they can track packages

they can track satellites & other man-made objects in space

they can track ships & airplanes

they can track trucks & cars


They can track where Lori Vallow is, she should have her own Cable Channel, chock full of insider info, defense strategies & surprises.

Put up a Santa-Claus track on the cable channel, who knows how much she'll generate in defense donations, Perhaps enough to bail-out & disappear to some country without U.S. extradition; would Cuba accept her? Sri Lanka? how about Syria? Afghanistan is pretty much patriarchal isn't it?

When they can barcode and/or chip everyone and have facial recognition cameras everywhere, then the government track everyone.

Apparently China tracks almost everyone by these methods now and by tracking your cell phone and internet usage.

tumwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Big Brother is watching us!

> When they can barcode and/or chip everyone and
> have facial recognition cameras everywhere, then
> the government track everyone.

Today, I was in a supermarket which has one of those annoying robots creeping around the aisles--acclimating us to Big Brotherism. I put a shopping bag over its "head" and it stopped. It didn't take two minutes for a supervisor to come up and remove it. She scolded me. I scolded her right back, the little fascist tool.

https://venturebeat.com/2019/01/14/badger-will-deploy-robots-to-nearly-500-giant-martins-and-stop-shop-stores-this-year/
>
> Apparently China tracks almost everyone by these
> methods now and by tracking your cell phone and
> internet usage.

Yes, it's called "Social Credit," and if you go on the wrong websites, don't pay your bills on time, associate with the wrong people (etc. etc. ETC!), you can't buy train or plane tickets, live in decent housing, get your kids into a good school, maybe not even keep your job. Google, Facebook, and the other "Masters of the Universe" are all happily making money helping the Chinese oligarchs advance this. Of course, it could never happen in the West.

Here are China's adorably cute teen superstars telling the world how wonderful it is to participate* in Social Credit:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1920958/Video-Music-video-released-promoting-Chinese-social-credit-system.html

*submit to

A form of social credit has already arrived in the U.S. It's called the "Reputation Score" Type "your name reputation score" into a search, and a site called "mylife.com" will come up. People can do a thumbs up or thumbs down on you to raise or lower your score. Plus it has all kinds of information about you, from your friends and family to sometimes your income.

Out of curiosity I looked at my "reputation score"

Talk about massive misinformation.

Has me in the wrong city.
Has me related to 16 people I never heard of.
Left off all of my siblings but dutifully listed their spouses.

I checked a few family members.

Deceased family members are still listed though acknowledged as deceased.

Criminal/court records were listed for people that couldn't have one. (Deceased at the time of the supposed event) and not listed for one that has a record.

Religous denomination of Christian was listed for TBM members.

I have no idea what you’re going on about. Last I heard, she was in a jail cell in Hawaii, awaiting extradition to Rexburg. They pretty much know her exact location within about 10 feet.

Or has she self-twinkled to Kolob?

I think OP is alluding to "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?"

Lori would be released from prison and then tracked; everyone who wanted to could participate some way in the fun.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2020 07:37PM by lurking in.

U nailed it!

It most likely will be a bit of a secret when they move here but some hyper person with nothing better to do might be a jail-watcher & post that news when they move her.


Yes, this was a take-off on Carmen Sandiego.

I've never been much for reality TV, but I could definitely get on board with a "Where in the World is Lori Vallow?" channel!

So you’re thinking of making a macabre children’s book?

No, those aren’t her kids. That’s Jimmy Hoffa.

Prolly the next thing we'll hear is that she's in the county jail in Madison County, Idaho (unless there's a leak).

So there will be snippets of video of her as she gets early boarding!

If I were her I wouldn’t fake coronavirus too soon. She should save it for a more strategic time.

And how stunning would it be for the jury to find her guilty and then have the kids make video calls to the local press?!

Jesus will have her transferred to Independence Missouri when he comes in July.

any updates?

a phone call is necessary, Madison county doesn't post a list of detainees online.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2020 12:19PM by GNPE.

She has her first Madison County hearing scheduled for Friday morning,

and

Chad has murmured that the kids are fine and soon the truth will out.

Apparently his version of things has the loving couple keeping the kids 'safe' from Charles Vallow's evil sister, the one who got Charles' million dollar insurance death benefit. So I'm guessing the Hawaiian wedding and all the prancing about was to distract everyone from focusing on the kids so that Charles' sister couldn't find them.

It was very brave of Chad & Lori (Chori) to follow this path! Especially knowing that it was distracting them from their TRUE work, preparing for July, and the burning of all the stubble of the field, after all the Wheat is Raptured!

Do U / we know what charges she's facing?
Contempt of court for not appearing when she was ordered to?


I think Ted Bundy was Ex'd before he was convicted of anything, but no one seems to know the details.

I hope someone who posts here will furnish details in a timely manner!!

Find Waldo and you'll find Lori.

Lori does face an almost certain judgment of guilty for ignoring a court order, the one demanding her to explain where her kids were so that the court could be satisfied that they'd been neither abandoned or harmed.

This is a "Hey, we asked you a question and you refused to respond and so now we get to punish you for that refusal!" Even if the kids showed up at the hearing, they could exact a punishment. She cost them a lot of time and money.

If the kids don't show up, that's when the real fun begins!

The court is saying, "We think you owe us an explanation regarding the kids, because we, the state, have an interest in these kids. So either tell us where we can go check on them or face the criminal charges!"

And which way do you think a jury of her peers is going to vote? Legally, the prosecution has to prove that the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the kids are dead! What good does it do for the prosecution to establish that no one knows where they are?

Apparently, she even has a basis for testifying on her own behalf without being subject to reveal where they are, "...because I fear for their wellbeing, based on the actions of their father's sisters activities."



The last time the kids were seen was five months ago. How on earth do you keep a 17-year-old female off of the internet? Granted, Lori was found in possession of the 17-year-old's cell phone, but c'mon, who amongst us wouldn't have found a way back onto the information superhighway?

Yes, at times the restrictions regarding torture and/or 'truth serums' seem a bit too binding...

So far, American jurisprudence has not found any favor with the defense, "I killed them for their own good and they're way better off now."

She could do a "proof of life" like they do for kidnap victims. Have the children hold up a current newspaper or magazine for a video. But she won't do that because the children are long gone.

I'll bet EVERYTHING I own that she takes the Fifth Amendment;
any takers?

As the defendant, she does not even have to take the stand. The court itself defends her right not to have to testify.

In my scenario, she takes the stand and under direct questioning by her attorney, she defends her actions and when he asks her, "are the kids alive?", she says they are. Then he asks, "are the kids safe and prospering?" and again she answers in the affirmative.

She could pull the teeth on the prosecution's questioning by having her attorney ask her, "And where are the kids?", to which she will answer, "Because of the issue of their safety and mental wellbeing, I cannot divulge that information at the present time."

So then her attorney says, "I have no further questions" and the prosecutor leaps from his seat, practically drooling at the thought of how righteous he is going to come across, and HE asks her, "Where are the kids? My office wants to verify that they are okay and I promise we will not disclose their location."

And she's going to say that while he seems wonderful and perfectly trustworthy, she doesn't know about the other people who are going to be involved and she will refuse to answer.

Then the fun begins!

But her best bet is to not take the stand. But then the prosecution will call Chad to the stand. He can take the 5th, or he can say that Lori took care of all that and he doesn't really know where they are. If he sticks to that mantra, absent his fingerprints on some article of clothing found in their graves, he should be fine.

If they find the bodies, things are going to get freaky with those two! Or rather, with those two as they blame Alex Cox, who they will then claim committed suicide, he was so distraught.

Very, very tangled web!

I waiting for less murder, more mormon!



It's going to be fascinating!



ETA: I want Cheech Marin to play me in the movie!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2020 07:25PM by elderolddog.

I believe that (according to ? court rules) if the prosecutor calls her, she must take the stand & be sworn in; in my scenario, she might be held in contempt if she refuses to be sworn in.

Nope. She doesn't need to take the stand in her own criminal trial. Prosecutor can't force her, judge can't force her; and no one can even ask the jury to draw inferences from that refusal.

I don't believe this is a trial.

Then there would be no reason for her to take the stand.

Judges have lots of discretion as to how to proceed.

I know *NOTHING* about court rules in Idaho, but I'm pretty sure the judge will try to get all the salient facts out in the open.

Judge most likely can say (something like) "Ms. Vallow, the reason we're here today is to verify the well-being of your children Joshua & Tylee; Is there anything you'd like to tell the court (me) regarding their whereabouts?

Depending on your response or lack thereof, I may find it necessary to hold you in Contempt of Court until the safety & well being of these precious children is verified...."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2020 08:49PM by GNPE.

> Judges have lots of discretion as to how to
> proceed.

They do not have the discretion to violate the 5th Amendment. A judge will never ask a criminal defendant a question that could incriminate her.


----------------
> I know *NOTHING* about court rules in Idaho, but
> I'm pretty sure the judge will try to get all the
> salient facts out in the open.

Not a chance. Bringing out the facts is the job of the prosecutor, and if the judge stepped in and did that he would be in real trouble--one aspect of which would be a good chance that Vallow is freed and cannot be tried due to violations of her constitutional rights.


------------
> Judge most likely can say (something like) "Ms.
> Vallow, the reason we're here today is to verify
> the well-being of your children Joshua & Tylee; Is
> there anything you'd like to tell the court (me)
> regarding their whereabouts?
>
> Depending on your response or lack thereof, I may
> find it necessary to hold you in Contempt of Court
> until the safety & well being of these precious
> children is verified...."

No way. A defendant cannot be punished, or even threatened with punishment, for remaining silent under the Fifth Amendment.

FBI released last known photos from Yellowstone, including brother Alex Cox.

They found Lyle Jeffs after a year or so. Hopefully they find the kids in some kind of bomb shelter or something like that?

I don't think she's a criminal defendant!

I believe this is a HEARING to discover where the children are, ? are they safe.

I believe there are penalties for Contempt of Court, 'prove me wrong'!

Yes, LV can invoke her 5th Amendment rights, I've said this just a few hours ago!

A hearing is DIFFERENT than a criminal trial or arrangement!!!

No, it is not.

Information obtained in any judicial proceeding--a trial, a hearing, a divorce, a police interview, Congressional testimony--is admissible in a criminal trial. The Fifth Amendment is binding in all those cases.

No judge is going to ask any question in any forum that could incriminate a suspect. Period.

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/crime/missing-rexburg-kids/lori-vallow-arrives-in-idaho-escorted-off-plane-at-boise-airport/277-a324e878-6bf1-4e14-8243-d102e1ba97df

"She is charged with two felony counts of desertion and nonsupport of dependent children, as well as misdemeanor charges of resisting or obstructing officers, criminal solicitation to commit a crime, and contempt of court."

Her appearance tomorrow is simply an arraignment on those charges.

"Lori Vallow's initial arraignment is set for 2 p.m. Friday at the Madison County Courthouse in Rexburg."

If that report is correct, I'm corrected.

I thought this was a Hearing regarding her failure to bring the children to authorities as she was ordered.

I still say the judge can ask her where the children are, this should be about the children.

You can watch it yourself tomorrow. The station linked above is going to live stream it - 2 PM MST.

You can say whatever you want. The Fifth Amendment is still the law of the land.

CPS and/or the police are responsible for the children, not the court. The judge's remit is to apply the law consistent with the constitution.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can say whatever you want. The Fifth
> Amendment is still the law of the land.


I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!

I'm getting the feeling you're trying to 'top me' with your posts, I don't appreciate that, I doubt if anyone here does.

GNPE, you posed a question that has a factual answer. I provided it. You then kept explaining why that answer is incorrect.

But it isn't. The logic you apply is that the kids are so important that the judge, who has the leeway, should bend the rules to find out where they are. I understand, and sympathize with, that argument but I also know that it is precisely the same thinking that brought us "enhanced interrogation" and waterboarding. If the judge intentionally elicited incriminating evidence, that evidence and anything that flowed from it ("fruit of the poisonous tree") would be thrown out.

If I knew you, I would offer you 10:1 odds on a bet of any size that the judge will not do what you propose. What you are describing is reversible error and would result in Vallow being freed. If you consider my insisting on that trying to "top" you, I'm sorry. But whether you like my attitude does not change the constitutional rule.

Judge & police can ask any question they please up until she asks to be represented by an attorney, refuses to answer.

I'm 99 % sure she is aware of here 5th A rights AND has had to hem read to her.

It's her choice whether or not to respond: in court by citing the 5th And otherwise by declining to answer.

My First post today I offered to bet that she'd invoke that privilege

Yes, of course she will invoke that privilege. But you also said the judge can demand that she take the stand and answer questions that by definition incriminate her since one of the charges is failing to produce the kids. And you suggested that the judge could hold her in contempt for refusing to answer. The fact is that if that were possible, the Fifth Amendment would have no meaning.

Again, I empathize fully with your desire to find out where the kids are. But a criminal judge cannot ask the defendant questions about that without forcing a choice between self-incrimination and punishment--which is exactly what the Fifth Amendment forbids. Sometimes the constitution produces outcomes we may not like, but it is the Fifth Amendment (and habeas corpus) that prevents the government from torturing citizens to get information.

I'm confident we agree that loosening the restraints on authority in that way would be a bad idea.

the basis for what I was saying was in the context of an administrative hearing, not a criminal proceeding.

As I understand it, LV was under a court order to produce her minor children in court; if that was the case, and she in fact failed to produce them, then (Idaho court rules, statutes?) That was an act of CONTEMPT, punishable (again, Idaho statutes & rules) by a $ Fine and/or imprisonment.


Without a valid, meaningful threat of adverse consequences for disobeying a court order, many (more) would feel emboldened to ignore, disregard court orders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2020 10:24AM by GNPE.

