop had sold additional information to Mr.
Wisan, or that Mr. Wisan felt pressure from Willie Jessop to enter into the $400,000 land grant
because Mr. Jessop may have had information on Mr. Wisan that did not reflect well on Mr.

43
See Hearing Transcript p. 11. The UEP makes such a contradictory statement to Judge Lindberg
despite claiming that the settlement agreement between Mr. Steed and plaintiff constitutes a crime,
involves witness tampering, bribery and extortion. See Hearing Transcript at p. 8.
44
See Exhibit 8 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit Q. Plaintiff intends to file another motion for
oral argument or for Judge Lindberg to certify her order as final, so that an appeal from the Willie deal
being approved.
13

Wisan. After all, the UEP Trust attorneys tried to over reach with information Mr. Jessop had
provided them about Elissa Wall, by accusing Plaintiff of witness tampering, extortion and
bribery. If Willie Jessop had information on Mr. Wisan, such information not only affects the
value of the UEP Trust for purposes of the bond,, but would also call into question Mr. Jessops
actions of potential extortion and Mr. Wisans abilities to act as a true fiduciary
45
for the UEP
Trust beneficiaries. In short, Plaintiff wanted to determine whether any other UEP Trust assets
were going to be used to gain the cooperation, or yet worse, the silence, of witnesses, which
would further reduce the UEP Trust assets.
The Attorney General of Utah appeared at the deposition and lodged no objections to any
of the proceedings or questions asked by plaintiffs counsel. The UEP Trusts counsel agreed
that questioning Mr. Wisan about potential extortion by Mr. Jessop was fair inquiry and never
instructed Mr. Wisan not to answer any questions posed by plaintiffs counsel.
46

At Mr. Wisans deposition, it was learned that Mr. Wisan did not tell Judge Lindberg
that he was under subpoena to appear as a witness the very same day in a prostitution trial in
Taylorsville City, in the case of Taylorsville v. Marissa Ann Payne.
47
Mr. Wisan is a witness in

45
Black's Law Dictionary defines self-dealing as [p]articipation in a transaction that benefits oneself
instead of another who is owed a fiduciary duty. In the trustee context, we have said that a trustee
engages in self-dealing if he place[s] himself in a position where it would be for his own benefit to
violate his duty to the beneficiaries. Eagar v. Burrows, 131 P.3d 9, 16 (Utah 2008).
46

47
14

48
See Wisan depo. at p. 40; Exhibit 10 to Wisan depo., attached hereto as Exhibit R .
49
50

51
15

What is even more troubling is that Special Fiduciary Bruce Wisan believes that the
administration of the UEP Trust by him is a governmental function, in as much as it was the
State of Utah that petitioned the Court to take control of the UEP Trust and preserve assets for
the benefit of the Trust beneficiaries.
52
The Utah State Attorney General has an interest in
ensuring that the UEP Trust is enforced in a consistent, lawful manner.
53
The State Attorney
General, by admission of Special Fiduciary Wisan, is vested with ensuring that the agreements
entered into by the Special Fiduciary are valid and enforceable.
54
Special Fiduciary Bruce Wisan
believes that he acts under the judicial supervision of Judge Lindberg.
55

However, Mr. Wisan never informed Judge Lindberg

52
Id. at p. 11.
53
Id. at p. 10.
54
Id. at pp. 9-10.
55
Id. at p. 11.
56
57
See Order, See Exhibit 17 to Wisan depo. attached hereto as Exhibit F.
58
Id. at pp. 47-48.
16

59
The court is allowed to infer criminal behavior when the Fifth Amendment is invoked in a civil
proceeding. See Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416, 426 n. 4 (Utah 2005); Gerard v. Young, 432 P.2d 343,
343, 34647 (1967).
17

CONCLUSION
Given the diminishing nature of the UEP Trust, plaintiff Elissa Walls abhorring any
bond on residential properties, and the lack of credibility and trustworthiness of the Special
Fiduciary, plaintiff requests that a bond of $15,000,000 be issued on all commercial properties of
the UEP Trust in Utah and Arizona, as set forth in Exhibits 18 and Exhibit 19 of the deposition
of Bruce Wisan.
60

DATED this 6th day of August, 2014.

/s/ Alan W. Mortensen
Alan W. Mortensen

60
Attached hereto as Exhibits E and J.
18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 6th day of August, 2014, I caused to be served a true and
correct copy of PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
COURT TO ISSUE A $15,000,000 PROPERTY BOND ON UEP NON-RESIDENTIAL,
NON-WATER RIGHTS, PROPERTY PENDING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
(REDACTED VERSION) by the Courts Electronic Delivery System or First Class Mail to the
following:
Jeffrey L. Shields
Zachary Shields
Callister Nebeker & McCullough
10 East South Temple, Suite 900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84133

John E. Hansen
Scalley Reading Bates Hansen & Rasmussen, P.C.
15 West South Temple, Suite 600

William G. Walker
WILLIAM G. WALKER, P.C.
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, AZ 85701

Joni J. Jones
David N. Wolf
Sean D. Reyes
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor
P.O. Box 140856
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856

19

James C. Bradshaw, Esq.
Mark R. Moffat, Esq.
BROWN, BRADSHAW & MOFFAT, LLP
10 W. Broadway, Suite 210

Jeffrey J. Hunt
David C. Reymann
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
101 South 200 East, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

/s/Alan W. Mortensen
Alan W. Mortensen

EXHIBIT
A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Thomas C. Horne
Attorney General
Firm No. 14000
Sandra R. Kane, No. 007423
Brad K. Keogh, No. 010321
Leslie A. Ross, No. 027207
Assistant Attorney General
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Telephone: (602) 542-8862
CivilRights@azag.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Arizona

William G. Walker, Esq. No. 005361
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, AZ 85701
Telephone: (520) 622-3330
PCCN: 60292
wgwpc@aol.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald and Jinjer Cooke

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

RONALD COOKE and J INJ ER COOKE,
husband and wife,

Plaintiffs, et al.

vs.

TOWN OF COLORADO CITY, ARIZONA, et
al,

Defendants.
No. 10-CV-08105-PCT-J AT

PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFF-
INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO
HILDALE DEFENDANTS
MOTION IN LIMINE TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND
TESTIMONY REGARDING FLDS
RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS,
PRACTICES, AND BELIEFS

The Hildale Defendants Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony
Regarding FLDS Religious Teachings, Practices, and Beliefs (the Motion) seeks to exclude
evidence regarding various generalized teachings, practices and beliefs of members of the
Case 3:10-cv-08105-JAT Document 394 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 7

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Fundamentalist Church of J esus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the FLDS Church). It claims
that such matters would include, but [are] not limited to, references to underage marriage,
the lost boys, repenting from afar, handling of members, FLDS missions, the meaning of
priesthood, beliefs that certain individuals are instruments of the devil, belief in a prophet,
etc. [Motion, at 1]. The Hildale Defendants claim such evidence should be excluded as
irrelevant to the issues in dispute, or, alternatively because its purportedly minimal probative
value is outweighed by a risk of prejudice or jury confusion. The Motion fails because: 1) it
does not specify the precise evidence requiring exclusion; 2) the FLDS beliefs, teachings and
practices are highly relevant to central issues in this matter; and 3) there is no risk of unfair
jury prejudice or confusion that requires total exclusion of the evidence.
I. The Motion Violates the Requirement to Identify Evidence With Specificity.
Precedent cautions against premature in limine rulings, noting that a court is almost
always better situated during the actual trial to assess the value and utility of evidence.
1

Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91487, *5 (D. Ariz. Aug.
18, 2009) (quoting Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1218 (D. Kan. 2007));
Medlock v. Host Int'l, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72740, *6 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2013);
United States v. Cline, 188 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1291-1292 (D. Kan. 2002). Implementing the
foregoing policy is the requirement that a motion in limine sufficiently specify what evidence
it wants excluded. Generally, motions in limine that seek exclusion of broad and unspecific
categories of evidence are disfavored. Hawkins v. Adams, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51828, *2
(E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013); see Colton Crane Co., LLC v. Terex Cranes Wilmington, Inc., 2010

1
This is particularly true where admissibility substantially depends upon what facts may be
developed at trial. Cline, 188 F.Supp.2d at 1291-92 (citing Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987, 46 L. Ed. 2d 303, 96 S.
Ct. 395 (1975); Hunter v. Blair, 120 F.R.D. 667 (S.D. Ohio 1987)). In summary, then, [t]o
exclude evidence on a motion in limine the evidence must be inadmissible on all potential
grounds. Research Corp. Techs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91487, *5 (quoting Ind. Ins. Co. v.
Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004) Unless evidence meets this high
standard, evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation,
relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context. Research Corp.
Techs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91487, *5.

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141013, *3-4 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2010) (In fact, motions in limine should
rarely seek to exclude broad categories of evidence, as the court is almost always better
situated to rule on evidentiary issues in their factual context during trial.) As a procedural
matter, the movant should identify the particular evidence at issue and articulate with
specificity the arguments supporting the position that the particular evidence is inadmissible
on any relevant ground. A court is well within its discretion to deny a motion in limine that
fails to identify the evidence with particularity or to present arguments with specificity.
Cline, 188 F. Supp. 2d at 1292; National Union v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F. Supp. 276,
287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); see also Colton Crane Co., LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141013, *3-4.
Here, the Motion seeks exclusion of indefinably broad swaths of discussion regarding
ambiguously identified teaching, practices and beliefs. While offering some very general
topics the Defendants want excluded (i.e., church handling practices, belief in a
prophet, etc.), the Motion fails to identify all the specific evidence of each such practice or
belief the Defendants want excluded. Thus, they leave the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor
(collectively the Plaintiffs) unable to fully respond whether such evidence is in fact relevant
or subject to Rule 403 exclusion. The Court is therefore unable to make any such
determinations in the context of the actual evidence that is likely to be adduced at trial or
otherwise. This Motion is precisely the type of ill-defined, categorical broad stroke that
federal precedent rejects in favor of later consideration of specific objections at trial.
II. The Categories of Information Defendants Want Excluded Are Highly Relevant.
The evidence of FLDS religious beliefs and practices is highly relevant because it
establishes a motive for the Defendants officials to discriminate against non-FLDS members,
particularly those like the Cooke Plaintiffs who were cooperating with the court-appointed
Special Fiduciary of the UEP Trust. The Motion concedes that this is a religious
discrimination case and therefore evidence showing the religious affiliation of the Parties is
relevant. [Motion, at 2]. Moreover, in a case alleging religious discrimination in connection
with housing, evidence of all religious beliefs, practices, and particularly directives of
religious leaders that would tend to make it more likely than not that actions taken against the
Plaintiffs were motivated by religious reasons are relevant under Rule 401, Fed.R.Evid. See,

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e.g., Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977)
(Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a
sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.);
Lawrence v. Courtyards at Deerwood Ass'n, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1147 (S.D. Fla. 2004)
(housing discrimination may be proved directly . . . or indirectly)
1
Because there will
seldom be 'eyewitness' testimony as to the [defendants] mental processes, evidence of a
defendants general discriminatory attitude toward a certain larger group is admissible to
prove discrimination against a specific member of the group. United States Postal Serv. Bd.
of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 n. 2, 716 (1983). So is a wide array of other
circumstantial or collateral evidence including evidence of conduct tending to demonstrate
general hostility toward a group, see Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1479-80 (9
th
Cir. 1995);
Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 815 F. Supp. 2d 679, 690 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (allegations of incidents and statements made against Orthodox J ews in general, and
not against the plaintiff, were nonetheless relevant to plaintiffs Equal Protection claim which
required proof that treatment was motivated by intent to discriminate), evidence of
discriminatory actions aimed at persons similar to the plaintiffs, see Heyne, 69 F.3d at 1479-
80 (citing Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 F.2d 1150, 1156 (10
th
Cir. 1990)), and even actions
taken or statements made after the fact, see Pulsipher, 2010 U.S. Distr. LEXIS 139057, *14.
Unlike the general evidence of conflicting religious beliefs at issue in the Guthrey case
cited by Defendants, here a voluminous record of testimonial and physical evidence will show
that the FLDS Church, particularly through its Prophet Warren J effs and other leaders,
implemented, with an iron hand, a culture of strict control over the actions of FLDS followers
and controlled the appointment of municipal officials and their official conduct. [See, e.g.,

1
See also Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1479-80 (9
th
Cir. 1995) (discriminatory motive
can be adequately proved through circumstantial evidence and discriminatory acts against
others); Pulsipher v. Clark County, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139057, *14 (D.Nev. Dec. 27,
2010) (acknowledging relevance of comments made after and before alleged discrimination).


5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

J CAF
1
at J oint Additional Statement of Facts s

263-428]. This control was executed in
part through emotionally devastating handling techniques in which men or boys were
stripped of their Priesthood by the FLDS Prophet, Warren J effs, and were subjected to
social and physical isolation through religiously mandated removal from the community to
repent from afar, social ostracism, and even the reassignment of their wives and children
to other men. [See id. at s 1, 292-300, 312, 314-331]. The Lost Boys are part of that
phenomenon, as is the handling of former mayors or other municipal officials and even the
direction FLDS Prophet Warren J effs gave to answer them [the government] nothing while
he was seeking to avoid prosecution and continue his purportedly religiously-motivated
practice of marrying underage girls to adult men. [See, e.g., id. at s 312, 314-331, 350-
353, 358-364, 387]. The religious practices went so far as to dictate from the highest level of
the Church that local municipal leaders refuse to cooperate with the Utah courts appointed
Special Fiduciary for the UEP Trust. [See id., at s 372, 387, 390-391, 396-425]. Thus, the
practices, teachings and beliefs of the FLDS Church are highly probative of whether FLDS
adherents here acted in compliance therewith and therefore with discriminatory motive to
deny municipal services to the Cookes and other non-FLDS persons. The evidence is relevant
as defined by Rule 401, Fed.R.Evid.
III. No Rule 403 Policies Justifying Banning the Evidence of Church Practices.
Religious practices that motivated FLDS Church members working for the Defendants
to deny water and other municipal services to the Cookes and other non-FLDS persons while
helping FLDS interests obtain the same services are certainly prejudicial to the Defendants, as
they help prove the Defendants discriminatory intent. Such evidence is not, however,
unfairly prejudicial or confusing, which are the standards relevant under Rule 403,
Fed.R.Evid. Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, 469 F.3d 416, 427 (5
th
Cir. 2006) (Virtually
all evidence is prejudicial; otherwise it would not be material; to be subject to exclusion

1
J CAF refers to the J oint Controverting and Additional Statement of Facts of Plaintiffs
and Plaintiff-Intervenor in Response to Defendants Motions for Summary J udgment filed
September 10, 2012.

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

under Rule 403, Fed.R.Evid. the [t]he prejudice must be unfair.); Baker v. Canadian
National/Illinois Central R.R., 536 F.3d 357, 369 (5
th
Cir. 2008). Where, as here, the
evidence is highly probative of questions of discriminatory motive, the Rule 403 concerns do
not apply. What the Defendants did and how it created motivations among municipal
officials to discriminate are clear. The Motion should be denied.
/ / /
DATED this 3
rd
day of J une, 2013.

THOMAS C. HORNE
Attorney General

By /s/ Sandra R. Kane
Sandra R. Kane
Brad K. Keogh
Leslie A. Ross
Assistant Attorneys General
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor


By /s/ William G. Walker (w/ consent)
William G. Walker
Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald and Jinjer
Cooke

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on J une 3, 2013, I caused the foregoing PLAINTIFFS AND
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO HILDALE DEFENDANTS MOTION
IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING FLDS
RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS, PRACTICES, AND BELIEFS to be filed electronically with
the Clerk of the Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an e-notice of that electronic
filing to the following ECF participants:

William A. Richards
BADE BASKIN RICHARDS PLC
80 E. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 511
Tempe, AZ 85281
brichards@bbrplc.com
Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Arizona

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

J effrey C. Matura, Esq.
Asha Sebastian, Esq.
GRAIF BARRETT & MATURA, P.C.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City, Arizona

R. Blake Hamilton, Esq.
STIRBA, P.C.
P.O. Box 810
Salt Lake City, UT 84110-0810
Attorney for Defendants City of Hildale, Utah; Hildale-
Colorado City Utilities; Twin City Water Authority; and
Twin City Power

/s/ Donna ChrisJ ohn

EXHIBIT
B
Page 1
Motion Hearing 4/3/2014
801-983-2180
50 West Broadway, Suite 900, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Page 1
801-983-2180
IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE DEPARTMENT
OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
__________________________
)
M.J., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 070916524
)
)
WARREN JEFFS, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________)
Motion Hearing
Electronically Recorded on
April 3, 2014
BEFORE: HONORABLE KEITH KELLY
Third District Court Judge
Page 31
801-983-2180
Page 31
801-983-2180
1 can give you right now.
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. SHIELDS: The fourth argument--
4 THE COURT: So just to clarify, youre telling me
5 that in addition to the over hundred million dollars of
6 residential property, at the end of trial in August, your
7 estimate, as an officer of the court and as counsel for the
8 trust, is there is going to be over ten million dollars of non-
9 residential property in the trust come September 1?
10 MR. SHIELDS: No, my representation is there is that
11 much now. We are trying to liquidate some of that.
12 THE COURT: So--
13 MR. SHIELDS: We have three million dollars or three
14 and a half million dollars of unpaid fees that (inaudible).
15 Were trying to get those fees paid. So were going to try and
16 liquidate three to four million dollars so we can pay those
17 fees.
18 THE COURT: And are any of those properties under
19 contract?
20 MR. SHIELDS: No.
21 THE COURT: As of this point?
22 MR. SHIELDS: Nope. Everything under contract is
23 closed.
24 THE COURT: Okay. So by September 1st, then maybe
25 that may all be gone or it may--Im talking about the
Page 32
801-983-2180
Page 32
801-983-2180
1 commercial portion--it may all be gone or not?
2 MR. SHIELDS: Correct.
3 THE COURT: Okay.
4 MR. SHIELDS: It wont all be gone because, one, we
5 dont want to sell it all. We want to sell some of it. I
6 think the part that would be gone enough to pay the unpaid
7 professional fees. My clients sending me another signal here.
8 THE COURT: Thats fine.
9 (Counsel confers with client)
10 MR. SHIELDS: My client points out that some of the
11 commercial property also needs to be subdivided. So youll
12 have a parcel of land thatll have two or three different
13 buildings on it. To actually liquidate those were going to
14 have to get the subdivision approved so we can sell those
15 separately.
16 THE COURT: And thats--
17 MR. SHIELDS: So that further impairs the ability to
18 liquidate commercial property.
19 THE COURT: So just to be clear as to whats going
20 on, is it the local authorities that are resisting the
21 subdivision?
22 MR. SHIELDS: Oh yes, very much so. Theres a whole
23 other case on that. The Citys defaulted. Then after they
24 defaulted they changed their mind and they came back and said
25 we want to stop this subdivision at all costs. We believe its
Page 33
801-983-2180
Page 33
801-983-2180
1 all done by interrelation through the church and the city
2 leaders. They do not want the property broken up. They dont
3 want it subdivided. They do not want it distributed to the
4 beneficiaries. So thats why were at the Utah Supreme Court
5 on that very issue.
6 THE COURT: So--but theres also--what about the
7 commercial property in Arizona? The Arizona side of the line.
8 Youre saying that hasnt even gone as far as the Utah?
9 MR. SHIELDS: Correct. We have not proposed a
10 subdivision plat. In Utah, we actually finished the
11 engineering, took plats to the county recorder and said please
12 record these. Thats when we got involved in litigation and
13 they never got recorded. In Arizona, we havent gone so far as
14 to finish the plats that we could take to the county recorder
15 to record.
16 THE COURT: Okay. So lets talk about what
17 percentage--if theres ten million dollars of commercial
18 property left--I should probably not use the word commercial.
19 MR. SHIELDS: I agree.
20 THE COURT: Non-residential.
21 MR. SHIELDS: Non-residential is a better term.
22 THE COURT: Or non--property without a home on it.
23 MR. SHIELDS: A dwelling on it, yeah.
24 THE COURT: Okay. What percentage of that ten
25 million dollars is--of property is tied up in this subdivision
Page 34
801-983-2180
Page 34
801-983-2180
1 litigation or problem? I mean, is it most of it? Part of it?
2 MR. SHIELDS: I dont know the answer to that, Your
3 Honor.
4 THE COURT: Well, if you need to go talk to your
5 clients.
6 (Counsel confers with client)
7 MR. SHIELDS: Thank you, Your Honor. My client says
8 that as a (inaudible) I was probably correct, its about half
9 in Arizona, half in Utah, and then theres some up in Canada.
10 As the commercial property, excuse me, non-residential
11 property, most of that is in Colorado City and its going to
12 take some more time and some subdivisions to be able to
13 liquidate that. So I think most of the property that he could
14 liquidate has been already.
15 THE COURT: So youre saying this ten million dollars
16 of non-residential property is not going to be sold before
17 September 1st given the subdivision problems?
18 MR. SHIELDS: I agree, the majority. Were trying to
19 sell it. Wed love to sell it. You know? But its not that
20 easy to sell.
21 THE COURT: You would have to have somebody buy
22 multiple--
23 MR. SHIELDS: Yeah.
24 THE COURT: --multiple--well, multiple businesses--
25 MR. SHIELDS: Yes.
Page 105
801-983-2180
Page 105
801-983-2180
1 purposes in the sense that this kind of settlement between the
2 actual person who raped M.J. and M.J. herself really opens the
3 door very wide to have a followup deposition. And if--I mean,
4 when was M.J. first deposed?
5 MR. HANSEN: 2010.
6 THE COURT: So before--when was she deposed--well, it
7 was earlier this year in March.
8 MR. HANSEN: Yeah, March, 2014.
9 THE COURT: Right. So I mean that--to me that
10 illustrates the same point with Mr. Steed. Hes deposed pre-
11 settlement. Shes deposed pre-settlement. A settlement
12 occurs. It opens the door for a new deposition. A further
13 deposition is probably the better way to put it, but to be re-
14 deposed on the same kind of issues that were addressed in the
15 first deposition. To me--I mean, weve got a multi-million
16 dollar case and not only do the defendants have to disclose
17 information but the plaintiff needs to disclose information as
18 well. And something as central to the case as that opens the
19 door. So thats the order of the court. Ill direct counsel
20 for the defense to prepare that.
21 MR. HANSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Let me--lets see if we can deal
23 with the issue of--any other clarification needed?
24 MR. HANSEN: No.
25 MR. SHIELDS: No, Your Honor.
EXHIBIT
C
Supreme Court of Utah.
Bruce R. WISAN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
CITY OF HILDALE and Twin City Water Author-
ity, Defendants and Appellants.
No. 20100993.
June 17, 2014.
Opinion amended and superseded. For superseding
opinion, see 2014 WL 2916856.
Utah,2014.
Wisan v. City of Hildale
2014 WL 2724858, 2014 UT 20
END OF DOCUMENT
Page 1
2014 WL 2724858, 2014 UT 20
(Cite as: 2014 WL 2724858 (Utah))
2014 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
EXHIBIT
D
BRUCE R. WISAN July30,2014
AMBER PARK -- DEPOMAXMERIT REPORTERS (801) 328-1188 Page 1 to 4
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
* * *
M. J.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendants.
_________________________
UNITED EFFORT PLAN TRUST,
by Bruce R. Wisan, as the
Court-appointed Special
Fiduciary,
Third-Party Complainant,
v.
ALLEN STEED, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 070916524
Deposition of:
BRUCE R. WISAN
* * *
July 30, 2014
9:07 a.m.
36 South State Street
Suite 2400
* * *
Amber Park
- Certified Shorthand Reporter -
- Registered Professional Reporter -
A P P E A R A N C E S 1
For the Plaintiff: 2
ALAN W. MORTENSEN
LANCE L. MILNE 3
36 South State Street 4
Suite 2400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 5
6
For the Defendants:
JEFFREY L. SHIELDS 7
CALLISTER NEBEKER & MCCULLOUGH
10 East South Temple 8
Suite 900
10
For State of Utah:
DAVID N. WOLF 11
UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
160 East 300 South 12
6th Floor
Also present: 14
Max Nelson (Videographer)
15
* * *
16
I N D E X
17
EXAMINATION PAGE
18
Examination by Mr. Mortensen 4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E X H I B I T S 1
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1 Response to Plaintiff's Second Set of 4 2
Interrogatories and Fifth Set of
Requests for Production of Documents 3
2 Order Re: Preliminary Injunction 5
Appointing a Special Fiduciary and 4
Suspending the Trustees
3 Utah Attorney General Mark L. 9 5
Shurtleff's Motion to Intervene
6
4 Notice of Submission of Annual Report 10
United Effort Plan Trust 7
5 Contract for Purchase of Real Property 22
and Release Agreement 8
6 Declaration of Beneficiaries 26
7 Prosecution for Hire PowerPoint 32 9
8 Minutes of Auction Review Hearing 33
9 Minutes of Hearing 39 10
10 Back Page Internet Documents 40
11 Marissa Ann Payne Mugshot 42 11
12 Information on Misdemeanor Charge 43
13 Color Photograph 49 12
14 Color Photograph 49
15 Color Photograph 50 13
16 Notice of Submission of Annual Report of 51
United Effort Plan Trust 14
17 Order Approving Auction Sales of Real 55
Property 15
18 United Effort Plan Trust Utah Land 55
Parcels 16
19 United Effort Plan Trust Arizona Land 57
Parcels 17
20 Plat Maps 59
21 Memorandum in Support of Fiduciary's 71 18
Motion to Approve Sales of Real Property
22 Map of Hildale and Colorado City 75 19
23 Water Rights 82
24 Map of Colorado City 84 20
25 Colored Map 84
26 Verdicts in Cooke Case 87 21
27 Writ of Execution 87
28 Special Verdict 88 22
29 Plaintiff Intervenor State of Arizona's 90
Motion for Leave to Re-open the 23
Evidentiary Record
24

25
Page 3
Wednesday, July 30, 2014: 9:07 a.m. 1
(Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was 2
marked for identification.)
P R O C E E D I N G S 3
BRUCE R. WISAN, 4
called as a witness, having been duly sworn, 5
was examined and testified as follows:
6
EXAMINATION
7
BY MR. MORTENSEN: 8
Sir, it's my understanding -- I know 9 Q
you've had your deposition taken several times so we 10
can -- we can skip past the instructions and move into 11
the heart of the matter. 12
You're Bruce Wisan, the special fiduciary 13
that's been appointed for the UEP Trust, correct? 14
Yes. 15 A
And you've been handed what's been marked 16 Q
as Exhibit 1 to your deposition, which is identified 17
as a response to plaintiff's second set of 18
interrogatories and fifth set of requests for 19
production of documents to Bruce Wisan, as special 20
fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust. On that 21
document your signature appears on page 9, correct? 22
Yes. 23 A
You had an opportunity to review these 24 Q
responses to interrogatories for their accuracy? 25
Page 4
Well, I did when I signed it, yes. 1 A
And did you review the documents to verify 2 Q
that they were true and accurate documents? 3
Most of the documents. Some of the tax 4 A
assessment notices were so voluminous, I mean, I 5
didn't review every single one. I had a former 6
chairman of the State Tax Commission put that together 7
for me and I kind of looked at them. 8
Okay. 9 Q
But for all intents and purposes, yes. 10 A
And it's my understanding that -- we're 11 Q
here for a 30(b)(6) deposition, which is a legal term 12
that you would be the person most knowledgeable about 13
the dealings and transactions of the United Effort 14
Plan Trust since you took over as the fiduciary, is 15
that correct? 16
Yes. 17 A
And since its reformation, correct? 18 Q
Yes. 19 A
marked for identification.) 21
(BY MR. MORTENSEN) 22
Sir, you've been handed what's been marked 23 Q
as Exhibit 2. It's a order regarding a preliminary 24
injunction appointing the special fiduciary and 25
Page 5
suspending the trustees signed by Judge Deno Himonas 1
back on the 16th of June of 2005. Is that your 2
understanding is when you were appointed to be the 3
special fiduciary of the United Effort Plan Trust? 4
No. 5 A
When were you appointed? 6 Q
Judge -- I'm going to say Roger or 7 A
Robert -- Atkins appointed me May 27, 2005. 8
And then it got moved to Judge Himonas's 9 Q
court, correct? 10
Temporary -- for one hearing or for a 11 A
brief period of time to Judge Himonas, yes. 12
And Mark Shurtleff, the Attorney General 13 Q
at the time, was the one who nominated you to be the 14
special fiduciary, correct? 15
That was my understanding. 16 A
Why did he select you to be the special 17 Q
fiduciary? 18
Tim Bodily was the individual in the 19 A
Attorney General's office that was assigned to the 20
case. I have, over the years as a CPA, been an 21
accountant for bankruptcy trustees for several 22
standing trustees, Kim Mosier, Roger Segal, among 23
others, have interfaced with Joel Marker, and it came 24
a point where I was well enough known that I was then 25
Page 6
occasionally appointed bankruptcy trustee when they 1
didn't want the standing trustee for some particular 2
situation. I also then in various and sundry became a 3
receiver in a couple of cases, several cases, over 4
business properties. 5
And so Tim Bodily called me in two 6
thousand -- I believe it was 2002, 2003 on a case 7
that -- where a tax payer had gotten sideways with the 8
State Tax Commission and Tim Bodily was representing 9
the Tax Commission and appointed me a receiver of this 10
business. And it was a hostile takeover and there was 11
a -- I can't remember, share for some marshall or 12
somebody that -- with a badge and gun. And we went in 13
and took over the business and I ran it for 14
approximately a year, I believe. And there was arson, 15
there was all kinds of stuff, a lot of stuff went on, 16
and I handled it without a lot of fuss and muss. And 17
Tim liked the way I handled it and he said, "Well, 18
I'll keep you in mind if something comes up." 19
Two years later he was asked to get 20
involved in the UEP case and I came to mind and he 21
called me and asked me if I would be interested, and 22
if not, if I knew somebody that would be interested. 23
And they had an attorney or a law firm that they would 24
recommend if I took the case, Kesler and Rust I 25
Page 7
believe was the name of the firm, and so on and such 1
forth. And I thought about it and talked to a couple 2
of other people, I talked to some people at Callister 3
Nebeker & McCollough and decided to take the case. 4
And so Tim said, "Okay. We'll recommend 5
you." 6
I did not ever -- I had not met Mark 7
Shurtleff or didn't meet him until maybe a year -- at 8
least a year-and-a-half, maybe two years later. 9
Long -- sorry for the long answer, but that's what it 10
was. 11
So you had no preexisting friendship or 12 Q
relationship with Mark Shurtleff? 13
No. In fact, when I -- I was very 14 A
specific in asking Tim Bodily, "Well how did you get 15
my name?" 16
And he said, "I don't know. It just came 17
up." 18
And then the same question with regard to 19 Q
John Swallow, you had no friendship -- 20
No. 21 A
-- or relationship with him? 22 Q
No. 23 A
Did you know someone at Kesler and Rust? 24 Q
No. 25 A
Page 8
as Deposition Exhibit 3. And then it's an 5
intervention that was made -- or a motion for 6
intervention into the Arizona case of Colorado City 7
versus the UEP. In it, it states, "Intervener Utah 8
Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, by and through his 9
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of 10
Civil Procedure 24 and local rule 7.2, hereby 11
respectfully moves the Court to intervene in this 12
action on the grounds that he has (1) an interest in 13
protecting the interest of the beneficiaries of the 14
United Effort Plan Trust; (2) ensuring the Trust is 15
enforced in a consistent, lawful manner; and (3) 16
ensuring agreements entered into by the special 17
fiduciary of the UEP Trust are valid and enforceable." 18
Do you agree with that statement that was 19
made in this motion? 20
That it has an interest in those issues? 21 A
Yes. 22
So you would agree that the Attorney 23 Q
General has an interest in protecting the 24
beneficiaries of the UEP Trust? 25
Page 9
Yes. 1 A
And that the Attorney General of the State 2 Q
of Utah has an interest ensuring that the Trust is 3
enforced in a consistent, lawful manner, correct? 4
Certainly. 5 A
And that the UEP Trust also -- or that the 6 Q
Attorney General has an interest in ensuring that 7
agreements entered into by the special fiduciary -- 8
which would be you -- are valid and enforceable, 9
correct? 10
I would assume so, yes. 11 A
Sir, I've handed you what's been marked as 15 Q
Exhibit 4 to your deposition. And it is a notice of 16
submission of annual report United Effort Plan Trust 17
that was filed in a court of law here in the state of 18
Utah on March 30th of 2012. 19
MR. SHIELDS: Is this number 4, Counsel? 20
MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, Exhibit Number 4. 21
Could you turn to page 6 -- first of all, 22 Q
let me ask you, do you recognize this document? 23
Well, I prepared it. I haven't read it 24 A
for a couple of years so -- but I prepared it. 25
Page 10
But on page 23 that's your signature? 1 Q
Yes. 2 A
And so you would have read and agreed with 3 Q
this when this was filed with the Court, correct? 4
Yes. 5 A
So on page 6 under paragraph 10 where it 6 Q
says, "The fiduciary believes the administration of 7
the Trust is essentially a government function, 8
inasmuch as it was the State Government that 9
petitioned the Court to take control of the Trust and 10
preserve assets for the benefit of the Trust 11
beneficiaries." 12
Do you agree with that statement? 13
Yes. 14 A
So you believe that in acting as the 15 Q
fiduciary for the administration of the Trust you were 16
acting essentially in a government function, correct? 17
Well, I'm functioning under the judicial 18 A
supervision of Judge Lindberg and she's a State Judge 19
so that -- following that chain, yes. 20
Well, here it says the administration of 21 Q
the Trust is essentially a governmental function. Do 22
you agree with that? 23
In the manner that I just stated, that I 24 A
report to and am directed by a State Court. 25
Page 11
And then the Attorney General also is 1 Q
involved in oversight of any decisions that you make, 2
correct? 3
MR. WOLF: Objection. Lacks foundation. 4
THE WITNESS: I don't know that oversight 5
is a correct term there, Counselor. The Attorney 6
General's offices of Arizona and Utah are parties of 7
interest, but they don't give me instructions, the 8
judge does. And I report to the judge and I do not 9
report to either of the two AG's. 10
But it's the Attorney General's job, as 12 Q
stated in Exhibit 3, to ensure the Trust is enforced 13
in a consistent and lawful manner, correct? 14
That's their interest. They have an 15 A
interest in is the way that reads and -- yes, they 16
have an interest in that, and I'm sure if they have 17
some umbrage or a disagreement with the Trust, then 18
they would bring it up to the judge governing the 19
Trust. 20
So you do agree back on Exhibit 4 with the 21 Q
statement that "the administration of the Trust is 22
essentially a government function inasmuch as it was 23
the State Government that petitioned the Court to take 24
control of the Trust and preserve assets for the 25
Page 12
benefit of the Trust beneficiaries"? 1
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Asked and 2
answered twice. 3
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I believe I've already 4
answered that question. I am under the auspices of a 5
State Judge in Third District Court. 6
And you understand that when you file 8 Q
these reports that Judge Lindberg and the State of 9
Utah needs them to be as accurate as possible, 10
correct? 11
Well, again, I report to Judge Lindberg 12 A
and I try to have them as accurate as possible, yeah. 13
On page 17, on paragraph 51, it states 14 Q
that, "The fiduciary continues to look for property 15
that belongs to the Trust that has been diverted to 16
other organizations. The water rights that are so 17
critical to the operations of the community have been 18
a major focus of the fiduciary's efforts. Legal 19
investigations have been conducted into the removal of 20
water rights valued at several millions of dollars 21
from a dba of the UEP Trust, known as Southside 22
Irrigation Company, into a private entity, known as 23
Southside Irrigation Company, LLC. The transfer was 24
made by Willie Jessop while he was still adhering to 25
Page 13
the control group." 1
It's your understanding Willie Jessop was 2
the one who transferred UEP water rights into the 3
Southside Irrigation, LLC? 4
Well, his signature's on the documents so 5 A
that was my understanding, yes. 6
And so that would be transferring water 7 Q
rights away from the UEP Trust into an LLC not in 8
control by the UEP Trust? 9
Yes. 10 A
And that was illegal and improper? 11 Q
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for a 12
legal conclusion. 13
THE WITNESS: Yeah, in my understanding it 14
was improper, and in my opinion it was illegal, but 15
that had not been adjudicated. 16
So in your opinion it was illegal and 18 Q
improper? 19
In my opinion. 20 A
Was it fraudulent? 21 Q
I'm a simple CPA. I refuse -- 22 A
Well, you know what fraud is. You're a 23 Q
CPA. 24
Well, yeah, but I don't know the pure 25 A
Page 14
definition of fraud and -- 1
Give me your CPA definition of fraud. Do 2 Q
you think it's fraudulent? 3
Well, fraud is an intentional act to 4 A
illegally transfer assets -- to illegally transfer 5
assets. Let's leave it at that. 6
Okay. So do you think his transfer of 7 Q
assets from the UEP into this Southside Irrigation was 8
fraudulent? 9
I don't know what his intent was. I think 10 A
fraud -- again, I'm not an attorney, but I think fraud 11
has an aspect of intent and I'm not exactly sure what 12
his intent was, but I don't think it was -- it 13
certainly wasn't beneficial to the Trust and may well 14
have been fraud. 15
Well, did you take any actions to have it 16 Q
undone under -- as being a fraudulent transfer? 17
I did not. 18 A
But you had undone other property 19 Q
transfers based upon fraudulent transfers? 20
Early on, yes. 21 A
So you know what a fraudulent transfer is? 22 Q
In a weak sense. Again, as a CPA. 23 A
And then Willie Jessop gave -- got those 24 Q
water rights back to the UEP, correct? 25
Page 15
Well, he helped us get those back, yes. 1 A
What did he do to help? 2 Q
He went to the state -- and I'm not 3 A
exactly sure which department, but I would assume some 4
business regulation -- and his allegation when he was 5
working with us is that he was improperly removed from 6
being the manager of Southside Irrigation and he went 7
to the state, removed who they had replaced him, put 8
himself back in to that position that he felt he 9
should have been in, and then did a transfer of the 10
water rights out of that entity to the UEP Trust. 11
And -- I'm not sure now -- there was a deed and I'm 12
not sure whether that was a warranty deed or what kind 13
of a deed it was, but he -- with a deed he transferred 14
that to the UEP and that was taken to the state 15
engineer's office and they recorded that -- those 16
water rights in the name of the UEP Trust, which is 17
where they are now. 18
And as part of that transfer of the water 19 Q
rights back to the UEP Trust, Willie Jessop was sold a 20
piece of property at a much reduced value, correct? 21
Well, you have the motion. There were 22 A
several property transactions, and if you're talking 23
about the property across the street probably south of 24
the so-called Warren Jeffs compound, no, that was not 25
Page 16
a substantial discount. That was pretty much at 1
apprised value. 2
Wasn't he sold a piece of property that 3 Q
was sold to him for about $400,000 under the appraised 4
value? 5
No. 6 A
Wasn't there a request made to -- he was 7 Q
sold several parcels of property under the appraised 8
value that Judge Lindberg approved at a recent 9
hearing, correct? 10
Yes. 11 A
And what was the appraised value of those 12 Q
parcels? 13
I don't have those numbers in front of me, 14 A
but if we had all the documents here we could look at 15
that. I would assume you've got all the documents. I 16
didn't bring any documents. Every time I come to a 17
deposition I bring documents and never need them 18
because you guys always furnish them, the attorneys 19
all do that. 20
As part of the appraised -- as part of the 21 Q
sale of those properties, that included -- part of the 22
consideration for that was transferring the water 23
rights back into the UEP Trust, correct? 24
Yes. 25 A
Page 17
So if I understand correctly, Willie 1 Q
Jessop was sold a piece of property under value that 2
was originally owned by the UEP Trust, illegally, as 3
you stated, removed from the UEP Trust, and then 4
deeded back to the UEP Trust, and in consideration for 5
that he was rewarded with sales of property under 6
value? 7
That was part of the consideration to 8 A
Willie -- 9
And the -- 10 Q
That was part of the consideration to 11 A
Willie. And the value that Willie gave was not that 12
he got the water rights back to the Trust. The Trust 13
would have gotten those water rights back under -- 14
with litigation. What Willie saved the Trust, in my 15
opinion, was the litigation cost of doing that and by 16
cooperating. And he took the extra step of kind of -- 17
of undoing what he did, but then the extra step of 18
then making sure that it was properly recorded in the 19
state engineer's office. 20
And he also took the extra step of 21 Q
cooperating with you in the litigation against my 22
client Elissa Wall, correct? 23
Yes. 24 A
And that was -- actually that cooperation 25 Q
Page 18
was reduced to writing, correct? 1
We have a motion or a court order that was 2 A
submitted to the Judge and signed and that's -- that 3
was the only writing that it was reduced to. 4
And has that been presented -- well, you 5 Q
have a meeting in Hildale on the 9th of August, don't 6
you? 7
It's a town meeting to answer questions, 8 A
yes. 9
Are you going to tell them that? At the 10 Q
time that you gave Willie Jessop a good deal on 11
properties that they used to own that he took away and 12
put into a private company and then gave back? 13
Again, Counselor, that wasn't the only 14 A
issue, but that was -- that particular issue was 15
discussed in open court previously. 16
That wasn't my question. Are you going to 17 Q
tell the people of Hildale you did that? 18
If that comes up in the question and 19 A
answers, yes. I'm going to explain the nature of -- 20
the status of the MJ case. 21
That's not -- I'm not talking about the MJ 22 Q
case. 23
Yeah, I'm -- 24 A
