Spokesman pleads the Fifth Nonresponsiveness pervades deposition

By Paul A. Anthony San Angelo Standard-Times

In a tense half-day of sworn testimony, the spokesman for the polygamous sect that has a base in Schleicher County tussled with attorneys, trading barbs and invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 100 times. Three days after YFZ Ranch leader Merril Jessop pleaded the Fifth Amendment a jaw-dropping 267 times, William R. "Willie" Jessop did the same Monday to 110 questions, according to a rough draft of the transcript obtained Wednesday by the Standard-Times. Jessop, whose fiery denunciations of the state during its ongoing investigations of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have made him one of the sect's most recognizable figures, refused to answer numerous questions from Denton attorney Natalie Malonis in what the transcript portrays as a volatile proceeding. Jessop has not been indicted or charged in any of the numerous investigations into FLDS activities at the state and federal levels, and he told Malonis that he has no children involved in the case. Jessop could not be reached for comment Thursday. As with the transcript of Jan. 23 deposition of Merril Jessop, the Standard-Times received the Willie Jessop transcript anonymously through e-mail. According to the transcript, Malonis continued her efforts to gather information about the reclusive sect's finances in what she has described as an attempt to provide her 17-year-old client with the opportunity for autonomy once she turns 18 in July. The girl is described in sect documents - including her own diary notations - as having been married just after her 15th birthday to the 36-year-old son of Merril Jessop, who is not closely related to Willie Jessop. The transcript of Monday's proceeding at one point describes a particularly tense exchange between Willie Jessop and Malonis, who have been among the most public and polarizing figures in the case since the sect was raided by investigators in early April. The pair also have a contentious history. Malonis has accused Jessop of coercing her client into asking for the attorney's removal from her case. She won a restraining order compelling the girl's mother to keep the girl away from Jessop. The interview Monday deteriorated as Jessop repeatedly said he did not understand Malonis' question about how he recognized Annette Jeffs, who was in the room and whose daughter is Malonis' client. "Mr. Jessop, do you have a problem understanding conversant English?" Malonis said, followed by, "Are you impaired mentally in any way today?" Malonis confirmed the details of that particular exchange. "He knew exactly what I was asking," Malonis said Thursday. "I asked him (later) if he was in any associations with her, and he refused to answer. That's what he was trying not to say. He didn't want to give any information, incriminating or not." Jessop invoked through his attorney, Kent Schaffer of Houston, the Fifth Amendment protections to a number of questions about his role in negotiations over the United Effort Plan trust. That trust has funded the sect in Utah but has since been taken over by the courts there. He also refused to answer questions about his role as FLDS spokesman, or who gave him the authority to address the media on the sect's behalf. Schaffer cited state investigations that have led to 12 indictments on charges relating to alleged underage marriages and bigamy, as well as a federal investigation into alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization and Mann Acts. RICO, as it is known, is used to target alleged organized crime, while the Mann Act prohibits transporting people across state lines for illegal sexual activity and is used to prosecute mail fraud and wire fraud. Merril Jessop's attorney, Amy Hennington of San Angelo, also cited those aspects of the sealed federal search warrant issued in April in pleading the Fifth for her client Jan. 23, although Schaffer on Monday also listed money laundering as an aspect of the federal investigation. The investigations were launched April 3 with a weeklong joint raid by the state's Child Protective Services agency and the Texas Rangers in what became the nation's largest child-custody case. The proceedings Monday differed somewhat from those in the Merril Jessop deposition Friday, where his attorney, Amy Hennington, pleaded the Fifth on his behalf and Malonis occasionally asked him whether he was following his attorney's advice. On Monday, Malonis, after each Schaffer pleading, asked Willie Jessop whether he was refusing to answer. In nearly every instance, Jessop replied, "Yes, ma'am." Excerpt An excerpt from the Monday deposition of FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop by attorney Natalie Malonis. Jessop is represented by Houston attorney Kent Schaffer. Malonis confirmed the details of this conversation, taken from a rough draft of the transcript obtained by the Standard-Times. Natalie Malonis: OK. Do you recognize the woman in the blue dress at this table? Kent Schaffer: I will confer with my client regarding (whether) he should exercise his privilege in regard to that question. (Discussion off the record.) [...] Willie Jessop: Yes, I do. NM: OK. And how do you recognize her? WJ: By her blue dress. NM: How is it that your recognize her? Where do you know her from? Or is it your testimony that you recognize the blue dress? WJ: What was your question, ma'am? NM: How do you recognize the woman in the blue dress? WJ: Same way I would recognize anyone. [...] NM: Can you answer the question, please? WJ: I recognize the individual. NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question? WJ: I answered your question. NM: OK. How do you know the woman in the blue dress? WJ: The question is vague. I don't know what individual you're looking at. I recognize you in a black dress. I recognize - [...] NM: The woman in the blue dress - there is only one woman in a blue dress at this table - how do you know her? WJ: Are you asking if I know her name or what? NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Can you answer the question, please? WJ: I asked for clarification. NM: Mr. Jessop, how do you know the woman in the blue dress? There is no way to clarify that question. It's clear. WJ: You asking if I know her name? NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Are you refusing to answer the question? WJ: No. NM: Then? WJ: I've answered your question. You won't give me clarification. [...] NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, do you have a problem understanding conversant English? WJ: Well, maybe you could give me some clarification. How do you know Mr. Schaffer? NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Mr. Jessop, are you impaired mentally in any way today? KS: I'm going to object to harassment of the witness. NM: Can you answer the question? I can clarify that further. Have you taken any medications today? WJ. No, I haven't taken medications. NM: Okay. Is there a reason there was such a long pause to answer that question? WJ: Just because of the harassment fact from yourself. NM: Objection: nonresponsive. Did you have trouble recalling whether or not you took medication today? WJ. Ma'am, if anybody needs meds, it's you. [...] NM: OK. Have you had any other mind-altering substances either ingested or imbibed in any way that would affect your cognitive abilities? WJ: This is harassment. KS: Answer the question. WJ: No, I'm not on any meds. NM: OK. Do you have a problem with your memory? WJ: Just harassment. KS: Just answer the question. WJ: No, I don't. NM: OK. I'm going to ask you again: How do you know the woman in the blue dress? WJ: Are you asking her name? What are you wanting to know about her? I recognize her because of the person, (the) same way I would recognize you. NM: Objection: nonresponsive. OK. I'm going to take the nonresponsiveness as a refusal to answer and ask another question.

gosanangelo.com Originally published Friday, January 30, 2009

Back

For more information email: