Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
v.
15
Defendants.
16
17
Pursuant to this Courts prior Order [Doc. 626], the Defendants provide the
18
following amended final, revised trial witness list.1 The amendments were necessary to
19
20
1.
Philip Barlow
21
Philip Barlow is a fact witness. Mr. Barlow is the current Mayor of Hildale City.
22
He is expected to testify regarding allegations in the Complaint, including but not limited
23
to testimony that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the
24
principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an
25
excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another,
26
27
28
The Defendants intend to call these witnesses in the order listed. However, depending
upon the evidence the United States presents, the Defendants may adjust the order of these
witnesses, or may not call each witness listed.
and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise
act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to
testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated
individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate
based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or
inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or
practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons,
including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or
10
11
connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered
12
with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person exercising or
13
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
14
Defendants.
15
testimony, and will include, but not be limited to: background of the Towns, development
16
of the Towns, Towns structure and organization, operations of the Towns, subdivision in
17
Hildale City, evictions in Hildale City, building permit applications, his duties as Mayor,
18
the duties of other Town employees, Hildale City Council operating procedures and
19
meeting minutes, executive sessions, Hildale and Colorado City employees, Hildale City
20
21
Association, Hildale City streets, Twin City Water Authority, utility policies, utilities
22
applications and procedure, the Utility Board, water availability in the community, City
23
recordkeeping, City finances and budget, the Citys interaction with outside agencies,
24
communications with FLDS leaders regarding City business, applications for city council,
25
26
Hildale, employment decisions regarding the CCMO, municipal grants, his awareness of
27
FLDS directives, interaction between Town employees and the FLDS, FLDS Church
28
Security, FLDS video surveillance, City video surveillance, City fiberoptic lines and
computer servers, school setup crews, service of legal papers, CCMO training civilians,
3
4
2.
Carvel Neilson
testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, the structure, history
and/or functioning of the City government, along with any other related issues. Mr.
Nielsen was also present during Sabrina Broadbent Tetzners custody dispute. He is
expected to offer testimony consistent with his deposition and including, but not limited
10
to, his involvement in, and interactions with CCMO and Mohave County officers during
11
that incident, and his duties and involvement on the Hildale City Council. He is expected
12
to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or
13
primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive
14
government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do
15
16
way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that
17
Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals,
18
they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
19
religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction.
20
He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of
21
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
22
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
23
24
25
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
26
27
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
28
Defendants.
3
1
2
3.
Edwin Barlow
testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, the structure, history
and/or functioning of the City government. He is expected to testify that the Defendants
have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing
or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with
religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or
participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion
10
or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people
11
unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to
12
act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
13
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
14
Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not
15
denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not
16
17
18
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced,
19
intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or
20
on account of that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and
21
22
23
4.
Jeremiah Barlow
24
Jeremiah Barlow was the Town Manager for the City of Hildale and the Utilities
25
Board Business Manager. Mr. Barlow is expected to testify concerning his knowledge of
26
the allegations in the Complaint regarding utilities services in the area. It is anticipated
27
that Mr. Barlow may also provide testimony regarding official policies, ordinances, and/or
28
resolutions of the City of Hildale. He is expected to testify that the Defendants have a
4
secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or
inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with
religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or
participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion
or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people
unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to
act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not
10
denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not
11
12
13
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced,
14
intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or
15
on account of that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and
16
17
18
5.
Joseph Allred
19
Joseph Allred is the Mayor of Colorado City. He is expected to testify about his
20
education, training, and experience as the Mayor, the respective roles of the Mayor and
21
Town Council, the other positions he has held for Colorado City, his former employment
22
with Twin City Water Works, and his knowledge about the provision of utilities
23
24
Mayor Allred is also expected to testify about the following topics: his general
25
knowledge of the FLDS Church, its leaders, teachings, and its practices; his appointment
26
as Mayor; his employment as office clerk for Twin City Water Works, including, but not
27
limited to, his appointment and duties; his knowledge of services provided by Twin City
28
Water Works; his knowledge of Twin City Improvement Association, including, but not
5
limited to, its efforts to obtain water for housing units; his knowledge, as Water
Superintendent, of the process of giving water hookups, including, but not limited to, the
denied, efforts to expand the capacities of the cities to obtain additional water, discussions
with the Utility Board about expansion and obtaining additional water, and efforts to
develop more water sources; whether he has sought or received guidance and/or directives
from FLDS Church leaders on how to perform his official duties as Town Clerk, Water
his knowledge about and interactions with Willie Jessop; his knowledge about and
10
interactions with Bruce Wisan, Jethro Barlow, Isaac Wyler, and other representatives of
11
the UEP Trust; whether he has ever discriminated against anyone on the basis of religion
12
while working as Water Superintendent, Town Clerk, or Mayor, and whether he has
13
observed any other town employee discriminate based on religion; his conversations with
14
Helaman Barlow, including Helaman Barlows work as a police officer and the Towns
15
16
Mayor Allred is also expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose,
17
that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion,
18
that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one
19
religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion,
20
or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He
21
is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other
22
similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or
23
purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor
24
for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have
25
not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to
26
a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make
27
28
services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated,
threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is
5
6
6.
David Darger
David Darger is the Town Manager for Colorado City. He is expected to testify
about his education, training, and experience as the Town Manager, along with the other
positions he has held within Colorado City. He is also expected to testify about the
10
government structure of Colorado City, the decisions reserved to the Town Council and
11
the Town Manager, the process by which residents within Colorado City can obtain
12
utilities (including water, power, and sewer), the hiring and firing of police officers for the
13
14
Marshal Helaman Barlow, Colorado Citys hiring of a Prosecutor, interactions with the
15
United Effort Plan Trust regarding its subdivision proposals, his attendance at Council
16
17
Mr. Darger is also expected to testify about the following topics: his general
18
knowledge of the FLDS Church, its leaders, teachings, and its practices; his employment
19
with Colorado City, including, but not limited to, his positions as building inspector,
20
deputy town clerk, and Town Manager, his appointment to these positions, his duties, and
21
the Towns policies and procedures; whether FLDS Church leaders direct his official
22
conduct; his knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of the records custodians of the
23
Town, and the Towns policies and procedures regarding records retention of public
24
records; his knowledge and observations of the Towns surveillance system, and who has
25
authority to access, view, and monitor the camera feeds, who maintains it, and the
26
retention schedule for the feeds; his employment as secretary and treasurer for the
27
Colorado City Fire District and his plea agreement and criminal conviction for misuse of
28
public funds; whether he directed fire district funds to the FLDS Church; his knowledge
7
of and interactions with outside law enforcement, such as the Mohave County Sheriffs
Office and their discriminatory practices towards FLDS residents; his knowledge of and
the UEP Trust, including, but not limited to, whether they are prejudiced against the
FLDS; the UEP Trusts various subdivision proposals and unwillingness to comply with
the Towns land division ordinance; his knowledge and observations of, and
communications and interactions related to, the enactment of the land division ordinance
and how the Town applies it to the UEP Trust and other individuals; his knowledge of the
Utah State Probate proceedings and the scope of Judge Lindbergs authority over
10
Colorado City; his knowledge and observations of, and communications and interactions
11
with, Helaman Barlow, including, but not limited to, claims that he altered Helaman
12
Barlows police reports; his knowledge and observations of, and communications and
13
interactions with, Joseph Allred; his knowledge and observations of, and communications
14
and interactions with, Twin City Water Works and its employees, including, but not
15
limited to, whether it improperly diverted funds and failed to develop water resources for
16
the Town; his knowledge and observations of, and communications and interactions with,
17
Willie Jessop, including, but not limited to, whether he and other town employees
18
attended town business-related meetings on R & W business premises; his knowledge and
19
observations of, and communications and interactions with, Lyle Jeffs, including, but not
20
limited to, whether Lyle Jeffs discussed Town business with him or other Town
21
employees or directed how to conduct Town business; his knowledge and observations of,
22
and communications and interactions with, Virgil Steed; his knowledge and observations
23
of, and communications and interactions with, William K. Steed, including, but not
24
limited to, any incidents related to children working on pecan harvests; his knowledge and
25
observations of Town employees leaving the community at the direction of the FLDS
26
Church; the Towns investigation of officers for misconduct and work with Arizona and
27
Utah POST regarding investigations into officers for misconduct; the Towns response to
28
Arizona or Utah POSTs decision to decertify a police officer; his knowledge and
8
observations of, and communications and interactions with, Jessie Barlow; his knowledge
and observations of any FLDS Church directives requiring FLDS members to donate
money to Warren Jeffs while he was a fugitive; his knowledge and observations of, and
communications and interactions with, Haven Barlow, including, but not limited to, an
incident where Sam Brower attempted to serve papers upon Haven Barlow; his knowledge
and observations of, and communications and interactions with, Sam Brower; his
construction; his knowledge and observations of, and communications and interactions
relating to, the Towns attempts to develop more water resources, including, but not
10
limited to, the water shortage in Colorado City, the implementation of an impact fee, the
11
hiring of Sunrise Engineering and other engineers, the policies and practices of the Town
12
to resolve the water shortage issues, the incident of a well pump sucking air in Colorado
13
City in 2014, and the Towns attempts to resolve and repair the issues; his knowledge and
14
observations of, and communications and interactions related to, financial audits of the
15
Town; his knowledge and observations of, and communications and interactions with, the
16
UEP Trust, including, but not limited to, paying property taxes and the UEP Trusts mass
17
evictions of Colorado City residents; the Towns efforts to aid those who the UEP Trust
18
has evicted; his observations regarding any religious discrimination by any Town
19
employee; the Towns policies and procedures against religious discrimination; the
20
Towns training on anti-discrimination, for both employees and police officers; and all
21
related issues.
22
Mr. Darger is also expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose,
23
that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion,
24
that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one
25
religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion,
26
or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He
27
is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other
28
similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or
9
purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor
for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have
not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to
a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make
services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated,
threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is
10
11
12
7.
Vance Barlow
13
Vance Barlow is the Town Clerk for Colorado City. He is expected to testify about
14
his training, education, and experience as the Town Clerk. He is also a former officer
15
with the Marshals Department and is expected to testify about his application, training,
16
17
conversations with representatives from Colorado City and the Marshals Department, his
18
interactions with Bruce Wisan and others from the United Effort Plan Trust, the policies,
19
procedures, ordinances, and resolutions that Colorado City established regarding utilities,
20
21
22
23
24
25
the structure of Colorado City and its relationship and agreements with Hildale City, Twin
City Water Authority, and Twin City Water Works, the structure of the Utility Board, his
experience with water shortages within Colorado City and Hildale City, and all related
issues.
Mr. Barlow is also expected to testify about the following topics: his general
knowledge of the FLDS Church, its leaders, and its practices; his knowledge of the
Towns policies, procedures, and practices regarding the retention of records and file
26
27
servers to preserve official records; his knowledge and observations of, and his
communications and interactions with, Isaac Wyler, Bruce Wisan, and Willie Jessop,
28
10
including, but not limited to, responding to their requests for records; his knowledge and
Warren Jeffs, including, but not limited to, squad meetings discussing the apprehension of
Warren Jeffs and interviewing residents about their knowledge of Warren Jeffs
underage marriages; his knowledge of Bruce Wisans authority over the UEP Trust and
whether Town officials are hostile to Bruce Wisan at Warren Jeffs directive; his
knowledge regarding the decertification of police officers and whether the Town or the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one
religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion,
or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He
is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other
similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or
purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor
21
for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have
22
not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to
23
a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make
24
25
26
services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated,
27
threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
28
11
that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is
3
4
8.
Jacob Barlow
Jacob Barlow was Colorado Citys Planning and Zoning Director. He is expected
to testify about his knowledge of the events alleged in the Complaint, including, for
example, the building permit process and requests for utility services. Mr. Barlow may
also provide testimony about Colorado Citys policies, procedures, ordinances, and
resolutions. He is expected to testify that that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that
10
they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that
11
they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one
12
religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion,
13
or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He
14
is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other
15
similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or
16
purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor
17
for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have
18
not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to
19
a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make
20
21
22
services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated,
23
threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
24
that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is
25
26
27
28
12
9.
Andy Barlow
Andy Barlow is currently serving as a building official for the Town of Colorado
City and Hildale City. Mr. Barlow is expected to testify regarding his knowledge of the
allegations in the Complaint, the structure and functioning of the City government,
employment practices at the Cities, and other related matters. He is expected to testify that
the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce
10
establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
11
do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have
12
not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion,
13
and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also
14
15
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
16
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
17
18
19
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
20
21
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
22
Defendants.
23
24
10.
Lovisa White
25
Lovisa White works for Colorado City as the administrative assistant and secretary.
26
She also works as a part-time secretary for the Marshals Department. She is expected to
27
testify about her job duties, education, training, and experience with Colorado City and
28
the Marshals Department, her discussions with officers from the Marshals Department,
13
her attendance at Council meetings, her interactions with the public who visit the Town
Hall or call the Town offices, and her experiences as a female working for, and living in,
Colorado City. Ms. White is also expected to testify about her work with the payroll for
Colorado City, her knowledge regarding whether the police officers are members of the
FLDS Church or United Order, her experience regarding keeping separate from her
official duties any religious principles or beliefs, and all related issues.
Ms. White is also expected to testify about the following topics: her general
knowledge of the FLDS Church and its practices; her knowledge about the Towns and
the Marshals Departments policies regarding records retention; policies and procedures
10
11
knowledge about obtaining a business license; her knowledge and experience with
12
assisting people who come into the Town office who want to file an incident report or
13
witness statement, or file a complaint against an officer; her knowledge and understanding
14
of how religious principles interact with governmental duties; her knowledge and
15
16
17
In the event that Ms. White is not available to testify at trial, the following
deposition testimony will be offered:
18
19
- p. 4, line 7 to p. 5, line 12
20
21
- p. 36, lines 8 20
22
23
- p. 53, lines 1 9
24
25
26
27
28
- p. 15, lines 12 17
6
7
11.
Heber White
Heber White works in the Hildale Utility Office. He is expected to testify about
the process used when he receives any utility application. He is expected to testify that
10
the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary
11
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government
12
entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce
13
14
establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
15
do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have
16
not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion,
17
and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also
18
19
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
20
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
21
22
23
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
24
25
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
26
Defendants.
27
28
15
12.
Richard Barlow
Richard Barlow is the Treasurer for Hildale City. Mr. Barlow is expected to testify
concerning his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, including but not limited to
testimony that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal
or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive
government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do
way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that
Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals,
10
they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
11
religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction.
12
He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of
13
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
14
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
15
16
17
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
18
19
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
20
Defendants.
21
22
13.
Mike Spilker
23
Mike Spilker is a CPA at Hinton Burdick CPAs & Advisors. Hinton Burdick has
24
provided financial and audit services for Hildale and Colorado City for several years. Mr.
25
Spilker is expected to testify regarding the audits they have performed. His testimony is
26
expected to include, but not be limited to, his experiences that show that the Defendants
27
have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing
28
or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with
16
religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or
participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion
or tends to do so.
4
5
14.
Jonathan Fischer
Jonathan Fischer is the past President of the Water Board and past President of
Twin City Water Authority. He is expected to testify about the water shortage within
Colorado City and Hildale, the water policies recommended, conversations within the
City Councils of Colorado City and Hildale. He is expected to testify that the Defendants
10
have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing
11
or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with
12
religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or
13
participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion
14
or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people
15
unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to
16
act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
17
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
18
Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not
19
denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not
20
21
22
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced,
23
intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or
24
on account of that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and
25
26
27
28
17
1
2
15.