I'm talking about the water rights. Are 25 Q
Page 19
you going to tell them about the water rights? 1
Yeah. 2 A
Is that on the agenda? 3 Q
No. 4 A
I haven't seen it. 5 Q
No, it wasn't on the agenda. 6 A
Why not? 7 Q
Because it's already been discussed in 8 A
open court. 9
The MJ case is on the agenda. Why isn't 10 Q
the water rights? 11
I'm not going down there discussing the 12 A
whole -- I've got four things that I'm planning on 13
discussing, and then if people have questions, yes. 14
But that -- why should the water rights be a separate 15
item on my agenda? 16
Well, if you're a beneficiary wouldn't you 17 Q
want to know if someone was given water rights or 18
given -- given reduced consideration for property that 19
they were a beneficiary of in exchange for something 20
that they did illegally in the first place? 21
MR. SHIELDS: Objection to the relevance 22
and the argumentative nature of this line of 23
questioning. 24
THE WITNESS: You know, I've already 25
Page 20
explained that that wasn't the full agreement with 1
Willie Jessop. And you keep talking about the 2
property that was way under -- given to him way under 3
value and so on and such forth. Turns out in the open 4
auction that the price Willie received for the GAP 5
properties was approximately the price that it was 6
sold under to independent third parties for. And so 7
it wasn't substantially under. And the other property 8
that he received was at appraised value. The only 9
real benefit, if you will, was his house and that 10
surrounding property. 11
And what was that worth? 13 Q
I don't know. 14 A
Well, was it 70 percent -- were the values 15 Q
of the properties that he got -- did he pay 70 percent 16
of the value of those properties? 17
I haven't calculated that. 18 A
So you're aware Judge Lindberg entered an 19 Q
order saying that she would approve property sales 20
where someone makes a 70 percent value offer, correct? 21
Yes. 22 A
But you haven't made that evaluation? 23 Q
No. And she orally approved the agreement 24 A
with Willie Jessop. I don't believe it's been signed 25
Page 21
yet but she orally approved that so it is what it is. 1
MR. SHIELDS: This deposition is 2
restricted to the security that Judge Kelly ordered. 3
This is not an attempt to relitigate Willie's 4
settlement agreement or Willie's standing, so I think 5
we ought to get on -- 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Well -- 7
MR. SHIELDS: We're leaving here at noon. 8
This is a three-hour deposition so -- 9
MR. MORTENSEN: You can leave -- 10
MR. SHIELDS: -- if you want to spend your 11
time on that, that's fine, but I think we ought to get 12
on to the issue, which is the bond. 13
MR. MORTENSEN: And my concern is that the 14
Trust corpus is being depleted at a unacceptable rate 15
by witnesses. So I get to find out what witnesses 16
have received consideration so... 17
as Deposition Exhibit 5. And this would be the 22
contract for purchase of real estate and release 23
agreement, correct? With Willie Jessop? 24
Yes. 25 A
Page 22
Okay. And on page 8 there's a buyer's 1 Q
cooperation clause. Do you see where I'm looking at? 2
8.2? 3
Yes. 4 A
It says there, "As an essential covenant 5 Q
required by seller to enter into this agreement and to 6
consummate the transaction described herein, buyer 7
hereby agrees to cooperate with seller in every 8
reasonable and timely manner, supplying accurate and 9
truthful information and documents that buyer in good 10
faith believes to be accurate and truthful for 11
seller's consideration and possible use in seller's 12
defense in all pending litigation, including that 13
certain matter entitled MJ, aka Elissa Wall vs. Warren 14
Jeffs, et al., pending in the Third Judicial District 15
Court in Salt Lake County." Do you see where it says 16
that? 17
Yes. 18 A
So basically Willie Jessop agrees to be 19 Q
accurate and truthful in anything that will be -- 20
could be used by the seller in the defense of all 21
pending litigation against Elissa Wall, correct? 22
Yes. 23 A
What about being accurate and truthful in 24 Q
anything that might hurt the defense? It doesn't say 25
Page 23
anything about him being truthful and accurate about 1
that, does it? 2
No, I think just being truthful and 3 A
accurate -- 4
MR. SHIELDS: Just a minute. Objection. 5
You're trying to go into stuff that you believe -- 6
MR. MORTENSEN: I don't want a speaking 7
objection. If you want to object to my question -- 8
MR. SHIELDS: Irrelevant. 9
MR. MORTENSEN: -- you can object and 10
then -- I'm not going to allow speaking objections, 11
Jeff. 12
MR. SHIELDS: Irrelevant objection. 13
Outside the scope of what Judge Kelly ordered. This 14
deposition is for the bond. I know you don't like the 15
Willie Jessop settlement, but this is not the place to 16
be litigating that. 17
MR. MORTENSEN: Go ahead and answer the 18
question. 19
THE WITNESS: Well, it says to be truthful 20
and accurate. Whether that's -- whether that's pro or 21
con for the trust's benefit, it's truthful and 22
accurate. That's what he's supposed to be doing. 23
"Truthful and accurate for the possible 25 Q
Page 24
use in seller's defense in all" -- 1
Okay. 2 A
-- "pending litigation." 3 Q
Truthful and accurate. 4 A
Don't you agree it can be read to say that 5 Q
he only has to be truthful and accurate on information 6
that would help the seller's defense in the pending 7
litigation? 8
No. I think truthful and accurate means 9 A
whether -- it is what it is. Truthful and accurate 10
speaks for itself. That may or may not help the 11
Trust. 12
All right. And then also you gave Willie 13 Q
Jessop an unconditional release from any liability to 14
the UEP Trust, correct? 15
Yes. 16 A
So the UEP Trust can't sue him anymore, 17 Q
correct? 18
That's right. 19 A
Despite the fact that he did something you 20 Q
thought was illegal by stealing water rights? 21
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Mr. Wisan never 22
said "steal water rights." 23
THE WITNESS: We -- 24
MR. MORTENSEN: That wasn't my -- I'm 25
Page 25
asking the question. 1
THE WITNESS: Okay. We -- the answer to 2
the question is that we agreed not to sue him for any 3
prior actions against the Trust, whatever they may be. 4
What if you found out he had been 6 Q
dishonest in the information he provided about Elissa 7
Wall? Could you sue him for that? 8
I don't know. I'm not an attorney. I'd 9 A
have to ask my attorneys. 10
All right. 11 Q
Deposition Exhibit 6. This is the declaration of the 16
beneficiaries. Have you seen this document before? 17
Not this particular -- like an exhibit, 18 A
but I've seen the declaration of beneficiaries. It's 19
many, many pages and I've glanced at it before. 20
Do you see Willie Jessop's signature 21 Q
there? 22
I do. Number 2. 23 A
And there he signed saying that he agreed 24 Q
that -- number 4, "The special fiduciary has a 25
Page 26
conflict of interest because he is pursuing payment 1
for himself at the expense of my interests as a 2
beneficiary, the best interests of the church and the 3
UEP and the intentions of the settlors." 4
MR. SHIELDS: What paragraph are you 5
reading, Counsel? 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Paragraph 4. 7
THE WITNESS: Number 4. 8
"The special fiduciary has made 10 Q
misrepresentations to the Court about his transactions 11
in order to pay himself at the expense of protecting 12
the interest of the beneficiaries." Do you see where 13
I'm referring to? 14
Yes. 15 A
And you see that Willie Jessop signed 16 Q
that? 17
Yes. 18 A
And he in fact expressed to you that he 19 Q
thought you did have a conflict of interest by paying 20
yourself through UEP assets, correct? 21
I don't ever remember him saying that to 22 A
me. 23
Okay. But you don't disagree that he 24 Q
signed this stating that? 25
Page 27
He signed that document, yes. 1 A
And isn't it true that a settlement was 2 Q
just approved where he received UEP assets? 3
Yes. 4 A
At a reduced value? 5 Q
Again, the house was the -- was probably 6 A
the only asset that was at some reduced value. And 7
the judge has not signed the order pending some kind 8
of transfer fee that he and others would have to make. 9
Do you know -- and I apologize, I only 10 Q
have one copy of this. It's Exhibit 7 to Willie 11
Jessop's deposition in this case. It's "Prosecution 12
for hire." Have you seen this document? 13
Willie has presented several documents to 14 A
my attorneys. I have not reviewed them specifically. 15
I've been present when he's given documents to 16
attorneys and so have I seen that? Perhaps. Have I 17
read it? No. 18
It looks similar to other PowerPoints he's 19 Q
prepared, does it not? 20
Okay. 21 A
Okay. So on one of the slides -- and this 22 Q
is -- again, it's called "Prosecution for hire. 23
Taking out the FLDS." One of the slides it says, 24
"Spun out again. Utah/Arizona AG's only claim is 25
Page 28
underage marriage. Even then no victims." Do you see 1
that? 2
Uh-huh. 3 A
Has Willie Jessop -- 4 Q
Yes. 5 A
-- ever expressed to you that there's no 6 Q
victims in underage marriage? 7
No. In fact to the opposite, he's 8 A
indicated that there are numerous victims and he was 9
appalled, and that's why he no longer supports Warren 10
Jeffs and the supporters of Warren Jeffs. 11
Has he ever married anyone to your 12 Q
knowledge that was underage? 13
Not to my knowledge. 14 A
Have you asked him? 15 Q
No. 16 A
Would that have mattered on whether or not 17 Q
you would have entered into the agreement you entered 18
into with him if he had had sex with underage girls? 19
MR. SHIELDS: Let me object again. 20
Counsel, the case is stayed as to everything but the 21
bond. You're trying to do discovery on the main case 22
in the context of this bond deposition. I'm going on 23
object to this line of questioning. I object to any 24
of these answers being used in the main case. This is 25
Page 29
only for the bond. 1
MR. MORTENSEN: I understand. And we're 2
going to be getting to the bond here because I think 3
that there's a problem here that I want to talk about 4
as far as the bond. 5
MR. SHIELDS: This is a deposition. 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Right. 7
MR. SHIELDS: And you're supposed you ask 8
questions. You're not supposed to talk about it. You 9
ask your questions -- 10
MR. MORTENSEN: You just -- Jeff, you just 11
gave a speaking objection and so I'm responding to it. 12
So if you want to object like the rules require, I'll 13
respond appropriately. But if you're going to do 14
speaking objections, I'm going to respond. 15
Would you have entered into the -- 16 Q
Just as background, as a matter of course 17 A
in my dealing with people in the community, I have not 18
inquired about marital status, marital relations, with 19
individuals with whom I come in contact. And I 20
haven't done that with Willie Jessop. I haven't done 21
that with any other people down in the community with 22
whom I've come in contact. 23
I guess there would be a -- it would have 24
to be a facts and circumstances situation in terms of 25
Page 30
the answering to your question, would that have 1
affected me or affected the relationship or whatever, 2
and my response is it's facts and circumstances and 3
that's my answer. 4
So could you see any circumstances wherein 5 Q
you would have entered into an agreement with anybody 6
to provide cooperation in a case against MJ if you 7
knew that he was a pedophile? 8
Well, being a pedophile by definition and 9 A
having a church-sanctioned marriage that may have been 10
illegal I think are two different things. 11
Isn't church-sanctioned marriage to an 12 Q
underage woman basically church-sanctioned pedophilia? 13
You know, I don't know what the legal 14 A
definition of pedophilia is. 15
So you haven't answered my question. 16 Q
Because I don't know how to answer that. 17 A
Would you have entered into any type of 18 Q
agreement like you did with Willie Jessop where you 19
gave him reduced value property of the UEP Trust if 20
you knew that that person was having sex or had sex 21
with an underage girl? 22
I don't know. 23 A
And you didn't make any inquiry as part 24 Q
of -- I mean, you're cloaked with the color of the 25
Page 31
State of Utah and Judge Lindberg, but you didn't make 1
any inquiry as to whether or not Willie Jessop was a 2
pedophile, did you? 3
No. 4 A
MR. MORTENSEN: Let's actually mark this 5
again as Exhibit 7 because I want it attached to this. 6
MR. SHIELDS: Can I get a copy of what you 9
referred to as Exhibit 7? 10
MR. MORTENSEN: Sure. Make a copy of... 11
MR. SHIELDS: So are you taking Exhibit 7 12
off this one? 13
MR. MORTENSEN: No. 14
MR. SHIELDS: Because it's marked Exhibit 15
7. 16
MR. MORTENSEN: It's marked Exhibit 7 to 17
Willie's depo but I'm also marking it as Exhibit 7 to 18
this deposition. 19
MR. SHIELDS: Okay. And I thought you 20
said you were going to mark this as Exhibit 7. 21
MR. MORTENSEN: That's the only copy I 22
have and so I've marked it as Exhibit 7. 23
MR. MILNE: Do you want a copy of it now? 24
Is that what you're saying? 25
Page 32
MR. SHIELDS: Just before we end it. Are 1
you going to refer to this more? 2
MR. SHIELDS: Okay. Just before we leave 4
I would like to get a copy of this because I don't 5
have one. 6
MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. 7
as Exhibit 8. This is some minutes from the auction 12
review hearing that was held. You were present for 13
that, correct? 14
Yes. 15 A
And that was held on July 18th of 2014? 16 Q
I believe so. 17 A
And in it, it states that, "The Court 18 Q
addresses Counsel regarding the Elissa Wall's motion 19
for reconsideration of the order approving settlement. 20
The Court declines oral argument and denies the motion 21
for reconsideration." Do you recall the Judge making 22
that ruling? 23
Yes. 24 A
And then it says, "at 10:05 Willie Jessop 25 Q
Page 33
addresses the Court directly." Do you recall 1
Mr. Jessop addressing the Court directly? 2
I do. 3 A
What did he say? 4 Q
He was wanting -- and I didn't have all of 5 A
the details, I'm not sure I understood all the 6
details, but he had submitted several bids, and 7
apparently some of the bids were higher than the 8
70 percent limitation that the Judge had -- at that 9
hearing had established, and he wanted the Trust 10
and/or the Court to take all -- some of all of his 11
bids and compare them, and if that were to be done 12
then his comment was that as a lump sum they would 13
exceed the 70 percent. And so even though some of his 14
bids failed to meet the 70 percent test, he wanted all 15
of his bids accepted because in lump sum they all 16
totalled 70 percent. That's the comment I remember 17
him making. 18
And is there anything else that you recall 19 Q
about Mr. Jessop's comments to the Court? 20
That's all I recall. 21 A
Did Judge Lindberg -- do you recall Judge 22 Q
Lindberg ever asking Willie Jessop why he needed to 23
receive a discounted property sale in order to 24
cooperate with the Trust? 25
Page 34
I don't. 1 A
Why did he? 2 Q
Why did he what? 3 A
Why did he require such to do what he was 4 Q
supposed to do legally? 5
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Assumes facts 6
and precedent is not accurate. 7
THE WITNESS: Willie requested assistance 8
in obtaining some property and the Trust -- I in 9
council with my attorneys -- felt that it was in the 10
best interest of the Trust to work with Willie in that 11
regard. 12
Do you know if Willie's been given 14 Q
immunity from the Federal Government? 15
I haven't had any direct confirmation but 16 A
I've heard through the grapevine that he had. 17
Has he been given immunity from the State 18 Q
of Utah? 19
MR. WOLF: Objection. Lacks foundation. 20
THE WITNESS: I don't know. 21
And then you -- it looks like you also 23 Q
addressed the Court at 10:17. Do you recall 24
addressing the Court? 25
Page 35
Well, I recall that she asked me to step 1 A
to the podium, yes. 2
Okay. And do you recall what Judge 3 Q
Lindberg asked you about these sales? 4
She asked me about the status of the D&O 5 A
insurance, director and officer's insurance, for the 6
potential board of trustees, and I gave her a report 7
on that. In conjunction with that I -- oh, she asked 8
me also about occupancy fees and that apparently some 9
of her -- some of the applicants of the board of 10
trustees that she was favorably inclined towards had 11
not fully paid the Trust for occupancy fees and may 12
not have been current with their property taxes and 13
asked off the cuff what I would recommend in that 14
particular situation, and I gave her an off the cuff 15
response. I believe those are the two major issues 16
that I testified about. 17
And you've seen in the filings that based 18 Q
upon information that -- well, let me first of all ask 19
you, have you seen what has been marked as Deposition 20
Exhibit 2 to Willie Jessop's deposition, which is the 21
file that he compiled with regard to Elissa Wall? 22
Take a look at it if you want. 23