Love @Home..
.love @ home!
When your children are missing, there is love @home.

Bail reduced to $ 1 Mil; must wear GPS device if she bails out; Next court date is 3/18.

Police & coroner's staff currently re-doing the results / finding of surrounding the death of Tammy Daybell, results of examination of Alex Cox's death are still pending.

J-Day (Jesus' Day) apparently still scheduled for July 2020...

sorry to hear her bail was reduced.

with her travel History... who would want to put up .05 for her?

I hope the judge required that she relinquish her passport if she has one.

C'mon, she has kids!!

                      ...oh, wait a minute...

The judge in Hawaii referenced the passport and her attorney said she didn't have one.

I'm disappointed if the judge didn't find her IN CONTEMPT for failing to bring her children to the authorities / court as she was ORDERED to do.


AND, I hope she doesn't get any special treatment in jail, food disgusting to her, bed & bath are FILTHY....


anything else we can wish for her?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2020 08:22PM by GNPE.

Again, that is not how contempt works. Contempt is for when a court orders something inside the court--like standing for the judge, remaining silent when ordered, refusing to provide discovery in a civil case, failure to produce children for visitation in a divorce proceeding that the judge is personally administrating, etc.

This is different. There is a law. It provides that the police can go get a court order mandating an appearance. But that is not part of the court proceeding: it is part of the criminal law, and the remedy is to file charges for breaking that law. That is what has happened. There was never any chance that the court would opt for contempt when the law outlines a different process.

LW: are you an attorney? are you experienced in this area of the law?

perhaps your knowledge is in Real Estate, Maritime Law, Probate or something else...

the article I rely on (wikipedia) specifically mentions 'in court' contempt and out-of-court contempt.

"this is different" you post, I'd like to know your basis in making that statement ... How & how are you familiar in these highly-technical specifics?

If you're an (experienced) attorney who's practiced in this area, I'd like to know more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

Contempt is not highly technical. It is basic procedure of the sort shown on television dramas.

You can infer whether I understand the topic from the hit/miss ratio of my predictions. Did the judge ask Vallow where the kids are? No. Did she charge her with contempt? No. Vallow's actions were, you and I agree, likely criminal and certainly contemptuous but they were not "contempt" in a judicial sense.

Moreover, as EOD notes directly below, the enormity of a person's suspected crimes does not invalidate the Fifth Amendment. If the police or the courts violated Vallow's rights by inappropriate questioning or by torture, the case would be thrown out and any hope for justice, presuming she is guilty, would be lost. There are times when we would all like to dispense with the procedural safeguards to get the speedy resolution we prefer, but that is generally a bad idea.

your posts suggest that you're an expert in this, it isn't about what others post; What's the basis for your statements?

law school? watching Perry Mason? I'd sincerely like to know.

I prefer knowledge to inferences!!

did U read the wiki article?

Again: I never suggested that her 5th rights should be denied, NEVER.

A judge asking a person a potentially incriminating question would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment every bit as much as if it were a cop holding a gun to her head.

I did read the wikipedia article. You'll note that it lists two sorts of contempt in the US: direct, which is something that disrupts the tribunal; and indirect, which is when a private party--not the judge--is harmed by the violation of a court order and brings a suit for contempt that must then be adjudicated in a separate trial. Neither of those describe what Vallow is accused of having done.

With due respect (and I do respect you), I don't discuss my "qualifications" on the internet. My preference is to let my words do the talking. It's up to you whether those words are persuasive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2020 04:05AM by Lot's Wife.

A smooth progression along the path that Justice, that magnificent blind bitch, advocates in all criminal proceedings?


I get that she is a very unpopular woman, and I delight in the prospect that all the truth will be revealed and that her punishment will leave us feeling satisfied.

But the process isn't, or shouldn't be entertainment. And asking for her punishment to start right away, i.e., "...food disgusting to her, bed & bath (to be) FILTHY...); that's not the way the system works.

Justice as a spectator sport...? The price of admission is low so sure, why not?


I feel like a long time patron at Agusta National watching a new guy who thinks his enthusiasm has to be on display. Weird...

Whatever she suffers, it won't come close to the hurting she's caused for others, even if the children are alive.

Hope someone manages to wipe that smirk off her face.

I know what she was thinking. "Ha ha ha. The world is going to end in July and you're all going to die. You'll see."

Hopefully, on August 1st, she'll wake up thinking that ghawd is so pissed at her that he put off the end of the world just to mess with her head.

I think ghawds think that way!

The judge should make a bet with her. No Jesus, you show us the kids.

What she was thinking is this, "If I could only kill that judge, that prosecutor, and several others..I could move on from this..please God kill them kill them all..bwahahahaha"