Victor Jessop
Victor Jessop has served as the water/wastewater superintendent with Twin City
Water Authority.
testimony, including but not limited to, his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint
pertaining to utility services and building permits. Mr. Jessop may also testify regarding
historical issues regarding water supply in Hildale and Colorado City, and the availability
of culinary water for new service locations, along with any other related issues. He is
expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the
principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an
10
excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another,
11
and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise
12
act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to
13
testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated
14
individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate
15
based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or
16
inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or
17
practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons,
18
including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or
19
20
21
connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered
22
with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person exercising or
23
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
24
Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is expected to include, but not be limited to, the
25
water policies and procedures of the Towns, the day to day operations of TCWA, the
26
supply and demand for water in the communities, the conservation and development
27
efforts of the Towns, and the structure and organization of the water supply systems.
28
18
16.
Weston Barlow
Weston Barlow is currently employed doing field work for the Hildale and
Colorado City Utilities. He is expected to have knowledge regarding the allegations in the
Complaint, the structure and functioning of the City government and its utilities. He is
expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the
principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another,
and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise
act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to
10
testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated
11
individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate
12
based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or
13
inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or
14
practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons,
15
including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or
16
17
18
connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered
19
with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person exercising or
20
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
21
Defendants.
22
23
17.
Jacob Jessop
24
Jacob Jessop is the President of the Utility Board and was the President of Twin
25
City Water Authority. He is expected to testify about the water shortage within Colorado
26
City and Hildale, water policies recommended, conversations with the City Councils of
27
Colorado City and Hildale. He is expected to testify that that the Defendants have a
28
secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or
19
inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with
religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or
participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion
or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people
unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to
act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not
denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not
10
11
12
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced,
13
intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or
14
on account of that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and
15
16
17
18.
18
Berklee Holm, Sr. was a member of the Twin City Water Authority Utility Board.
19
He is expected to testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, the
20
structure, history and/or functioning of the City government and utilities, and his
21
22
testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or
23
primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive
24
government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do
25
26
way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that
27
Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals,
28
they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
20
religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction.
He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
10
Defendants.
11
12
19.
Justin Barlow
13
Justin Barlow is a fact witness. He is the Utilities Business Manager for the City of
14
Hildale. Mr. Barlow is expected to testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in
15
the Complaint, the structure and functioning of the City government and its utilities,
16
including but not limited to testimony that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that
17
they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that
18
they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one
19
religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion,
20
or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He
21
is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other
22
similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or
23
purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor
24
for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have
25
not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to
26
a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make
27
28
services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated,
threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is
not a motivating factor for Defendants. His testimony is expected to include, but not be
limited to, the utility policies and ordinances, the business decisions of the utilities, water
demands regarding utilities, applications and hiring at the Cities, water demand in the
9
10
11
12
20.
Warren Barlow
Warren Barlow is expected to testify via designated deposition pages:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21.
Leonard Black
Leonard Black is serving as the Hildale City IT Manager.
19
knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, the structure and functioning of the City
20
government and IT systems, and any other related matters. He is expected to testify that
21
the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary
22
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government
23
entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce
24
25
establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
26
do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have
27
not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion,
28
and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also
23
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
Defendants.
10
including but not limited to the following: his work history, his interactions with
11
Defendants, his industrial lot lease, his FLDS membership status, his interaction with
12
FLDS leaders while employed with the Cities, FLDS meetings and services, his
13
application and employment at the Cities, communications with FLDS leaders regarding
14
City business, City network infrastructure and servers and data storage, fiberoptic lines,
15
City WiFi, FLDS video surveillance, FLDS IT support, CCMO radio communications,
16
17
18
19
20
22.
Lorin Fischer
Lorin Fischer is expected to testify via designated deposition pages:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- p. 50 lines 14-17
24
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
23.
Brian Meldrum
Brian Meldrum is expected to testify via designated deposition pages:
18
- p. 5, lines 18-20
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
April 7, 2014
27
- p. 6, lines 1-4
28
- p. 6, lines 7-12
25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
24.
Brian Zitting
17
Brian Zitting works for Canaan Peaks Engineering. He is expected to testify about
18
his education, training, and experience as an engineer. He is also expected to testify about
19
his work for Colorado City regarding water resources, his work with Sunrise Engineering
20
on water resources, his work with Colorado City and Hildale to evaluate the United Effort
21
Plan Trusts proposed subdivision plat, his work on the proposed plat and description
22
from the United Effort Plan Trust, his engineering work regarding Twin City
23
Improvement Associations request for a new culinary water service connection, and all
24
related issues.
25
Mr. Zitting is also expected to testify about the following topics: his work for
26
municipalities in the areas of design, surveying, and planning; the bid process to work for
27
Colorado City and Hildale; his professional licenses and organization memberships; his
28
April 2007 letter to Colorado City regarding the UEP Trusts proposed plats; his April
27
2007 e-mail to Joel Heaton responding to a request for information on new development
in Colorado City; his work on the proposed plat note submitted to the UEP Trust for
review; his December 2007 communications with the towns and the Utility Department
regarding water supply and water sources; his March 2008 letter to Hildale re the UEP
Trusts subdivision proposal and the use of lots-not-served and not-a-part on the plat
map; his December 2009 rate structure study for Colorado City, Hildale, and Twin City
Water Authority; his February 2010 letter to Victor Jessop regarding the housing project
by Twin City Improvement Association and his reliance upon the December 1986 Bryce
Montgomery Report; his knowledge about Colorado Citys and Hildales efforts to
10
11
12
25.
Marvin Wilson
13
Marvin Wilson works for Sunrise Engineering. He is expected to testify about his
14
15
Sunrise Engineerings work for Colorado City regarding water planning, water resources,
16
and general planning, his examination, studies, and conclusions regarding the availability
17
of water within Colorado City and Hildale, the reports that Sunrise Engineering prepared
18
to Colorado City and Hildale, Sunrise Engineerings work with Colorado City to conduct
19
an impact fee study and a master plan, and all related issues.
20
Mr. Wilson is also expected to testify about the following topics: his professional
21
licenses and organization memberships; whether he has ever been a member of the FLDS
22
Church or lived in Colorado City or Hildale; the 1998 Culinary Water Master Plan
23
completed for Colorado City and Hildale; the 2002 Water Resources Study completed for
24
Colorado City and Hildale; the 2002 Environmental Study of Water and Squirrel Canyon
25
completed for Colorado City and Hildale; the 2008 Letter Report to Colorado City
26
regarding wells; the differences between a water capacity test and a safe-yield test; his
27
work to bring the power plant into compliance for use as a culinary water source; his work
28
on water studies for other municipalities; his knowledge about other municipalities
28
policies and ordinances regarding limiting new water connections, the imposition of
impact fees, and the enforcement water regulations; and other related issues.
3
4
26.
Mark Stratton
Mark Stratton is an expert witness who will offer expert opinions regarding the
operations and management conduct of the Defendants with respect to the provision of
culinary water to the residents of Colorado City and Hildale. He is expected to testify
about his education, training, experience, and qualifications to offer expert opinions. See
10
11
12
13
14
15
the documents he reviewed and other work he completed during his analysis in this case.
Mr. Stratton is further expected to testify consistent with his expert opinions
disclosed to the United States, including the following expert opinions:
(1)
It was appropriate for the towns to take action to limit new connections to
the existing water system without those new connections bringing additional supplies.
(2)
16
future capital needs for the water system, determine the timing and funding needs for
17
those capital projects, and develop a financing plan that can be supported with the limited
18
19
focusing on how to best meet the future challenges of a growing community while
20
addressing how they can also meet the needs of additional water demand. The towns will
21
also need to incorporate how new developments and developers can also contribute to
22
23
(3)
Until the completion of the capital program, the towns and the water utility
24
need to maintain a vigilant position of protecting the existing customers and residents with
25
26
(4)
The UEP Trust has the ability to form its own water utility and
27
infrastructure separate from either the Colorado City or Hildale to provide water service to
28
its properties.
29
1
2
27.