MR. SHIELDS: Are you going to mark this 24
as an exhibit? 25
Page 36
THE WITNESS: Is this a PowerPoint or 2
something that he prepared? 3
MR. MORTENSEN: It's just his file on 4
Elissa. 5
THE WITNESS: I've been in meetings when 6
he presented various facts about Elissa. I don't know 7
that I've seen that particular file or whatever. But 8
he's explained some of the issues there listed, yes. 9
Okay. And has he also talked to you about 11 Q
other potential witnesses? 12
Well, when you say me, I'm not in some of 13 A
the meetings with the attorneys on your client's case. 14
They don't really affect me and so I'm not present. 15
So the answer to that, maybe with counsel, and I've 16
heard discussion about a witness or two from Willie, 17
but how extensive those discussions are outside of my 18
presence I don't know. 19
What witnesses has he talked to you about? 20 Q
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Outside the 21
scope of the deposition. 22
MR. MORTENSEN: I want to know what he 23
bought. 24
THE WITNESS: Jane Blackmore is the 25
Page 37
primary one. 1
MR. SHIELDS: Counsel, can I just have a 2
standing objection that this line of questioning is 3
outside the scope so I don't have to say it after 4
every question? 5
MR. MORTENSEN: Sure. 6
THE WITNESS: I believe one of her sisters 7
and I don't recall the name. 8
Did he ever -- what did he say about Jane 10 Q
Blackmore? 11
I mean, what do you mean "what did he 12 A
say?" He said there's a story there that needs to be 13
told that would be beneficial to the Trust and he 14
thought he could -- Jane is apparently not real 15
willing to voluntarily act as a witness and he thought 16
that he could maybe persuade her to be a witness. 17
Has he given the Trust any types of files 18 Q
in exchange for this agreement that was entered into 19
where he got -- where he was released from all 20
liability to the UEP? Has he given you files from 21
other people? 22
I don't know. There have been meetings 23 A
with him and my counsel that, as I've stated before, 24
where I am not -- where I was not present and so I 25
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 51
been successful in selling some nonresidential 1
property to help pay debts of the Trust. However, 2
there are still many residents that continue to 3
exhibit hostile behaviors towards the Trust 4
administration." 5
List for me the nonresidential properties 6
that you have been able to sell in the time period 7
between March 2014 and March 2013. 8
The schools were sold, two schools, and -- 9 A
to the school district -- and we'd sold -- I believe 10
in that time period we'd sold the block 45, which is 11
referred to as the CMC property. 12
What does CMC stand for? 13 Q
Community mercantile co-op or something of 14 A
that nature. I'm not exactly sure. 15
Let me have you turn to -- 16 Q
In addition I sold -- if that is the case 17 A
in addition I sold some property in Skunk Canyon, the 18
two schools and the block 45. And I'm not sure if 19
we're talking also about the sale of the Berry Knoll. 20
When was the Berry Knoll sold? 21 Q
I can't remember but I think it was -- 22 A
Okay. I think we'll get into that in some 23 Q
documents. 24
-- probably within that time frame. 25 A
Page 52
Can you turn back to Exhibit 4, which is 1 Q
the 2012 report. I apologize. It should be there in 2
your stack. On page 10, paragraph 27, it states, 3
"Subdividing the Trust property is critical to the 4
fiduciary for two reasons; (1) to enable the fiduciary 5
to transfer the property to beneficiaries of the Trust 6
by giving them deeds to the property" -- you would 7
agree with that, would you not? 8
Yes. 9 A
So really one of the purposes of the Trust 10 Q
is to deplete its assets? 11
I'd like to reduce the footprint of the 12 A
Trust, yes. 13
And then, "(2) to facilitate the payment 14 Q
of property tax by giving assurance to the occupants 15
of the Trust property that if they pay the tax, their 16
efforts will be recognized and the property will not 17
be lost to a tax sale." 18
How are you -- how is the Trust doing with 19
regard to paragraph 2? 20
Paragraph 2? 21 A
Assuring the property -- 22 Q
MR. SHIELDS: You mean subpart 2? 23
MR. MORTENSEN: Subpart 2, yeah. Thank 24
you. 25
Page 53
THE WITNESS: Subpart 2, that they pay 1
their tax? Yeah, well, it's -- I mean, it hasn't 2
happened. 3
There's still huge tax delinquencies, 5 Q
correct? 6
Yeah. Utah is -- almost all the 7 A
properties in Utah are delinquent. Many properties -- 8
at least a year or a year. Many properties in 9
Colorado City are delinquent more than a year. Even 10
though the Supreme Court has approved the subdivision, 11
and the subdivision plats have been recorded, that 12
hasn't translated yet into any viable process of 13
collecting property taxes from individual homeowners. 14
We have to have a -- the delinquent taxes, we're going 15
to have a meeting with the county officials to 16
allocate the back taxes to the various properties in 17
Hildale that are delinquent, and of course Colorado 18
City has not been subdivided. So there's -- it's same 19
old same old there. 20
Has there been any threats of any tax 21 Q
sales or does that have to wait until the subdivision 22
process is finalized? 23
No. No tax sales. 24 A
Has there been any threat of it? 25 Q
Page 54
Oh yes. 1 A
Is that in Utah or Arizona or both? 2 Q
Both. 3 A
Okay. Do you know how much property would 4 Q
need to be sold in the Utah side to satisfy the tax 5
debt of the UEP Trust? 6
No. 7 A
Do you know how much the current water 8 Q
rights are worth? 9
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Vague and 10
ambiguous. Which water rights? 11
MR. MORTENSEN: That's a good objection. 12
Let me strike that. I'm going to start going through 13
some documents to see if I can get to the bottom of 14
this. 15
MR. MORTENSEN: You've been handed what's 18
been marked as Deposition Exhibit 17. And it's the 19
order approving auction sales of real property that 20
was entered on July 28th of 2014 by Judge Lindberg. 21
THE WITNESS: You've handed me 17. Do you 24
want me to put that down? 25
Page 55
I'm going to try to correlate some things 2 Q
from 17 with 18 if I can. 3
On Exhibit 17 there's a list of, like, lot 4
1A, 1B, 152 acres and who it's sold to. Do you know, 5
does that list correlate at all with the Utah land 6
parcels that are listed on Exhibit 18? Let me strike 7
that. 8
If you go to, like -- on page 3 of 9
Exhibit 17 under 1C, for example -- or let's go 1B. 10
It says, "Lot 1B; 152 acres," and then it has in 11
parenthesis, "HD-03-29-220." What does the 12
"HD-03-29-220" mean? 13
I have no idea. It's a county 14 A
designation. HD is Hildale. 15
Hildale. And then if you come over on 16 Q
Exhibit 18, it looks like under account number 148042 17
there's a listing for HD-0-3-29-220. Do you see where 18
I'm referring to? 19
Yes. 20 A
So would that line item on Exhibit 18 21 Q
correspond with the listing on 1B on Exhibit 17? 22
Yes. 23 A
Turning to Exhibit -- let me ask you, are 24 Q
all of the properties that are listed on Exhibit 17 25
Page 56
listed on Exhibit 18? 1
No. 2 A
Are the ones that have HD -- would those 3 Q
be the ones that are in Hildale? 4
Yes. 5 A
And then the ones that say -- have a 6 Q
number of 404 dash whatever the number, would those be 7
listed on the Arizona land parcels? 8
Yes. 9 A
MR. SHIELDS: What number is this, 12
Counsel? 13
MR. MORTENSEN: Actually, I think I gave 14
you my Exhibit 17 with my notes. Sorry. 15
THE WITNESS: You did. 16
MR. MORTENSEN: We can switch that out. 17
THE WITNESS: I like to read your notes. 18
MR. SHIELDS: Was the Arizona land parcel, 19
19? 20
So if I go through the -- on Exhibit 18 I 22 Q
will be able to determine what properties have been 23
sold by reference to the court order on Exhibit 17, 24
correct? 25
Page 57
Well, you should. I'm not exactly sure 1 A
where you got this information but it looks like from 2
a county web page on 18 and 19. 3
And let me represent to you they were 4 Q
provided by your counsel. 5
Okay. 6 A
So -- and then if I wanted to determine 7 Q
what Arizona properties were sold I could look at 8
Exhibit 19 and match up the number -- 404 number with 9
the listing of those properties, correct? 10
Well, I think 17 is the order approving 11 A
auction sales, so if you want to find out what has 12
been sold at auction, 17 is the document. 18 and 19 13
are just county assessor -- county assessor's values 14
of the properties in Hildale and Colorado City. 15
Okay. And on 18 it has the assessor's 16 Q
value. On 19 it has full cash value. Do you know how 17
that full cash value number is derived? 18
No. 19 A
Are you able to determine by looking at 20 Q
Exhibit 18 or 19 what parcels are residential or what 21
parcels are commercial? 22
No. 23 A
And how would I go about looking at 24 Q
Exhibit 18 and 19 and determining whether it's 25
Page 58
commercial or residential? 1
I don't believe that's possible. 2 A
I've handed you what's been marked as 6 Q
Deposition Exhibit 20 and it looks like it's the 7
subdivision of Hildale that -- the subdivision plats 8
or map, is that correct? 9
Yes. There should be 14 -- yes. 10 A
There should be 14 of these? 11 Q
Plats. There are 14 plats. 12 A
Okay. I got lucky. I have 14 so... 13 Q
How would I take Exhibit 18 and match up 14
the parcel number with this plat map? 15
I'm not sure that you would be able to do 16 A
that. The county in Washington County had the parcels 17
listed and we had submitted the plats for -- as stated 18
on Exhibit 18 -- we had submitted the plats 1 through 19
14 a year-and-a-half, two years ago. It looks like 20
sometime in August of '13 perhaps that we had 21
submitted those -- maybe earlier -- in fact, it was 22
probably earlier. The county had approved -- in fact, 23
let's see, date submitted looks like 7/15/10 maybe. 24
And I'm reading from plat one. 25
Page 59
Plat one of Exhibit 20? 1 Q
Yes. Uh-huh. And plat 2, 8/19/13 -- this 2 A
might have been the date of review. Anyway, they were 3
submitted at least a year, maybe two years prior to 4
the time that the Supreme Court allowed the 5
subdivision to be recorded and then they were 6
recorded. The county hasn't updated its web page to 7
reflect all of the various -- there are no large plats 8
now of properties that have like 80 or 40 or whatever 9
acres in them. They've all been -- most of these then 10
have been subdivided, and to my knowledge the county 11
hasn't updated its numbering system to account for 12
each and every individual plat. So I don't think 13
there's any way that you could take the plats and -- 14
as subdivided and go to Exhibit 18 and figure out 15
which is which. 16
Okay. How -- and how would I go -- for 17 Q
example, on Exhibit 18, if I went to -- let's say 18
66400, the sixth one down where it says 40 acres for 19
the assessor's value 4,974,300, how would I find out 20
where that property is? 21
Okay. You would have to -- you couldn't 22 A
use the plats, the subdivision plats. You would have 23
to go to a map of the county parcels as they were at 24
the time before the subdivision occurred. 25
Page 60
Okay. So if I went to -- for example, 1 Q
account 66400 that had an assessed value at 4,974,300 2
at 40 acres, that's likely been subdivided? 3
Probably. 4 A
And so -- 5 Q
There were some parcels in Hildale that 6 A
were not subdivided. Some of the first ones that you 7
looked at on Exhibit 17 to Richard Holm, lot 1A and 8
lot 1B, I don't think, for example, those were 9
subdivided. The others, lots 1C and 2 I think were 10
subdivided. 11
So the values that are reflected on 12 Q
Exhibit 18 have likely been subdivided also, correct? 13
Well, I think I just said that not all of 14 A
them were. So 40 -- 418692, which is 0-3-32-110 with 15
124 acres, that has not -- I don't believe that has 16
been subdivided. 17
But it's been sold? 18 Q
But it's been sold. 19 A
Okay. 20 Q
So I would say the majority of 18, 21 A
Exhibit 18, has been subdivided, but not all. 22
And there's no way to make a determination 23 Q
what parcels are commercial? 24
No. 25 A
Page 61
How would I get an accurate value of 1 Q
really what the UEP Utah land parcels after the sale 2
that happened and the subdivision, how would I get an 3
accurate value of really what the UEP Utah land 4
parcels are worth? 5
Well, when you say "worth," are you going 6 A
by assessor's value? 7
Or appraised value. 8 Q
We only appraised certain properties 9 A
that -- before the auction where people had an 10
interest. We didn't appraise everything. 11
Okay. 12 Q
So -- 13 A
Are all the appraised properties on the -- 14 Q
on Exhibit 17? 15
No, I'm sure there were properties that 16 A
were not appraised that are on Exhibit 17. The 17
.3 acres, for example, the 1.5 sold to Willie, the 18
1.22, the 1.31 on G, H, I, J on Exhibit 17, I don't 19
think any of those were appraised. I believe K was 20
appraised, sold to David Stubbs. 21
When you say K -- 22 Q
On Exhibit 17, page 3. But I don't think 23 A
the G, H, I, and J on Exhibit 17 were appraised. But 24
there was assessed values. 25
Page 62
How was the assessed value made? 1 Q
I'm sorry? 2 A
How was the assessed value made? Is 3 Q
that -- 4
That's the county. 5 A
The county assessor? 6 Q
Yeah. So the total assessed value of, 7 A
let's say, 124 million, and the total value of the 8
assessed properties sold in the auction, the net 9
proceeds to the Trust is going to be about a million. 10
Let's assume that the assessed value was -- and I 11
haven't added up what the assessed value of the 12
property sold was, but it might be a million 3, might 13
be a million 4. So not a significant amount. 14
And then Judge Lindberg has invited people 15 Q
that have made bids that were not -- that were 16
rejected to make a bid that's no less than 70 percent 17
and within your discretion you can accept it? 18
She did. 19 A
And on Exhibit 17 who -- on the rejected 20 Q
provisional auction sales, has anyone come and made 21
any offers? 22
Orally they've indicated to counsel that 23 A
they were going to. Counsel has sent out a written 24
request to -- that I've signed that they then need to 25
Page 63
countersign on the value of the rejected bids that 1
they are going to increase to a certain amount to 2
obtain Court acceptance. And so whether they sign 3
those are not, those have just gone out. 4
And what have you done that with? 5 Q
All of the bids that were rejected. 6 A
So under subsection 3 of Exhibit 17, A 7 Q
through L, all of those bids an offer has gone out by 8
you to the prospective buyer or has an offer come from 9
the prospective buyer to you? 10
No. The offer has gone out from us to the 11 A
rejected bidder indicating that the Court set a 12
70 percent limitation and calculated what that 13
limitation -- the difference between the limitation 14
and what their bid was and what they would have to pay 15
in addition in order to obtain that property. 16
So turning to 18 on the 35,284,000, the 17 Q
assessed value for the Hildale parcels, you have 18
discretion to sell these parcels at 70 percent of that 19
assessed value, correct? 20
Yes. 21 A
And so the first 5 million is probably not 22 Q
an accurate reflection of what the value of the 23
property is if people know they can buy it at 24
70 percent, correct? 25
Page 64
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for 1
speculation. 2
THE WITNESS: It's just in this auction. 3
That doesn't translate to all of the property. 4
Has it been your experience that if 6 Q
property's selling at 70 percent of the value -- of 7
the assessed value, that people are willing to pay 8
more than that if they know that they can get it for 9
70 percent? 10
Well, the 70 percent is just recent so I 11 A
have no experience. 12
How much commercial property is available 13 Q
in Hildale? 14
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Vague. 15
THE WITNESS: You know, I don't have a 16
number for commercial property in Hildale or Colorado 17
City. 18
Do you have an estimate? 20 Q
Well, if the Trust is worth 124 million, I 21 A
would think at least 10 million -- 10 to 15 million 22
would be commercial, maybe more. 23
That hasn't been sold? That is 24 Q
retained -- 25
Page 65
That has not been sold. 1 A
Okay. And tell me what properties you 2 Q
know of as you sit here today fall within that 10 to 3
$15 million value. 4
You want me to start listing? 5 A
I do. The judge has asked me to do that 6 Q
so we can get an appropriate bond. 7
Well, I mean, we have fire stations. 8 A
Okay. 9 Q
At least two fire stations. We have 10 A
schools, we have a clinic -- 11
A medical clinic? 12 Q
Actually, we have two clinics, one in 13 A
Colorado City and one in Hildale. 14
And when you're talking about the 10 to 15 15 Q
million of commercial, you're talking about Hildale or 16
are you talking about Hildale and Colorado City? 17
Both. 18 A
I want you to talk -- I want to limit it 19 Q
just to Hildale, the Utah side. 20
Okay. Well, there's not as much 21 A
commercial property in Hildale. There's a dental 22
office, there's some structures there on the highway, 23
various little businesses and kind of a little mall, 24
there would be a construction company office there on 25
Page 66
the Maxwell Canyon Road, there would be -- there would 1
be a printing building there on Utah Avenue. There's 2
not very much in Hildale that I can recall that's 3
commercial. 4
What would the value of the commercial be 5 Q
in Hildale? 6
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Calls for 7
speculation. 8
THE WITNESS: Let's see, I mentioned the 9
clinic -- maybe 1 to 2 million. 10
And so of the 10 to 15 million you 12 Q
mentioned, the rest would be in Colorado City? 13
Yes. 14 A
Okay. Tell me -- you mentioned the fire 15 Q
stations, the schools, the clinic, what other 16
properties -- 17
Well, in Hildale there is no fire station. 18 A
Now I'm moving to Colorado City -- 19 Q
Well, wait, wait, wait. I take that back. 20 A
There is a fire station. There is a fire station in 21
Hildale, yeah. Okay. Next to the city offices I 22
believe there's one. So -- yeah, okay. 23
Most of the commercial property has been 24 Q
sold off, correct? 25
Page 67
No. 1 A
Most of the commercial property in Hildale 2 Q
has been sold off? 3
No. None of the properties that I 4 A
mentioned have been sold off. 5
That you've just mentioned, but in the 6 Q
last two years most of the commercial property in 7
Hildale has been sold off? 8
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Asked and 9
answered. 10
THE WITNESS: I don't think any commercial 11
property in Hildale has been sold. 12
In the last two years? 14 Q
In the last two years. 15 A
So the lot 1A, 115 acres that was sold 16 Q
to -- for 172,000 to Richard Holm, was that 17
residential? 18
Lot -- I'm sorry, say that -- is this in 19 A
the auction that you're talking about? 20
Yeah, Exhibit 17. 21 Q
No. It's agricultural. I mean, I look at 22 A
property being residential, commercial, or 23
agricultural. 24
Okay. That's a good distinction. How 25 Q
Page 68
much agricultural land does the UEP Trust own on the 1
Utah side of the creek? 2
Maybe close to a million. 3 A
So between agricultural land and 4 Q
commercial property there's maybe 2- to $3 million? 5
Okay. Rough estimate. 6 A
Okay. So the lot 1A that was sold to 7 Q
Richard Holm in Exhibit 17, that was agriculture? 8
Yes. 9 A
And lot 1B for 152 acres, was that 10 Q
agricultural? 11
Yes. 12 A
And 1C, the 30 acres to Willie Jessop, was 13 Q
that ag? 14
Yes. 15 A
And lot 2, 128 that was sold to Richard 16 Q
Holm? 17
Yes, agriculture. 18 A
Is that ag? Okay. And lot 3, the 89.5 19 Q
sold to Benjamin Zitting? 20
I'm not sure how you would classify that. 21 A
It's maybe potential -- it's raw ground. It's raw 22
land and it's not ag land, it's not commercial land, 23
it's probably potential residential. 24
Do you know if it's zoned that it could be 25 Q
Page 69
developed commercially? 1
I don't think they have zoning there in 2 A
the community. 3
And then the combined lots 10, 11 and 12, 4 Q
314 acres sold to SLI Ventures, is that ag? 5
Probably. It's out in the GAP. There are 6 A
some little ranches out there. Willie has a ranch out 7
there and there may -- I'm trying to think if there 8
are any houses -- there are no houses on any of that 9
land. I'm not sure there could even be houses on the 10
land. So I'm going to maybe call it agricultural, but 11
it's very poor agricultural, it's certainly not 12
commercial, and I don't think it's very residential 13
either. 14
Not worth very much? 15 Q
No. 16 A
How much acreage is left in the GAP that 17 Q
the UEP holds? 18
I don't think any. 19 A
And then lot 19, .3 acres, $2,000 to 20 Q
Willie Jessop. Is that residential? 21
Commercial. 22 A
And so .3 acre of commercial land in 23 Q
Hildale -- 24
That particular is in Colorado City. 25 A
Page 70
Oh, that's -- okay. I see -- you're 1 Q
right. And lot 20 -- 2
Is Colorado City. 3 A
And is that commercial or residential? 4 Q
I don't recall the location of that 5 A
particular property. 6
Lot 23? 7 Q
That would be residential. 8 A
So on lot 404-21-502 for $50,000 to Willie 9 Q
Jessop it says the "Colorado City impound yard; 10
parking with minimal improvements." 11
Oh, okay. If it's the impound yard then 12 A
that would be commercial. 13
Commercial? 14 Q
And then the lot 27, the 1.31 acres? 15
Residential. 16 A
And then the $45,000 sale to David Stubbs, 17 Q
lot 31? 18
Classify that as commercial. 19 A
The vacant lot on the corner of University 20 Q
and Colvin. 21
Well, there's a paint shed on it. 22 A
Okay. 23 Q
Page 71
You've been handed what's been marked as 2 Q
Exhibit 21. I probably should have started with this. 3
I apologize. So Exhibit A shows the auction results, 4
correct? 5
Yes. 6 A
And so it shows the high bid that was made 7 Q
on each parcel, is that correct? 8
Yes. 9 A
And then what the assessed value was? 10 Q
Yes. 11 A
And the assessed value came from the tax 12 Q
value? 13
That's the assessor's value from the 14 A
county. 15
Okay. And then the next line we show the 16 Q
percent of the assessed value -- 17
Percent of the bid as compared to the 18 A
assessed value. 19
Right. And then the appraised value, how 20 Q
was that arrived at? 21
Morley and McConkie prepared appraisals 22 A
for various properties. 23
And then the next line shows what the 24 Q
percentage of the appraised value was? 25
Page 72
Compared to the bid. 1 A
Okay. And then the line items that say 2 Q
not applicable, it means that there was no appraisal 3
done on that property, is that correct? 4
Yes. 5 A
And then it states whether or not you 6 Q
recommended the auction sale, is that correct? 7
Yes. 8 A
And did you find this to be fairly 9 Q
reflective of what people are willing to pay for 10
property out in the Creek? 11
Well, when you say -- that's an ambiguous 12 A
question. "Fairly reflective." I don't know what you 13
mean. 14
Well, Judge Lindberg gave you discretion 15 Q
to accept an offer of 70 percent or above, is that 16
correct? 17
Yes. 18 A
And is that -- how was that magic number 19 Q
of 70 percent arrived at? 20
Ask Judge Lindberg. 21 A
Is that something you recommended? 22 Q
No. 23 A
So is it fair to say that you don't have a 24 Q
true and accurate estimate of the value of UEP 25
Page 73
property apart from the assessed value in the Creek? 1
Well, I have appraisals on some of the 2 A
property that are different than the assessed value. 3
And the auction showed values ranging from -- I mean, 4
there's -- on parcel number 2 it's 258 percent of 5
appraised value, 187 percent on 1C, 130 percent on 6
another one, 97 percent, 97 percent, 62 percent, 57, 7
67, 72. I mean, Counselor, they ranged all over the 8
board. So I don't know that I could say that there's 9
an absolute percentage or what that number would be 10
other than, you know, we have an assessor's value and 11
the range of bids from independent third parties 12
ranged from very small to several times or a couple of 13
times what the assessed value was. 14
Of the commercial property that's located 15 Q
in Colorado City that's owned by the UEP, are you 16
trying to sell that? 17
The only property I was trying to sell is 18 A
property that had an independent parcel because 19
otherwise property would have to be subdivided in 20
Colorado City in order to sell it, and I'm not able to 21
subdivide in Colorado City. So the short answer is 22
no, I'm not trying to sell anything other than what 23
was listed in the auction. There are a couple of 24
ag -- there are several -- there are two or three ag 25
Page 74
pieces that were listed that we pulled off because of 1
water issues, but in terms of commercial properties, 2
no. 3
Exhibit 22. And I will admit that it's a very poor 8
quality map of Hildale and Colorado City. Can you 9
tell me what color would designate the commercial 10
properties? 11
UEP -- no. There is no color that I can 12 A
tell. The UEP owns yellow and the poor quality map 13
was furnished -- that's the map that I had and I gave 14
it to you, and I could not read the legends. I know 15
that the purple is not UEP property. I know the 16
yellow is and I can't differentiate -- I think some of 17
the other colors are independently owned properties 18
that have no designation between commercial, 19
residential or ag. 20
My recollection of this map in a blown up 21
version that's somewhere, is that the yellow was UEP 22
property and the other colors represented other 23
ownership. There was no designation between 24
commercial or residential. 25
Page 75
MR. MORTENSEN: All right. I understand 1
our tape is almost out so why don't we take a 2
five-minute break and reconvene. 3
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 4
MR. SHIELDS: Alan, let me just make a 5
statement. I'm going to hold you to the 12 o'clock 6
hour because I have an appointment, and I think you 7
wasted about an hour and 15 minutes on irrelevant 8
stuff. So I'm just telling you I want to be finished 9
by noon. 10
Okay. Exhibit -- sir, would you look at 12 Q
Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18. On page 3 of Exhibit 17 13
under the 1B it lists HD-03-29-220 for $228,000 to 14
Richard Holm, 152 acres. Do you see where I'm 15
referring to? 16
Yes. 17 A
On Exhibit 18, if you look at that same 18 Q
parcel it says that it is 160 acres there in the 19
middle of the page. Do you see where I'm referring 20
to? 21
Yes. 22 A
Do you know why there's a discrepancy 23 Q
between the 160 and the 152 acres? 24
Yes. 25 A
Page 76
And what's the discrepancy? 1 Q
It was subdivided and the -- when it 2 A
was -- when it was assessed and -- by the county, it 3
was assessed as one parcel. Subsequent to putting it 4
into the auction the property was approved for 5
subdivision, and when that subdivision is done on that 6
property, eight acres of that is streets and you can't 7
sell streets. And so any of the discrepancies where 8
the actual property is -- in terms of acreage is a 9
little less than what we have on the -- say on 18, it 10
would be because the property's been subdivided and 11
the difference is in streets. 12
Okay. So that would hold true for 13 Q
subsection C where HD-03-28-330 -- where it says 14
30 acres, and then on Exhibit 18 it says 40 acres? 15
The additional ten acres would be streets? 16
Yes. 17 A
Okay. And that would hold true for any 18 Q
other discrepancies? 19
On acreage, yes. 20 A
On acreage. All right. 21 Q
Now, Judge Kelly has indicated that he 22
would like -- or he wants us to brief him on a bond 23
in -- pending interlocutory appeal. As the fiduciary 24
do you prefer a monetary bond or would you prefer a 25
Page 77
property bond? 1
A property bond. 2 A
Isn't it true -- do you have Exhibit 16 in 3 Q
front of you? 4
Okay. 5 A
Exhibit B, the UEP Trust vendor balance 6 Q
summary on -- it's the last page. 7
Okay. 8 A
There it lists a vendor balance of 9 Q
$5,596,896. Do you see where I'm referring to? 10
Yes. 11 A
Do you know what the current vendor 12 Q
balance is for the UEP Trust? 13
Yes. I believe we submitted that to you. 14 A
What is it? 15 Q
I don't have that document in front of me. 16 A
I can't give you the number. 17
All right. You've been able -- 18 Q
Look at the interrogatories. It was 19 A
attached as an exhibit. I believe it was 2 million 20
some odd. 21
2 million -- so the -- your outstanding 22 Q
vendor fees right now are a little bit over 23
$2 million? 24
You know, I think we ought to look at the 25 A
Page 78
interrogatory, get the right number. 1
MR. SHIELDS: It's Exhibit 1. 2
THE WITNESS: Exhibit 1, page 4. 3
MR. SHIELDS: And 5. 4
So Exhibit 1, page 4 where it lists 6 Q
$2,408,000, is that correct? 7
That's the attorney fees. Fiduciary is 8 A
487 on the next page. 9
And the sale of properties that occurred 10 Q
in the last month that was just approved by Judge 11
Lindberg, the proceeds are going to be used to pay 12
some of these outstanding fees and costs, is that 13
correct? 14
Yes. 15 A
But there's still going to be a 16 Q
significant outstanding fee and balance, is there not, 17
after payment from -- 18
Still be between 1 and 2 million. 19 A
And is it your intent to sell additional 20 Q
commercial properties to pay the outstanding fees and 21
costs? 22
I think there are some agricultural 23 A
properties that can be sold. 24
That would cover that -- the outstanding 25 Q
Page 79
fees and costs of the Trust? 1
Would put a dent in it. 2 A
How much of a dent? 3 Q
I suspect maybe somewhere between 700 and 4 A
a million two. 5
If all of the commercial -- 6 Q
Could be derived from the sale of 7 A
agricultural. 8
If all of the commercial -- if all of the 9 Q
commercial property and agricultural property were 10
sold in Hildale and Colorado City, that still would 11
not cover the outstanding fees and costs of the Trust, 12
would it? 13
Oh, absolutely. There's -- in Colorado 14 A
City there's millions of dollars of commercial 15
property. 16
And it's all -- millions of dollars -- 17 Q
It hasn't been subdivided. 18 A
Right. 19 Q
So I can't sell it. 20 A
Millions of dollars of commercial 21 Q
property? 22
Yes. And probably a million of 23 A
agricultural, give or take. 750 to a million and a 24
half of agricultural probably. 25
Page 80
If you sold all of the ag and all of the 1 Q
commercial on the Utah side of the creek, you would 2
not be able to pay any of the outstanding -- you would 3
not be able to pay all of the outstanding fees and 4
costs of the UEP Trust, correct? 5
It would be close. I don't think I would 6 A
be able to in Utah, no. 7
So if you were required to obtain payment 8 Q
from the Utah side, you would have to start selling 9
residential property, correct? 10
Not necessarily. 11 A
What would you do so you wouldn't have to? 12 Q
Pardon? 13 A
What would you do so you wouldn't have to 14 Q
sell residential property? 15
Water rights. 16 A
Turning to Exhibit 1, in answer to 17 Q
interrogatory number 3 it says that the Trust owns 18
approximately 2290 -- 2290 shares of water rights at 19
$6,000 per share. How much of those water rights are 20
in Utah? 21
They -- the interrogatory question is, 22 A
"State the net worth of the water rights or interests 23
received by the UEP from Willie Jessop." So that's 24
only a portion of the water rights. 25
Page 81
Okay. In response to some discovery -- 1 Q
our discovery requests MJ 011663 and 011665 it lists 2
the Arizona water rights at $5.5 million, a little bit 3
over it -- it looks like there's 6,000 shares -- and 4
the Utah water rights at about 17,203,812. Is that 5
accurate? 6
Yes. But that's not 6,000 shares I don't 7 A
believe. That's $6,000 value per share. 8
Okay. And the shares, are they listed 9 Q
here in this far column? 10
MR. SHIELDS: What are you looking to? 11
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what you're 12
reading at. 13
MR. SHIELDS: Is that an exhibit? 14
MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I'll mark it as an 15
exhibit. Is this -- 16
THE WITNESS: So what's your question? 17
Where are the shares shown? 19 Q
The shares are shown right here. 20 A
Okay. So it's the second column? 21 Q
Yes. 22 A
All right. Let's mark that as 23. 23 Q
Page 82
MR. SHIELDS: Have you got a copy of 23? 1
If you were asked by Judge Kelly to issue 3 Q
a $10 million property bond on the UEP Trust how would 4
you do that? 5
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Speculation. 6
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not exactly sure 7
how a property bond works. You put up a certain 8
amount of property as a lien then? Is that what 9
you're saying? 10
Property that you have to -- you can't do 12 Q
anything with until -- 13
That you can't sell? 14 A
Right. 15 Q
I would do the water rights. 16 A
If you took -- would there be enough 17 Q
commercial property to put up a $10 million property 18
bond? 19
Yeah, but that's a lot more complicated in 20 A
the sense that in order to establish values, the Trust 21
would have to go and have all kinds of appraisal work 22
done. We could maybe use assessed value. We would 23
certainly be able to do that. 24
What about -- have you appraised the water 25 Q
Page 83
right values? 1
Just informally. 2 A
How do you know what they're worth? 3 Q
A water engineer. 4 A
Exhibit 24. This was provided to us as part of the 9
discovery responses. It's a map of Colorado City. 10
Does this show what properties would be owned by the 11
UEP Trust? 12
No. I think the next schedules of that -- 13 A
this was sort of an overview, and then I think that 14
there's some maps underneath that -- in the 15
interrogatories that have yellow designations 16
indicating Colorado City property that's owned by the 17
UEP Trust. They may be where your left hand is right 18
there. 19
Okay. 20 Q
So this was just kind of an overview and 21 A
then those are specific maps. 22
Page 84
So 25 would be the specific map of 1 Q
Colorado? 2
MR. SHIELDS: Excuse me, do you have a 3
copy of Exhibit 25? 4
Here you go. I'm sorry. Exhibit 25 would 6 Q
be the map of Colorado City -- 7