Ken Brendel
Ken Brendel is the prosecutor for the Town of Colorado City. He is expected to
testify about his education, training, and experience as an Arizona lawyer and his service
and duties as Colorado Citys prosecutor. Mr. Brendel is also expected to testify about the
advice he has provided to the officers with the Marshals Department regarding arrests,
traffic stops, property disputes, and trespass calls that have occurred within Colorado City
and that sometimes also involve the United Effort Plan Trust. He is also expected to
testify about his discussions with the Mohave County Attorneys Office and other law
10
enforcement agencies regarding the Marshals Department and issues regarding the
11
United Effort Plan Trust. He is also expected to testify about the advice he has provided
12
to the officers regarding disputes (property and otherwise) involving Andrew Chatwin,
13
Richard Holm, Christopher Jessop, Jesseca Jessop, Ron Rohbock, Jerold Williams,
14
Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke, Willie Jessop, Isaac Wyler, Ross Chatwin, Lori Chatwin,
15
Bruce Wisan, Jethro Barlow, and others. Mr. Brendel is also expected to testify about his
16
advice to the officers on how to write police reports to document events. He is also
17
expected to testify about his advice to the officers and others regarding eviction actions,
18
notices of abandonment, unlawful detainer, and related issues under Arizona statutes.
19
20
28.
Richard D. Carr
21
Richard D. Carr is the former Hildale Justice Court Judge. Mr. Carr is expected to
22
testify about his knowledge of allegations in the Complaint, including but not limited to
23
testimony that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal
24
or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive
25
government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do
26
27
way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that
28
Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals,
30
they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction.
He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
10
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
11
Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is expected to include, but not be limited to, his
12
knowledge regarding the justice court system, how he adjudicated matters, his
13
observations regarding discrimination in charges brought before him, and the operation
14
15
16
29.
Zachary J. Weiland
17
Zachary J. Weiland is the former Hildale City Prosecutor. Mr. Weiland is expected
18
to testify about his knowledge regarding allegations in the Complaint, including but not
19
limited to that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal
20
or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive
21
government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do
22
23
way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that
24
Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals,
25
they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
26
religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction.
27
He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of
28
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non31
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is expected to include, but not be limited to, his
education, training, and experience as a Utah lawyer and his service and duties as
Hildales prosecutor. He is also expected to testify about the advice he has provided to
10
the officers with the Marshals Department regarding arrests, traffic stops, property
11
disputes, and trespass calls that have occurred within Hildale and that sometimes also
12
involve the United Effort Plan Trust. He is also expected to testify about his discussions
13
with the Washington County Attorneys Office and other law enforcement agencies
14
regarding the Marshals Department and issues regarding the United Effort Plan Trust.
15
He is also expected to testify about the advice he has provided to the officers regarding
16
disputes (property and otherwise) involving Andrew Chatwin, Richard Holm, Christopher
17
Jessop, Jesseca Jessop, Ron Rohbock, Jerold Williams, Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke,
18
Willie Jessop, Isaac Wyler, Ross Chatwin, Lori Chatwin, Bruce Wisan, Jethro Barlow,
19
and others. He is also expected to testify about his advice to the officers on how to write
20
police reports to document events. He is also expected to testify about his advice to the
21
officers and others regarding eviction actions, notices of abandonment, unlawful detainer,
22
23
24
30.
Nathan G. Caplin
25
Nathan G. Caplin served as the Hildale City Prosecutor. Mr. Caplin is expected to
26
testify about his knowledge regarding allegations in the Complaint, including but not
27
limited to testimony that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the
28
principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an
32
excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another,
and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise
act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to
testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated
individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate
based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or
inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or
practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons,
including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or
10
11
12
connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered
13
with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person exercising or
14
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
15
Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is expected to include, but not be limited to, his
16
education, training, and experience as an Arizona lawyer and his service and duties as
17
Hildales prosecutor. He is also expected to testify about the advice he has provided to
18
the officers with the Marshals Department regarding arrests, traffic stops, property
19
disputes, and trespass calls that have occurred within Hildale and that sometimes also
20
involve the United Effort Plan Trust. He is also expected to testify about his discussions
21
with the Washington County Attorneys Office and other law enforcement agencies
22
regarding the Marshals Department and issues regarding the United Effort Plan Trust.
23
He is also expected to testify about the advice he has provided to the officers regarding
24
disputes (property and otherwise) involving Andrew Chatwin, Richard Holm, Christopher
25
Jessop, Jesseca Jessop, Ron Rohbock, Jerold Williams, Ronald Cooke, Jinjer Cooke,
26
Willie Jessop, Isaac Wyler, Ross Chatwin, Lori Chatwin, Bruce Wisan, Jethro Barlow,
27
and others. He is also expected to testify about his advice to the officers on how to write
28
police reports to document events. He is also expected to testify about his advice to the
33
officers and others regarding eviction actions, notices of abandonment, unlawful detainer,
3
4
31.
Richard K. Chamberlain
expected to testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint, the
structure, history and/or functioning of the City government. He is expected to testify that
the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government
10
entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce
11
12
establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
13
do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have
14
not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion,
15
and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also
16
17
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
18
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
19
20
21
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
22
23
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
32.
Samuel Johnson
Samuel Johnson serves as a Sergeant for the Hildale/Colorado City Marshals
Office.
Complaint regarding unlawful policing, along with any other related issues.
expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the
principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another,
and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise
act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to
arrests without probable cause of a crime, brief investigatory stops without suspicion of
criminal activity, or use of excessive force. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
10
do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have
11
not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion,
12
and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also
13
14
discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-
15
FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing
16
17
18
therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any
19
20
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
21
Defendants.
22
testimony, and will include, but not be limited to, incidents he was involved in as a
23
CCMO officer that the Plaintiff has identified as relevant to its claims, how he became an
24
officer at the CCMO, his training and certification as an officer, that he is not directed by
25
the FLDS Church in his official duties, that he does not share law enforcement
26
information with the FLDS, his interactions with FLDS Church security, his
27
communication with FLDS leaders regarding City business, his FLDS membership status,
He is
28
35
the organization and policies of the CCMO, the CCMOs handling of property disputes,
3
4
33.
Daniel Musser
expected to testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint regarding
unlawful policing, and FLDS control over the hiring of police officers, along with any
other related issues. He is also expected to offer testimony that will contest Charlene
Jeffs testimony. He is expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that
10
they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that
11
they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or endorse one
12
religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate in religion,
13
or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He
14
15
including traditional arrests without probable cause of a crime, brief investigatory stops
16
17
testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to other similarly situated
18
individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or purpose to discriminate
19
based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants actions or
20
inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or
21
practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons,
22
including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or
23
24
25
connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered
26
with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person exercising or
27
encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for
28
and will include, but not be limited to, the process by which he applied for and became a
cadet for the CCMO, his training and certification through POST, and his experience as a
4
5
34.
testify about his education, training, and experience as a police officer, the certifications
received from Arizona and Utah, the process by which he became an officer, his
application and interview process to become a police officer, the training he has received
10
as a police officer, the Marshals Departments policies and procedures, his interactions
11
with the Town Council and Prosecutor, and all related issues.
12
Officer Barlow is also expected testify about the following topics: his general
13
knowledge of the FLDS Church and its practices; his employment as an officer, including,
14
but not limited to, his appointment, duties, and whether the FLDS Church or its leaders
15
influence his work or was involved in his appointment; his knowledge of the Bishops
16
Storehouse and its contents; his investigations, actions, and observations with respect to
17
an alleged trespass incident involving Jim Barlow on July 4, 2014; his knowledge and
18
training regarding how to handle child custody disputes, including, but not limited to,
19
policies and procedures, training materials, services of summons, and assisting in the
20
enforcement of custody orders; his knowledge of, and interactions and communications
21
with, Charlene Jeffs, including, but not limited to, conversations (or lack thereof)
22
regarding his appointment as a police office, information regarding her child custody
23
dispute, and his involvement in the custody dispute between Charlene Jeffs and Sabrina
24
Holms; his communications, if any, with Lyle Jeffs concerning his duties as a police
25
officer and whether he reports to Lyle Jeffs or any leader of the FLDS Church; his
26
knowledge of his and other officers participation in the United Order; his knowledge of
27
whether Town officials and officers separate non-United Order members from United
28
Order members, and non-FLDS members from FLDS members; his knowledge regarding
37
whether officers sent consecrated money to Warren Jeffs when he was a fugitive, whether
he or other officers give Lyle Jeffs weekly reports regarding law enforcement activity,
whether Lyle Jeffs directed him or the other officers to be hostile to Bruce Wisan, whether
Warren Jeffs dictates the conduct of him or other officers from prison; and all other
related issues.
Officer Barlow is also expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular
purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting
religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or
endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate
10
in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to
11
do so. He is also expected to testify that the CCMO and its officers do not engage in
12
13
brief investigatory stops without suspicion of criminal activity, or use of excessive force.
14
He is also expected to testify that the CCMO and its officers do not treat people unequally
15
compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with
16
the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
17
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
18
the CCMO and its officers have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination,
19
they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members,
20
they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing opportunities to any
21
22
building or the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have
23
not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or
24
25
FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for the CCMO and its officers.
26
27
28
38
35.
Hyrum Roundy
testify about his education, training, and experience as a police officer, the certifications
received from Arizona and Utah, the process by which he became an officer, his
application and interview process to become a police officer, the training he has received
as a police officer, the Marshals Departments policies and procedures, his interactions
with the Town Council and Prosecutor, and all related issues.
Officer Roundy is also expected to testify about the following topics: his general
knowledge of the FLDS Church and its practices and leaders; whether he receives any
10
direction from the FLDS Church on how to conduct his official duties or interact with
11
Bruce Wisan or the UEP Trust; his knowledge about Saturday work projects; his
12
employment as an officer, including, but not limited to, his appointment and if the FLDS
13
Church was involved, his training, duties, and whether or not he accepts direction from
14
Warren Jeffs or other FLDS leaders in the performance of his official duties, and whether
15
he has observed government employees attempting to help FLDS members avoid service
16
of legal papers or personally had conversations on the issue; whether he assisted in the
17
avoidance of the service of legal papers or slow walked someone trying to serve legal
18
19
procedures, and training regarding the service of documents; his knowledge and
20
observations of, and communications with, Helaman Barlow, including, but not limited to,
21
changes Helaman Barlow made to his police reports; his knowledge and interactions with
22
Willie Jessop, including whether to arrest him on various criminal offenses; the Towns
23
investigation into his conduct regarding Willie Jessop, including disciplinary action
24
against him by the Town; his knowledge regarding whether he or other officers altered
25
any police reports; his knowledge about and involvement in the July 2012 incident
26
involving Jerold Nathan Williams; his knowledge about and involvement in the January
27
2013 incident involving Sam Brower; his knowledge about and involvement in Ruby
28
Jessops custody battle with her husband Haven Barlow; his knowledge about and
39
involvement in Sam Browers attempts to serve him with custody papers involving Haven
Barlow and Ruby Jessop; his knowledge and understanding of enforcing UEP Trust
occupancy agreements, including, but not limited to, his related communications with,
training, and advice from the Prosecutor, training from Arizona and Utah POST, and
training from the Marshals Department; his knowledge about and involvement in the
investigation of Isaac Wyler, including, but limited to, a trespass complaint regarding the
Fanita family property, or other allegations of trespassing; a 2009 incident where Isaac
Wyler complained that people were taking rocks out of a quarry; his knowledge about and
10
involvement in the April 2011 incident where William E. Timpson Jessop was arrested for
11
trespass; his knowledge about and involvement in property disputes between Jessica
12
Jessop, Christopher Jessop, and Penny Barlow; his knowledge about and involvement in a
13
February 2013 incident involving ECO Alliance and Willie Jessop; whether he
14
consecrated his official equipment to the FLDS Church; his knowledge of whether FLDS
15
Church leaders gave instructions to remove Helaman Barlow from the Marshals
16
Department; his working relationship with Helaman Barlow and concerns about Helaman
17
Barlows ability to lead as the Marshal; his knowledge about and observations of
18
interactions with Charlene Jeffs, including, but not limited to, his communications with
19
Charlene Jeffs regarding a welfare check on her children; his knowledge regarding
20
whether he or other officers sent consecrated money to Warren Jeffs when he was a
21
fugitive; whether he or other officers give Lyle Jeffs weekly reports regarding law
22
enforcement activity; whether Lyle Jeffs directed that he or other officers be hostile to
23
Bruce Wisan or the UEP Trust; whether he or other officers receive any direction from
24
Lyle Jeffs, Warren Jeffs, or any other FLDS Church leader regarding how to conduct their
25
official duties; his knowledge about and involvement in the child custody dispute
26
27
Officer Roundy is also expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular
28
purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting
40
religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or
endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate
in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to
do so. He is also expected to testify that the CCMO and its officers do not engage in
brief investigatory stops without suspicion of criminal activity, or use of excessive force.
He is also expected to testify that the CCMO and its officers do not treat people unequally
compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with
the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
10
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
11
the CCMO and its officers have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination,
12
they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members,
13
they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing opportunities to any
14
15
building or the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have
16
not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or
17
18
FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for the CCMO and its officers.
19
20
36.
Curtis Cooke
21
Curtis Cooke serves as an officer for the Colorado City/Hildale Marshals Office.
22
23
regarding unlawful policing, along with any other related issues. He is also expected to
24
offer testimony that will contest Charlene Jeffs testimony. He is expected to testify that
25
that the Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary
26
effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government
27
entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce
28
establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
cause of a crime, brief investigatory stops without suspicion of criminal activity, or use of
excessive force.
unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to
act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not
denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not
10
11
12
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced,
13
intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or
14
on account of that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and
15
that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is
16
expected to conform with his deposition testimony and will include, but not be limited to,
17
incidents he was involved in as a CCMO officer that the Plaintiff has identified as relevant
18
to its claims, how he became an officer at the CCMO, his training and certification as an
19
officer, that he is not directed by the FLDS Church in his official duties, that he does not
20
share law enforcement information with the FLDS, his interactions with FLDS Church
21
security, his communication with FLDS leaders regarding City business, his FLDS
22
membership status, the organization and policies of the CCMO, the CCMOs handling of
23
property disputes, and his interactions and cooperation with other agencies.
24
25
37.
Shem Jessop
26
Shem Jessop served as an officer for the Colorado City/Hildale Marshals Office.
27
28
regarding unlawful policing, including but not limited to that the Defendants have a
42
secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or
inhibiting religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with
religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or
participate in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion
brief investigatory stops without suspicion of criminal activity, or use of excessive force.
He is also expected to testify that Defendants do not treat people unequally compared to
other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with the intent or
10
purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a motivating factor
11
for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that Defendants have
12
not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not denied FHA rights to
13
a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not attempted to make
14
15
16
services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced, intimidated,
17
threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of
18
that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and that religion is
19
not a motivating factor for Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is expected to conform
20
with his deposition testimony and will include, but not be limited to, incidents he was
21
involved in as a CCMO officer that the Plaintiff has identified as relevant to its claims,
22
how he became an officer at the CCMO, his training and certification as an officer, that he
23
is not directed by the FLDS Church in his official duties, that he does not share law
24
enforcement information with the FLDS, his interactions with FLDS Church security, his
25
communication with FLDS leaders regarding City business, his FLDS membership status,
26
the organization and policies of the CCMO, the CCMOs handling of property disputes,
27
28
43
38.
Jonathan Roundy
expected to testify about his education, training, and experience as a police officer, the
certifications received from Arizona and Utah, the process by which he became an officer,
Mr. Roundy is also expected to testify about the following topics: his employment
as an officer and the Marshal, including, but not limited to, his appointment, retirement,
duties, and whether he followed the directives of Warren Jeffs or other leaders of the
FLDS Church in the performance of his duties; whether officers overlooked plural and/or
10
underage marriages in the community; training and advice received from the Prosecutor;
11
his knowledge of how individuals were appointed or employed as officers; his general
12
knowledge of the FLDS Church and its practices; his personal knowledge of the FLDS
13
Church, its leaders, and its practices, including, but not limited to, the United Order and
14
15
attempts to locate Warren Jeffs while he was a fugitive; his knowledge of, and interactions
16
with, Willie Jessop, including, but not limited to, attending meetings at his R&W
17
business; his knowledge of UEP Trust occupancy agreements; his knowledge about and
18
involving in the Holm Sunday School disputes involving Richard Holm and his brothers;
19
his knowledge about and involvement in a November 2008 incident involving Fred Jessop
20
and David Stubbs regarding the planting of wheat in a field; his knowledge about and
21
involvement in a May 2010 incident involving Shane Stubbs field; his knowledge about
22
and involvement in the euthanization of Lydia Stubbs horse; his knowledge about and
23
24
possession of a property previously occupied by Orson Black; his knowledge about and
25
involvement in the 2010 arrest of Genevieve Hainline and Matthew Hainline; and all
26
related issues.
27
Officer Roundy is also expected to testify that the Defendants have a secular
28
purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting
44
religion, that they do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion or
endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce people to support or participate
in religion, or exercise or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or tends to
do so. He is also expected to testify that the CCMO and its officers do not engage in
brief investigatory stops without suspicion of criminal activity, or use of excessive force.
He is also expected to testify that the CCMO and its officers do not treat people unequally
compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to act with
the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
10
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
11
the CCMO and its officers have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination,
12
they have not denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members,
13
they have not attempted to make housing unavailable or deny housing opportunities to any
14
15
building or the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have
16
not coerced, intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or
17
18
FHA rights, and that religion is not a motivating factor for the CCMO and its officers.
19
20
39.
Keith Sobraske
21
Keith Sobraske works for Investigative Research, Inc. He was hired to conduct an
22
23
Barlow. Mr. Sobraske is expected to testify about his education, training, and experience
24
as an investigator, the analysis and investigation that he completed into Helaman Barlow,
25
and the conclusions that he reached. Mr. Sobraske is also expected to testify that he
26
investigated the following five allegations against Helaman Barlow, as set forth in his July
27
29, 2014 investigative report: (1) Making false claims with intent to bring discredit to
28
other officers; (2) Failure to maintain satisfactory working relationships with other
45
employees (including the Town Manager) and his effectiveness to lead the Department;
(3) Confidence, or lack thereof, between the Marshal and the other officers and their
ability to effectively work together in responding to incidents; (4) Whether the use of
alcohol affected Helaman Barlows ability to lead the department; and (5) Admission fact
by Helaman Barlow that he lies and how that credibility affected his ability to function as
head of the Marshals Department. Mr. Sobraske will also testify about his conclusions
8
9
40.
Greg Meyer
10
Greg Meyer is an expert witness who will offer expert opinions (both affirmative
11
and in rebuttal to the United States police practice expert) regarding the conduct of the
12
Marshals Department and its officers. He is expected to testify about his education,
13
14
15
he reviewed, his interview with Ken Brendel, and other work he completed during his
16
17
18
19
See Statement of
Mr. Meyer is further expected to testify consistent with his expert opinions
disclosed to the United States, including the following affirmative expert opinions:
(1)
It is proper for the officers to follow the advice of Ken Brendel, the
20
Prosecutor. Mr. Brendel generally advised handling property disputes involving the UEP
21
Trust as civil matters, and it is proper for police officers to follow the advice of
22
prosecutors. Also, the testimony of Mohave County Sheriffs Department Sergeant Mike
23
Hoggard indicates that Mohave County Sheriffs Department handles UEP property
24
disputes in the same manner as Colorado City Prosecutor Kenneth Brendel has advised
25
the CCMO to handle such disputes; and Sergeant Hoggard would not fault CCMO for
26
27
addition, staff of the Office of the Attorney General (Utah) documented that UEP Trust
28
(2)
The CCMOs Policies and Procedures Manual was adequate, and it was
updated several times from 1989 through at least 2011. The manual quotes from the "Law
Enforcement Code of Ethics" that has been used in many places in the United States for
many years. The 2007 CCMO policies repeatedly emphasized the need for professional
particular, Section 2.6 under "Rules of Conduct" directed, "Use of profane, demeaning, or
insulting language will not be tolerated, nor will disrespect for the political or religious
views of others be accepted." Section 3.4 directed that personnel must cooperate with
other agencies. Section 4.1 directed that employees will not interfere with the lawful
10
business of any person. Section 4.2 directed that personnel may not use their official
11
positions to intimidate persons engaged in a civil controversy. And Section 3.01 directed
12
that the selection and placement of agency personnel are to be based upon Equal
13
14
(3)
Police officers have a duty to report and investigate crimes that they become
15
aware of. It is part and parcel of any police officers duty to do this. Chief Helaman
16
Barlow acknowledged this duty. Colorado City Prosecutor Kenneth Brendel stated that he
17
told CCMO officers that if they witnessed criminal activity, they should take appropriate
18
19
office for consideration of whether charges should be brought). This conduct was proper.
20
(4)
21
officers. No language in any of the reports provided a "red flag" that indicated that
22
23
(5)
24
Jesseca Jessop without discrimination against her. Ms. Jessop testified that she had no
25
problem with the way the CCM0 police officers handled 10 of the 12 matters in which she
26
interacted with them. She disputed the CCMO handling of two of those matters. The first
27
is a property occupancy dispute with Penny Barlow. She recalled that Deputy Hyrum
28
Roundy advised her to go to court to get an eviction order, and Deputy Roundy provided
47
her with a witness statement form. However, she faults Deputy Roundy for not doing his
job because he did not arrest Penny Barlow for trespass on the basis of occupancy
agreement paperwork without an eviction order from the court. She testified that she was
unaware that Deputy Roundy submitted the case to the Prosecutor, who rejected it as a
civil matter. There appears to be a conflict between a court order that Judge Lindberg
occupancy disputes, and the advice of the Prosecutor to treat such disputes as civil
matters, along with CCMO training or direction to gather the information from parties in
the dispute and submit it to the city prosecutor for enforcement advice and decisions. It is
10
appropriate for police officers to handle matters in the manner advised by the Prosecutor.
11
Second, Jesseca Jessop testified about an incident where she and her husband had rented a
12
house from Genevieve Hainline, but there was a trespasser (Enrique LeBaron) on the
13
properly. She called the police. LeBaron was arrested. She testified that she had no
14
problem with the way CCMO Deputy Hyrum Roundy and Officer Curtis Cooke and
15
Sergeant Sam Johnson handled the matter. She also testified that she asked that the
16
investigation be turned over to the Mohave County Sheriff s Office (because she thought
17
Officer Cooke had somehow "mistreated" LeBaron), and that the CCMO personnel did
18
turn the investigation over to Mohave County. Overall, not all incidents were handled in
19
the way that Jesseca Jessop personally desired, but the vast majority of them were; and
20
even the incidents that were not handled in the way that she personally desired do not give
21
rise to a conclusion that there was discrimination against her, absent proof of
22
discrimination.
23
(6)
24
carried out Warren Jeffs' order to return an underage bride. This allegation apparently
25
involves Ruby Jessop, who testified that Sam Roundy came up to Canada with Willie
26
Jessop to bring her back. However, no evidence exists that any CCMO personnel acted in
27
28
48
(7)
Stefanie Colgrove without discrimination against her. She testified that Officer Curtis
Cooke responded to her call about a group of people outside the fence in front of her
property. She wanted the people to leave. Officer Cooke talked to a member of the group
(John Nielson), and the group left. However, she thought Officer Cooke treated her like
she was making something out of nothing. She testified that in 2009 she reported to
Officer Helaman Barlow acts of vandalism to the library. Helaman Barlow investigated,
including taking pictures of damage and footprints. She testified that on April 1 6, 2011,
there was a "huge bonfire" outside the library. She testified that she wrote two versions of
10
her witness statement because part of her first witness statement was not true. She
11
testified that Officer Sam Johnson was unwilling to help with the library investigation.
12
She testified that Officer Sam Johnson assisted her and protected her property from a
13
neighbor boy who had pilfered some items. No evidence of any discrimination exists.
14
(8)
The arrest of Genevive Hainline Stubbs appears to have been lawful. Police
15
officers are taught that probable cause is a strong, reasonable belief that a person has
16
17
dispute (during which CCMO personnel advise that the matter is civil and handles it
18
according to the standing legal advice given by the Prosecutor), she ignored police
19
commands and the direction of her own friends not to go on the property. The police
20
verbally and clearly announced the arrest. She actively resisted arrest. She was taken to
21
the ground using soft-hand controls only, and she was handcuffed. She admitted that she
22
resisted arrest and stated, "l fought them for a while. No evidence of any discrimination
23
exists.
24
(9)
25
UEP Trust property disputes such as the Berry Knoll Farms dispute as civil matters, it was
26
reasonable police action. Helaman Barlow testified that he told Mayor Terrill Johnson
27
that the Berry Knoll Farms dispute was civil, per the direction of the Prosecutor. Sally
28
Stubbs was not satisfied with the police service on this occasion. She testified that she did
49
not remember hearing from Helaman Barlow stating that it was a civil matter. Also, the
testimony of Mohave County Sheriffs Department Sergeant Mike Hoggard indicates that
Mohave County Sheriff's Department handles UEP property disputes in the same manner
as Colorado City Prosecutor Kenneth Brendel has advised CCMO to handle such disputes;
and Sergeant Hoggard would not fault CCMO for handling property disputes in that
manner, which he believes is an appropriate manner. In the case of the Berry Knoll Farms
dispute, Sergeant Hoggard testified that he assessed that both parties in the dispute had
been violating parts of the related court order, and that clarification of the court order was
needed. Sergeant Hoggard also testified that he has no idea if Helaman Barlow's decision
10
11
12
from CCMO Officer Jerry Darger, she did not believe that it was based on some type of
13
religious discrimination.
14
(11)
15
Jeffs was improper and unprofessional. The letter openly states that Marshal Fred Barlow
16
intends to do and is doing the bidding of Warren Jeffs (FLDS leader and federal fugitive).
17
It also states that all of the officers desire "to stand with you and the priesthood" (but all of
18
the officers have testified that they did not engage in discriminatory law enforcement
19
practices).
20
(12)
If there were threats against the church and individuals, and disruptions at
21
the church, it was proper for the CCMO to respond to church security requests for law
22
23
24
(13)
If, as claimed by Willie Jessop, there was "a very heavy interaction between
25
church security and law enforcement," this may well have been appropriate as long as law
26
enforcement was acting in its proper role (and not "being hijacked to do policing for the
27
church"). It is ludicrous for anyone to suggest that there should be no interaction between
28
50
law enforcement agencies and private security interests in the community. Such
(14)
impropriety of "a number of cases" where Willie Jessop testified that Chief Sam Roundy
security, because the reasons these things occurred (if they occurred) and the necessary
8
9
10
11
(15)
If Sam Johnson left the FLDS Church but was still promoted to Sergeant,
and was next in line to be Chief of Police [and as of March 18,2014 was the Acting Chief
of Police], this is evidence that the FLDS Church is not in control of CCMO, as alleged.
(16)
12
Willie Jessop or anyone else without an official purpose, this would be inappropriate and
13
unprofessional. Helaman Barlow admitted that he ran license plates (i.e., used the police
14
15
request of Willie Jessop 10 or 20 times. However, the purpose of doing so was not made
16
17
persons. He did not recall if Guy Timpson ever asked him to run a license plate. He did
18
not know (or recall) if anyone from the FLDS meeting house asked him or any deputies to
19
run license plates. Helaman Barlow's various testimonies (via depositions and court
20
21
(17)
22
carrying out an FLDS Church edict by rounding up domestic dogs and shooting them.
23
Steven Bateman testified about this issue during his deposition. While he believes that it
24
happened, he testified that he has no proof that CCMO personnel were involved in the
25
destruction of dogs.
26
(18)
27
Sheriff Deputy Darrell Cashin (who both had routine interaction with CCMO personnel)
28
testified that the CCMO was generally cooperative with their investigations. Mohave
51
County Sheriffs Sergeant Hoggard testified that he could not think of any instances
testified that most of the time he agreed with the CCMO officers' assessments as to
whether a property-occupancy dispute was civil when non-FDLS people would call him.
(19)
no evidence exists that he knew that the property was occupied illegally or that the
(20)
10
office for advice in handling the Holm School property dispute, and the Washington
11
County Attorney's office advised Sergeant Johnson to handle it as a civil matter, then
12
Sergeant Johnson performed his duty properly. Hyrum Roundy testified that he left the
13
Holm School property dispute before the call was completed because he did not want any
14
part of what he believed was mishandling by the sheriffs. UEP Trust Fiduciary Bruce
15
Wisan wrote to Hildale City Mayor Zitting that, "Police Officers from the County and the
16
Marshal's Office agreed that Richard [Holm] would have to get a court ordered eviction
17
notice..." Richard Holm testified that Jonathan Roundy and Sam Johnson came to Holm's
18
property, asked FLDS men to leave, and they did. Later, the FLDS men returned and
19
began digging holes and installing fences, and Sam Johnson responded and told them to
20
stop.
21
(21)
22
arrest Jerrold Williams if Williams did not leave the property he was allegedly trespassing
23
on, and if Williams did not leave the property despite lawful direction to do so, it was
24
reasonable for Officer Cooke to make that arrest, and any reasonable officer would have
25
26
27
(22)
No evidence supports the allegation that the Marshal's Office has seized the
28
52
Mr. Meyer is further expected to testify consistent with his rebuttal expert opinions
disclosed to the United States, including the following expert opinions to rebut Joseph
(1)
CCMO policy and concludes that it provides officers "plausible deniability." However,
the United States expert uses Helaman Barlow as his source, and because of Helamans
ever-changing testimony, it is not reasonable to rely upon him to support any opinions.
8
9
(2)
10
acknowledged: "Neither POST agency has found CCMO out of compliance with this
11
requirement." While everyone might wish that more hours of ln-service training on more
12
subjects were provided over and above POST requirements, the fact is that training is
13
expensive, and it costs patrol time out of the field. It is traditionally difficult (especially
14
with small departments) to have the luxury to have both the money and the time to do as
15
much extra training as an agency might like to do. The fact that the CCMO was in
16
compliance with in-service training requirements in the view of POST from both Utah and
17
Arizona negates the United States expert's criticism. The United States expert also
18
19
20
18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States are accredited by CALEA. The two
21
agencies that employed the United States expert (Chicago and Winnetka, IL) are not
22
accredited by CALEA. And not a single one of the many dozens of law enforcement
23
24
(3)
Where there is an investigation about a matter, and the original reports were
25
not comprehensive enough to answer later questions, it is proper for an officer to write a
26
supplemental report. The arrest of Harvey Dockstader was appropriate. The CCMO also
27
appropriately handled the Eco Alliance / 340 Johnson Avenue incident. The counsel of
28
the Colorado City Prosecutor's Office is also wise, i.e., that arrests do not need to be made
53
immediately, and that it is sometimes better to wait until all of the various reports are
finished so that the totality of the case can be evaluated prior to a decision to prosecute or
not.
(4)
The 2007 CCMO Law Enforcement Policy and Procedures manual contains
accordingly.
system.
(5)
"About half of local police departments employed fewer than 10 sworn personnel." The
10
CCMO employs fewer than 10. It is difficult to understand the United States expert's
11
opinions about supervision ratios. There are police departments in this country that have
12
13
supervision ratios like Chicago or Winnetka, IL. It is quite the norm with small agencies
14
for supervisors and chiefs and even other officers to be contacted in the off-hours as needs
15
arise.
16
17
18
41.
Jeremiah Darger
Jeremiah Darger serves as the Hildale/Colorado City Chief Marshal.