Yeah, that would be part of the map. And 8 A
I think there are two -- aren't there not -- are 9
there -- is there not another map, colored map, or 10
not? 11
If there is I didn't pick it up. 12 Q
Well, maybe -- this is fairly complete, 13 A
yeah. Okay. So this -- that's just an overview. 14
This is the map then that designates with yellow which 15
is UEP property. 16
And is there any designation on here that 17 Q
would show what commercial property there is? 18
No. 19 A
And does this map reflect the property 20 Q
that was sold at the recent auction? 21
The property sold at auction has not been 22 A
removed from any of the schedules that I've given you. 23
Okay. So could I go using this number on 24 Q
Exhibit 25 and match it up with Exhibit 17 to find out 25
Page 85
which properties were sold at the auction? 1
It would be difficult because -- I mean, 2 A
the theory is there, but I don't think you can read 3
the numbers from this map. 4
Do you have a better copy of this map? 5 Q
No. 6 A
Okay. 7 Q
You might be able to read some of the 8 A
numbers. Some of the individual lots that I know, for 9
example, I can see they're not even listed on this map 10
as far as their parcel number. 11
Okay. Is there a more complete map 12 Q
somewhere? 13
I've given you what I have. There may be 14 A
in the engineer's offices or someplace some large 15
maps, but I'm not aware of any that have parcel 16
designations down to the individual lots that we're 17
talking about. The single lots for 8500 that were 18
sold for 8500 or sold for 10,000 or whatever. Those 19
are -- I believe are right there and, you know, 20
they're just too small to have the parcel designation 21
typed in. 22
Okay. 23 Q
I don't have anything. And you keep going 24 A
back to commercial and, no, we don't have anything 25
Page 86
anywhere that breaks out commercial from residential. 1
Exhibit 26. And it's a verdict form that I took off 6
the PACER court filing system from -- sorry -- from 7
the Cooke v. Town of Colorado City case. You were 8
actually listed as a potential witness in that case. 9
Did you testify at all? 10
No. 11 A
You're aware of this verdict? 12 Q
I'm not aware of what it finally settled 13 A
for. I'm aware of the general verdict and I 14
understand there's been a settlement discussion since 15
that's confidential. 16
You're aware of the amount of this 17 Q
verdict? 18
5.2 million in total. 19 A
And it was for discrimination by the 20 Q
cities of Colorado City and Hildale in providing 21
services to the Cookes, is that correct? 22
It's my understanding. 23 A
Page 87
Exhibit 27 and I would ask you, are you aware of a 3
judgment Willie Jessop and his company obtained 4
against the Twin City Improvement Association, Warren 5
Jeffs, and Lyle Jeffs for $26 million? 6
Well, I've heard of a judgment. I thought 7 A
it was even larger than that. 8
So you're aware of this? 9 Q
In a informal way. 10 A
Have you done any research on any type 11 Q
of -- and I don't want you to tell me what your 12
attorneys have told you. I just want to know if you 13
have done any independent research on verdicts in 14
clergy sexual abuse cases? 15
No. 16 A
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Has nothing to 17
do with the bond. 18
THE WITNESS: No. 19
MR. MORTENSEN: Sure it does. 20
MR. SHIELDS: I take it back. I withdraw. 21
You're right. Withdraw the objection. 22
MR. MORTENSEN: Mark that as 28. 23
Page 88
Deposition Exhibit 28. And I just want to -- I think 3
I know the answer, but you're not aware of this 4
verdict, are you? 5
No. 6 A
Now, are you aware that Billy Walker took 7 Q
Willie Jessop's deposition in the case of -- in the 8
Cooke case? 9
Yes. 10 A
Have you seen a copy of that deposition? 11 Q
I'm not sure. I've read a deposition of 12 A
Willie and I don't remember whether that -- I probably 13
have. Yeah, I probably have. I've read a -- I know 14
he's had several depositions but I believe that was 15
the one that I've read. 16
And do you know if he was friendly towards 17 Q
the Cookes or against the Cookes in that case? 18
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Ambiguous. 19
MR. MORTENSEN: To the best you know. 20
THE WITNESS: I think it went kind of both 21
ways in terms of his deposition, but he ended up being 22
more favorable than not. 23
To the Cookes? 25 Q
Page 89
To the Cookes. 1 A
And you were -- from a personal standpoint 2 Q
and as the fiduciary you were hopeful that the Cookes 3
would prevail to help assert some law and order in 4
that town, correct? 5
Yes. 6 A
MR. SHIELDS: Counsel, I'm showing about 9
two minutes to 12. 10
MR. MORTENSEN: I'm finishing up here. 11
MR. SHIELDS: Okay. 12
Exhibit 29. And it's a pleading that, again, I pulled 15
from the Cooke case that your attorney is involved 16
with. And are you aware that there's been some -- I 17
want to make sure I get this right -- that Helaman 18
Barlow has admitted to lying under oath? 19
Yes. 20 A
And is that part of the problem that you 21 Q
have trying to -- trying to administer the Trust is 22
that law enforcement officials are willing to lie 23
under oath to do what it takes to protect the FLDS 24
Church? 25
Page 90
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Relevance. 1
THE WITNESS: That's a small part of the 2
problem. Their actions against the Trust are probably 3
more important. Their testimony hasn't been as 4
critical as their actions and their lack of actions 5
against the Trust. 6
Just in conclusion, have you considered 8 Q
selling any of the beneficiaries' homes to pay your 9
legal fees and your bills? 10
Selling beneficiaries' homes to whom? To 11 A
the beneficiaries? In other words, distributing 12
houses to beneficiaries? 13
In auction? 14 Q
No. 15 A
You haven't considered putting the 16 Q
houses -- any of the residential properties up for 17
sale for the -- for purchase by the highest offer? 18
No. 19 A
Do you have any plans to do that? 20 Q
No. 21 A
And if the Trust were to continue to sell 22 Q
the ag and commercial properties and the water and 23
divest itself of ownership of those, the only thing 24
left in the UEP Trust would be residential properties, 25
Page 91
correct? 1
Well, if all of the commercial, all of the 2 A
ag, all of the water were sold, that only leaves 3
residential. There are only four classes of assets, 4
Counselor, and if you sell all three, that remains -- 5
residential is what remains. 6
Have you told any of the beneficiaries 7 Q
that Elissa Wall -- if she obtains judgment in this 8
case that they'll be forced to sell their home to 9
satisfy it? 10
I haven't said that. Counselor made the 11 A
comment in court about 30 to 40 million, and I don't 12
think there's 30 to 40 million of nonresidential, and 13
so, yeah, it could be -- the residential could be at 14
risk if you're talking about 30 to 40 million. 15
And you've told both the press and the 16 Q
beneficiaries the 30 to 40 million number that was 17
mentioned in court, correct? 18
I haven't talked -- I don't know that I've 19 A
talked to the press. In a town meeting that came up, 20
yeah. 21
And did you tell them that that was not in 22 Q
discussing the value of the judgment but in discussing 23
what a prejudgment writ would be to protect Elissa in 24
the event -- to make sure that there were sufficient 25
Page 92
assets if she went to trial? 1
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Compound 2
question and ambiguous. 3
THE WITNESS: Well, first of all, in the 4
town meeting Jeff -- Zach Shields was present, he's 5
the one that discussed the case. So when you say me, 6
me through my agent maybe, Zach, and I don't know 7
whether he used the term prejudgment or anything. But 8
I -- I did not discuss other than peripherally, and 9
Zach was there primarily to discuss the MJ case. 10
And Zach is an attorney? 12 Q
Yeah. He's Jeff -- yeah. 13 A
And he's the one that told the 14 Q
beneficiaries that they could lose their homes if MJ 15
obtains a judgment? 16
MR. SHIELDS: Objection. Mischaracterizes 17
testimony. 18
THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know that 19
he said that. I don't recall him saying that. He 20
just -- he discussed the case. 21
Did he -- in the meeting on August 9th do 23 Q
you plan to tell the beneficiaries that they could 24
lose their homes if Elissa obtains a large judgment? 25
Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 97
C E R T I F I C A T E 1
STATE OF UTAH ) 2
COUNTY OF _________ ) 3
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have read the 5
foregoing testimony and the same is a true and correct 6
transcription of said testimony with the exception of 7
the following corrections listed below giving my 8
reasons therefor. 9
10
11
12
_____________________________ 13
BRUCE R. WISAN 14
15
Subscribed and sworn to at __________________, 16
17
this ____________ day of _________________, 2014. 18
19
_________________________________ 20
NOTARY PUBLIC 21
My commission expires:
22
_______________________
23
24
25
Page 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 99
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF UTAH )
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the deposition of
BRUCE R. WISAN was taken before me, AMBER PARK, a
Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of
Utah.
That the said witness was by me, before
examination, duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth in said cause.
That the testimony was reported by me in
Stenotype and thereafter transcribed by computer under
my supervision, and that a full, true, and correct
transcription is set forth in the foregoing pages.
I further certify that I am not of kin or
otherwise associated with any of the parties to said
cause of action, and that I am not interested in the
event thereof.
WITNESS MY HAND on August 1, 2014.
EXHIBIT
E
EXHIBIT
F
EXHIBIT
G
EXHIBIT
H
EXHIBIT
I
EXHIBIT
J
EXHIBIT
K
Page 1
Status Conference 6/13/2014
801-983-2180
Page 1
801-983-2180
IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE DEPARTMENT
OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
__________________________
)
IN THE MATTER OF )
THE UNITED EFFORT PLAN TRUST, )
TRUSTEES I THROUGH IX )
)
)
(Dated November 9, 1942, )
Amended April 10, 1946, and ) Case No. 053900848
Amended and Reinstated on )
November 3, 1998) and its, )
TRUSTEES including known )
trustees TRUMAN BARLOW, WARREN)
JEFFS, LEROY JEFFS, WINSTON )
BLACKMORE, JAMES ZITTING, AND )
WILLIAM E. JESSOP a/k/a )
WILLIAM E. TIMPSON and DOE )
_________________________
Status Conference
Electronically Recorded on
June 13, 2014
BEFORE: HONORABLE DENISE LINDBERG
Third District Court Judge
Page 7
801-983-2180
Page 7
801-983-2180
1 THE COURT: I held off on acting on those orders
2 until we had the opportunity for the hearing.
3 MR. SHIELDS: Thank you. The second item on my list
4 is the settlement with Willie Jessop.
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 MR. SHIELDS: His counsels here. Hes also here in
7 court.
8 THE COURT: Right.
9 MR. SHIELDS: Let me provide the Court with a little
10 background. And Im going to spill over into an update on the
11 MJ case because they are very related.
12 As you know, Willie Jessop, in years past, has not
13 been that friendly to the trust and we havent been that
14 friendly to him. In fact, we attribute a lot of the expense
15 the trust has incurred to a group that he was associated with
16 that caused (inaudible) litigation.
17 However, recently Mr. Jessop was kicked out or he
18 left. I dont know all the circumstances. He came to the
19 trust with some new information that was incredibly valuable.
20 Hes done a lot of things for the trust recently that has
21 helped us. For example, in the MJ case, counsel for the
22 plaintiff recently announced in a hearing that they were asking
23 for $30 to $40 million against the trust for the claims in that
24 lawsuit. Mr. Jessop was able to alert us to an agreement that
25 was signed by the plaintiff, MJ, and the alleged rapist Allen
Page 8
801-983-2180
Page 8
801-983-2180
1 Steed that was confidential; had never been disclosed before.
2 And it had--we believe it was a crime. We think it has to do
3 with witness tampering, bribery, extortion.
4 The bottom line is that Allen Steed agreed to not say
5 anything adverse to MJs story or anything that would help the
6 trust. In return, she agreed to not oppose him getting a very
7 light sentence in the criminal case pending in the Fifth
8 District Court down in St. George. That agreement was signed
9 the very same day as the plea was entered. And no one
10 disclosed that agreement to the court. When the prosecutor
11 and--we didnt even know about it until Mr. Jessop came and
12 said ask for that agreement. What agreement? Well, there was
13 an agreement. He knew about it because he was helping to work
14 on the other end of that agreement. He was involved in
15 representing Allen Steed in the FLDS interest at that time.
16 So we asked for the agreement and low and behold
17 there is an agreement. Based on that agreement, weve been
18 able to make incredible strides in that case. We filed a
19 motion to dismiss the MJ case. The court denied the motion to
20 dismiss, but he said this is sanctionable. He struck the
21 trial. Hes allow us to do open discovery, and discovery
22 closed on March 31st. Hes allowed discovery to be open and
23 were able to inquire everything about that.
24 We believe that it was kind of a set up. Because MJ
25 had never sued the rapist. She never sued Allen Steed. We
Page 38
801-983-2180
Page 38
801-983-2180
1 not right.
2 THE COURT: Well, youre bumping up against First
3 Amendment issues.
4 MR. SHIELDS: Yeah.
5 THE COURT: If youre focusing on church leaders.
6 MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. And your argument is made about
7 church leaders--
8 THE COURT: I really dont think it would be the
9 attorney generals position that we--
10 MR. REYES: Its not, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: --focus on--take a position that would
12 violate the First Amendment.
13 MR. REYES: Its not our position.
14 MR. SHIELDS: But what I was told were not going
15 after church leaders, were going after city leaders. It just
16 happens to be the city leaders. So, you know, thats an
17 argument. (Inaudible). We just dont want to be accused,
18 rightfully or wrongfully, of trying to (inaudible). Tax
19 parcel--when you have unpaid taxes on a parcel you have caused
20 an independent who lives there to go evict the people there
21 that arent paying. At the same time, you have the right to go
22 evict people who arent paying the minimal occupancy. If you
23 get a hundred dollars per month per house.
24 That was our plan of attack. We havent done it. It
25 was rumored falsely that we were starting an eviction. I got a
EXHIBIT
L
1
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
-ooOoo-
M.J.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO. 070916524
DEPOSITION OF:
WILLIE JESSOP
TAKEN: APRIL 7, 2014
REPORTED BY:
CARILEE DUSTIN, CSR, RPR
JUDGE KEITH KELLY
-ooOoo-
Deposition of WILLIE JESSOP, taken on behalf
of the Plaintiffs, at 36 South State Street, Suite
2400, Salt Lake City, Utah, before CARILEE DUSTIN,
Certified Court Reporter for the State of Utah,
pursuant to Notice.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:20
09:20
09:20
09:21
09:21
CARILEE DUSTIN * CSR, RPR
Deposition of Willie Jessop
REPORTERS, INC. (801) 746-5080
13
Q. Did every member of the church receive this
binder?
A. No.
Q. So I'm coming back to the question, if I
might, why specifically you, were you in the loop, sir?
A. I was doing a lot of legal coordinating for
the church at that time.
Q. Did you have an official title in '08?
A. I was referred to as a legal coordinator
and a spokesman.
Q. Legal coordinator and spokesman. Do you
have any legal training, sir?
A. Not per se.
Q. Okay. When did you take on the role as
legal coordinator and spokesman for the FLDS Church,
sir?
A. I don't recall the year. They had a
gentleman that used to do it for the church by the name
of Sam Barlow, and when he was expelled from the
church, then the church approached me in filling that
role and coordinating legal defenses for members of the
church and for the church.
Q. Okay. Do you -- I'm not going to hold you
exactly to a date, and I understand in terms of time.
Can you give me anything? You said that you got this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:31
09:32
09:32
09:32
09:33
23
personally somewhat in the interactions with his
father.
Q. Okay. After he came in 2000, can you take
me through your associations that you had with him? I
know it -- according to -- we're going to get to one of
your affidavits or something about you being in his
security, so I'd like to get a feel for when you
started any associations with him and what were they
through the years, please.
A. So can you narrow your question down on
what you want?
Q. Yeah. Let's say he got here in about 2000.
When did you first have any kind of association with
him where you were either working for him or working
with him on anything?
A. I was already heavily involved in church
security before he ever moved from Sandy.
Q. Okay. And when -- let's take it that way,
then. You call it "church security." When did you
start with -- in the role of church security, please?
A. I believe it was around -- it was somewhere
in the late -- in the '80s. I was asked by what was
known as the city marshal, where there had been a
threat on the life of Leroy Johnson by a fraction out
of Mexico or Texas against Roy Johnson, and they came
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:33
09:33
09:33
09:34
09:34
24
and recruited me -- I had been working and living in
Bryce Canyon, and I had just came down to go to high
school when they came and approached me to be part of a
team of security for then prophet Leroy Johnson.
Q. And you were in high school at that time?
A. I was -- I remember I had to go get a
waiver from my dad. He's the one that came and talked
to me about it, with the marshals, and he had signed a
waiver allowing me to carry weapons for the security at
that time.
Q. Okay. And then did you just keep on
working in church security after that?
A. Pretty much never really got out of it.
Q. Did you kind of rise through the ranks, so
to speak, different roles?
A. No. When Uncle Roy passed away, then Rulon
Jeffs was living in Salt Lake, and there really wasn't
a need for security, like what we had for Roy Johnson,
where he was living up here and I was living down
there, and then right out of high school I went to the
Bay Area and then was asked by church leaders to come
back.
And one of the assign -- or one of the
requests they had was Rulon was spending more time in
the community, and there had been some problems, some
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:36
09:36
09:36
09:37
09:37
26
Q. At any point were you part of the security
of Warren Jeffs?
A. Yes.
Q. When did that begin?
A. Basically, at the stroke of his father.
Q. And when did it end, if it did?
A. His father died on a Sunday, in St. George.
Monday, there was a meeting held with all of Rulon's
security, and at that point I was asked to take over
the security for Fred Jessop, who was somewhat acting
as the prophet. And then there was a little bit of a
split between Fred and Warren, so I was basically
transferred to be the security for Uncle Fred.
Q. After being security for Fred Jessop, did
you ever go back as security for Warren?
A. Generally, yes, but --
Q. And when would that have been, sir?
A. I was somewhat involved in the security of
the church clear to -- in the day-to-day ops of it
clear to about the first or second week of February
2011.
Q. Okay. And what happened in the second week
of February 2011 to stop you being in the day-to-day
ops of the security of the church?
A. Basically, I told the church first
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:03
173
that, but it's just an opinion.
MR. WOREL: Okay. That's all I've got.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. Mr. Jessop, I'm John Hansen. We've met a
couple of times, but you understand we represent the
UEP Trust in this litigation?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, you have appeared here today in
response to the subpoena that was issued by the court
at the request of Elissa Wall's counsel, you understand
that, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you understand that this case involves
claims by Elissa Wall against Warren Jeffs and the FLDS
Church and the UEP Trust and others?
A. That's as I understand it.
Q. Do you have any agreements with any of the
parties in this case regarding your testimony or your
participation as a witness in this case?
A. No. I have an agreement to help defend the
trust as an ethical agreement to all.
Q. Well, do you have an agreement with Allen
Steed regarding this case?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13:03
13:03
13:03
13:03
13:04
174
A. The only thing I ever had with Allen was my
ability to try to give him fair representation for the
charges he faced. And we walked that through from be
in charge to the case ultimately I think being
dismissed.
Q. Well, I guess my question is, do you have
any agreement --
A. No.
Q. -- with him --
A. No. No.
Q. -- relating to this lawsuit --
A. No, there's not.
Q. -- involving Elissa Wall?
A. There is none.
Q. What about any agreement with Warren Jeffs
that would relate to this lawsuit?
A. I think it would be very unfair to say that
I didn't fiercely defend Warren Jeffs against this
lawsuit when it started, and I put together a
tremendous amount of money and effort to try to defend
the church and its risk, you know, and what it -- and
what the state was alleging.
Q. Well, I guess I'm saying, as far as you
appearing here today and your involvement in this case
at trial or going forward, do you have any agreement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:23
189
prosecutors and county attorneys?
A. Trying to get federal people involved. We
were working on that.
Q. Just so I'm clear, the reason why you were
involved was because of your position with the FLDS
Church, right, as opposed to -- you're not an attorney,
right?
A. No, and -- no. Allen asked me for help,
and I felt like -- I felt like he was simple enough in
his life and his demeanor that without somebody going
the extra mile, he was going to -- he was going to get
a bad wrap for things that I felt like was morally
dishonest in a representation of events that had taken
place. Elissa Wall had had the star of a lot of TV and
books and a lot of stuff demonizing him without -- I
call it the "Paul Harvey rest of the story" having an
opportunity to be put out.
MR. WOREL: Move to strike, unresponsive.
Q. (BY MR. HANSEN) Were you involved in the
written agreement -- any agreements that were put
together between Elissa Wall and Allen Steed?
A. I would have to say yes. I don't recall
there anything going on with that case that I didn't --
that I wasn't involved in. I don't recall -- I don't
recall there ever not being -- not being involved in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13:25
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
191
Bradshaw -- well, who --
A. In coordination with Allen.
Q. You were paying or collecting money to pay
Jim Bradshaw for his defense, right?
A. I was involved in trying to raise money to
get Allen a defense. I didn't believe he had one, and
I didn't believe that the church truly had an incentive
to protect him.
Q. So were you the one that actually collected
the money and then made payment to Attorney Bradshaw,
or how were payments made to Bradshaw?
A. There again, without my computers, I don't
know.
Q. What's your recollection?
A. I know that I wrote out a bunch of checks
personally to help -- to help Allen, and how all those
went down, whether I made them to a fund or directly to
that, I would need to see those, and I don't -- until I
get my computers back or a way to get them back, I'm
not sure.
Q. Okay. You personally contributed, though,
to pay for Allen Steed's legal defense?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that correct?
Okay. And you say that --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13:50
13:50
13:51
13:51
13:51
194
Elissa Wall and Allen Steed; is that right?
A. Yeah. Ironically, I think this was one of
the very last issues ever happened, because this
agreement was -- as I recall, a copy of this agreement
was on my desk, because the raid at the office happened
within a day or two of this being signed.
Q. And I notice the date is February 18th, so
this is right around the time?
A. Yeah. This was a current document that I
was physically in the process of reviewing.
Q. Okay. How would it have been that you were
receiving this document, or what was your involvement
with this document? Were you working with Jim Bradshaw
or Elissa --
A. Jim and Allen.
Q. Pardon?
A. Jim and Allen.
Q. Were you also working with Elissa Wall or
her attorneys, Roger Hoole?
A. At that time, I don't recall. I thought
there was kind of an amicable way to just settle it
with it going on at that time, but as far as working
directly with Roger at that time, I don't think so.
Q. So your obtaining of a copy of this
agreement, Exhibit 8, that would have been through
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:41
223
Proceedings." It says, "Once Steed's claims against
Wall have been dismissed from the civil action, neither
Steed nor his counsel will participate in the civil
action in a manner that is confrontational or
adversarial in regards to Wall or her legal interests,
nor assist the trust in any way in defending itself
against Wall's claims." And then it talks later about
not participating in any depositions against Wall.
Do you remember that being part of the
agreement that M.J. and Allen Steed entered into?
A. I remember it being a discussion. And
basically the gist of it was, let's let Allen go be
Allen and live his life, and whatever she wants to
pursue, pursue it, but leave us -- leave him alone, and
whatever interests she wants to go do, go do it, but
don't drag him in it, and in exchange Allen won't, you
know, participate or get involved with dragging, you
know -- basically, let's be done.
Q. Well, and it was specifically agreed to
that the parties would agree not to do anything that
might assist the UEP Trust in this litigation, correct?
A. Well, I don't know that it was just as much
that as it was an agreement to just let it be over --
Allen wasn't going to -- just let the case be over.
Q. Also, at the -- on page 1 of the agreement,
EXHIBIT
M
Page 1
Transcript of Hearing 7/1/2014
801-983-2180
Page 1
801-983-2180
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
M.J.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 070916524
vs.
WARREN JEFFS,
Defendant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BEFORE THE HONORABLE KEITH KELLY
JULY 1, 2014
Page 7
801-983-2180
Page 7
801-983-2180
1 So, then, it would appear the Liability Reform Act
2 would apply to that claim, the claim of direct
3 negligence against the employer, but would bar
4 derivative vicarious claims under the Joint Obligations
5 Act.
6 So, question appears to beI mean, youve got, in
7 this case, youve got the guy that married Mr. Steed,
8 that was the person involved in the so-called marriage
9 to the Plaintiff, but according to the State v. Jeffs
10 case, hes 19 years-old and the Plaintiff was how old?
11 Fourteen? Thirteen?
12 MR. MORTENSEN: Fourteen.
13 THE COURT: Fourteen at the time. So, youve got
14 a couple things going on. Youve got her release of
15 the guy who is 19 years-old. Youve got claims that
16 may be vicarious liability claims for Mr. Steed, but
17 there appear to be claims that are direct claims
18 against Mr. Jeffs and the other defendants.
19 So, is the resolution of this fairly straight-
20 forward in principle, although, in practice, it may be
21 difficult, that claims against the other defendants
22 that are based on vicarious liability, based on the
23 actions of Mr. Steed, are dismissed under the Joint
24 Obligations Act, 15-4-4, but claims based upon the
25 conduct of the other defendants, lets say the trustees
Page 8
801-983-2180
Page 8
801-983-2180
1 of the trust, Mr. Jeffsso, to the extent the trust is
2 being held vicariously liable for somebody other than
3 Mr. Steed, that claim would appear to still be there.
4 So, then, the question is just sorting out which
5 claims are strictly vicarious liability claims based
6 upon the action of Mr. Steed, which would be dismissed,
7 which claims are not. I mean, what I hear the
8 Plaintiff saying is were not pursuing vicarious
9 liability claims based on what Mr. Steed did and,
10 ultimately, does that end updo I need to make an order
11 that parses out which claims are vicarious liability
12 claims based on the actions of Mr. Steed and which are
13 not? I mean, those are the kindsor, those will,
14 ultimately, end up being a question for the jury and it
15 seems, to me, we ought to get this thing resolved and
16 get an order in place and, if the Utah Supreme Court
17 wants to review the order, it can be reviewed at the
18 same time as the other matter that it took up on an
19 interlocutory appeal.
20 So, is the law fairly simple in this case, but
21 maybe its a little more complex in terms of the
22 execution of the law? I mean, the disagreement, I
23 think, in the briefing is that the defendant suggests
24 that all of the derivative liability claims are claims
25 based upon the actions of Mr. Steed and the plaintiffs
Page 10
801-983-2180
Page 10
801-983-2180
1 THE COURT: But vicarious liability actions based
2 upon the acts of the trustees? Lets say you take that
3 scenario we talked about. Youve got a guy who is 19
4 years-old. The perpetrator is the 19 year-old who,
5 apparentlyif the evidence is that hes told that he
6 needs to marry his 14 year-old cousin, how do we deal
7 with that?
8 MR. WALKER: Heres the difference, Judge. I
9 think youre, basically, right, but heres the
10 difference. Joint and several liability is abolished
11 in the State of Utah, with one exception, and thats
12 vicarious liability. In order to have vicarious
13 liability, a person has to either be, under Coca-Cola,
14 an employee or an agent.
15 Now, Steed is an agent, clearly, and I know they
16 argue that hes not, but their pleadings are replete
17 from saying that hes under their control and
18 direction, all this sort of thing. So, if you
19 eliminate vicarious liability, based on the actions of
20 Steed, then, what you have left is you have left the
21 cause of action that has to do with negligent hiring,
22 negligent supervision, etc., etc.
23 Thats not vicarious. That is direct liability.
24 So, what you, now, have is, if the Steed counts are
25 out, because Steed is the rapist and Steed is the
Page 11
801-983-2180
Page 11
801-983-2180
1 perpetrator of the marriage, he is the actor that acts
2 on behalf of all of those harms and the only harms that
3 they claim to her are harms that derive from the
4 actions of Steed.
5 The actions of negligent supervision and negligent
6 hiring, those are not vicarious liability claims.
7 Those are claims that they make based on the actions of
8 the trustees, but since joint and several liability is
9 abolished, unless youre an agent or you are an
10 employee, now, what we have is we have the claims
11 dismissed that have to do with vicarious liability of
12 Steed and those can be joint and several liability
13 claims if they had reserved them under the settlement
14 agreement, which they havent done.
15 So, now, what you have is you have liability
16 claims which I agree with Your Honor are not dismissed,
17 negligent supervision, etc., but those arent joint
18 liability claims because there is no joint liability in
19 Utah anymore unless youre an agent or employee. So,
20 now, what you have is you have claims that have to be
21 apportioned.
22 THE COURT: Well, but what about the circumstance?
23 Lets say the facts are that Mr. Jeffs, or other
24 trustees of the trust, tell the 19 year-old and the 14
25 year-old that theyve got to go through with this.
Page 47
801-983-2180
Page 47
801-983-2180
1 not irreparable harm under the case law that weve
2 cited. You retain jurisdiction.
3 I think our client is entitled to go forward and
4 finish discovery, clear her name and go to trial and,
5 if she gets a verdict, then, you stay the judgment
6 pending the outcome.
7 THE COURT: I mean, its not clear to me whyI
8 mean, she entered into the settlement agreement. I
9 dont understand why theres a suggestion she committed
10 criminal misconduct.
11 MR. MORTENSEN: I dont either.
12 THE COURT: I mean, she sued. Shes forced,
13 allegedly, forced into a marriage, but when I was 19
14 years-old, I wouldnt have wanted to marry my cousin.
15 I mean, the point is she may consider Mr. Steed a
16 victim as well. I dont know, but why she would bewhy
17 there would be a question about criminal misconduct is
18 lost to me. I dont understand.
19 Its lost on me, but the Attorney General has
20 intervened into this action to investigate that and
21 thats concerning to me as an advocate for my client.
22 I think she gets to clear her name and we also get to
23 show who else was involved in the settlement agreement.
24 If it was so nefarious, Willie Jessop, who just was
25 given a $400,000 land grant, was the one who drafted
EXHIBIT
N
EXHIBIT
O
EXHIBIT
P
EXHIBIT
Q
EXHIBIT
R
EXHIBIT
S

Elissa Wall's Petition For $15 Million Bond

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elissa Wall's Petition For $15 Million Bond

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

*Pages 39-51 and 94-97 of Exhibit D, the Deposition of Bruce Wisan, as well as the entireties of Exhibits

R & S, have been redaction from this version.

You might also like