He is
19
expected to testify regarding his knowledge of the allegations in the Complaint regarding
20
unlawful policing, along with any other related issues. He is also expected to offer
21
testimony that will contest Charlene Jeffs testimony. He is expected to testify that the
22
Defendants have a secular purpose, that they do not have the principal or primary effect of
23
24
entanglement with religion or endorse one religion over another, and they do not coerce
25
26
establishes a state religion or tends to do so. He is also expected to testify that Defendants
27
28
cause of a crime, brief investigatory stops without suspicion of criminal activity, or use of
54
excessive force.
unequally compared to other similarly situated individuals, they have not acted or failed to
act with the intent or purpose to discriminate based upon religion, and that religion is not a
motivating factor for Defendants actions or inaction. He is also expected to testify that
Defendants have not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination, they have not
denied FHA rights to a group of persons, including non-FLDS members, they have not
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, and they have not coerced,
10
intimidated, threatened, or interfered with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or
11
on account of that person exercising or encouraging others to exercise FHA rights, and
12
that religion is not a motivating factor for Defendants. Specifically, his testimony is
13
expected to conform with his deposition testimony and will include, but not be limited to,
14
incidents he was involved in as a CCMO officer that the Plaintiff has identified as relevant
15
to its claims, how he became an officer at the CCMO, his training and certification as an
16
officer, that he is not directed by the FLDS Church in his official duties, that he does not
17
share law enforcement information with the FLDS, his interactions with FLDS Church
18
security, his communication with FLDS leaders regarding City business, his FLDS
19
membership status, the organization and policies of the CCMO, the CCMOs handling of
20
property disputes, and his interactions and cooperation with other agencies.
21
22
23
24
42.
Bruce Wisan
Bruce Wisan is expected to testify via designated deposition pages:
25
26
27
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
43.
25
- p, 5, lines 1-4
26
- p. 8, lines 2-6
27
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57
44.
2
3
Stefanie Colgrove
Stefanie Colgrove is expected to testify via designated deposition pages:
- p, 7, line 24 to p. 8, line 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
45.
Raymon Christensen
Raymon Christensen is expected to testify via designated deposition pages:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
- p. 36 lines 3-5
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3
4
5
46.
September 1, 2015
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
By:
23
24
25
26
27
28
60
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
R. Tamar Hagler
Eric W. Treene
Sean R. Keveney
Jessica C. Crockett
Matthew J. Donnelly
Emily M. Savner
Sharon I. Brett
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Attorneys for Plaintiff United State of America
Jeffrey C. Matura
Asha Sebastian
Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City, Arizona
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
61
EXHIBIT 1
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME:
Greg Meyer
LOCATION:
Los Angeles, CA
CONTACTS:
Offce: (818)956-1303
Cell:
E-Mail
(562) 715-7497
BIRTH:
EDUCATION:
& LICENSES:
present)
1992
1999)
EMPLOYMENT:
updared
08125114
Pagc I
MEYER
OOO2I
(FSRC)
PoliceOne.com
Featured columnist (2006 - present)
POLICE Magazine
Advisory Board Member and article contributor (1997 - present)
Updated 08125114
Pagc2
MEYER
OOO22
2000)
present)
MILITARY:
present)
COMMUNITY
SERVICE:
Updated
08125114
Pagc 3
MEYER
OOO23
HONORS &
AWARDS:
Updated
08125114
(1969-1970)
Pagc 4
MEYER
OOO24
LAPD
PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITIES:
Updated
08125114
Pagc 5
MEYER
OOO25
*
*
*
*
*
"
"
VA (November 2005)
"
"
*
*
*
Updated
08125114
Pagc 6
MEYER 00026
- 2006)
Updated 08125114
Page 7
MEYER
OOO27
*
n
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Updated 08125114
2003)
Pagc 8
MEYER
OOO28
*
*
- 2006)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Updated 08125114
ee4)
1993, and
Pagc 9
MEYER
OOO29
SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
RECEIVED:
from 2002-2013)
Public Safety Discipline and lnternal Affairs Course, Americans for
Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) (3 days, 2005, 2009, pending in
2014)
Training on California Highway Patrol (CHP) Mobile Video Audio
Recording System (MVARS) presented by CHP staff at the California
Department of Justice (Los Angeles office) (February 2013)
Updated 08125114
Pagc I 0
MEYER
OOO3O
"
*
*
*
"
*
*
*
- 2003)
"
Updated 08125114
Pagc I I
MEYER
OOO31
NON.LAPD
EXPERT
ACTIVITIES:
::;i::;:i'iiJJf:i1".":fl
TASER issues and Force Science issues, Santa Ana (CA) (10
participants) (June 2013)
Updated
08125114
Page 12
MEYER
OOO32
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
n
*
*
"
Updated 08125114
Pagc
13
MEYER
OOO33
*
*
"
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Updated
08125114
Pagc 14
MEYER
OOO34
"
*
"
"
"
"
*
*
"
*
*
Updated
08125114
ee4)
Pagc
15
MEYER
OOO35
*
*
"
*
Updated 08/25114
- 1999)
Pagc 16
MEYER 00036
OTHER EXPERT
ACTlvlrlES:
Guest on pBS "The News Hour" and NPR Radio in the wake of
controversial use of force incidents in New York and Missouri (August
2014)
present)
present)
Updated 08125114
Page
l7
MEYER
OOO37
*
*
*
"
*
*
*
"
*
*
*
*
Updated 08125114
Pagc
I8
MEYER
OOO38
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
n
"
*
*
*
Updated
08125114
Pagc
19
MEYER
OOO39
Updated 08125114
Page20
MEYER
OOO4O
"
n
*
"
*
"
*
"
"
"
Participant in the RAND Corporation's meeting on transfer of lessthan-lethal military technology to civilian law enforcement arena;
and attended the House Armed Services Committee, Research and
Technology Subcommittee hearing on that subject (1994)
Updated
08125114
Pagc 21
MEYER
OOO41
*
*
.
*
: :::::: ::#:iiliiiJii;":i:""T:,,,,"
*
- :rri:Hi*i:li"::"'""'
Chief of Police, Los Angeles
Updaied
08125114
Page 22
MEYER
OOO42
Time
US News & World Report
Police Chief (magazine of lnternational Association of Chiefs of Police)
Los Angeles Times (multiple occasions)
Los Angeles Herald Examiner (multiple occasions)
Los Angeles Daily News
Money Magazine
Good Housekeeping
Grand Junction (CO) Sentinel
Aspen Daily News
Miami Daily Business Review
The Mountain Enterprise
Court-TV
a
a
c
a
)
'a
a
a
a
a
t
a
a
o
.
r
.
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
o
.
.
.
.
Updated 08125114
Slate
Las Vegas Review Journal
Discovery Channel Canada
KLAS-TV Channel B (Las Vegas)
The Daily (New York)
Fox News 11, 'Studio 11 LA" (Los Angeles)
Tampa Bay Times (multiple occasions)
Columbus (GA) Ledger-Enquirer
Salt Lake Tribune
Associated Press (AP) (multiple occasions)
Baltimore Sun
Longview News-Journal (TX)
The Daily Breeze (CA)
Charlotte (NC) Observer
Tallahassee Democrat
Long Beach (CA) Register
The Today Show (NBC)
RT.com
The News Hour (PBS)
Pagc 23
MEYER
OOO43
LAPD
ASSIGNMENT
HISTORY:
2013 -
2006
2012
2004
Updated 08125114
Pagc 24
MEYER
OOO44
999
2004
1998-1999
1996
- 1998
Updated
08125114
Pagc25
MEYER
OOO45
1994 - 1996
1991
- 1993
1989
1991
1988 - 1989
1986 - 19BB
Line supervision for the Traffic Legislation and Special Projects Unit. Act
for the officer-in-charge in his absence. Monitor and rate the work of
supervisory employees. Supervised work on LAPD pursuit policy revisions.
Supervised the Specialized Collision lnvestigation Detail (SCID) re major
accidents involving the Police and Fire Departments, including pursuits.
Updated 08125114
Pagc 26
MEYER 00046
1986
1984 -
1985
Patrol
Supervisor
(Sergeant)
1984
1981 -
1982
1980 -
1981
1979 -
1980
1978 -
1g7g
1978
1977 -
1978
Updated 08125114
Pagc27
MEYER
OOO47
1976
1977
PARTIAL
10 years]
- 20 Years
Updated 08125114
Pagc 28
MEYER
OOO48
"Why History Makes the Case for Less Lethal," article, PoliceOne.com
(Sep. 2009)
(Mar.2009)
Updated
08125114
Pagc29
MEYER
OOO49
Updated 08125114
Pagc 30
MEYER
OOO5O
LITIGATION
ACTIVITIES:
CASES:223
Shooting
ARD**
DEPOSED:43
Excessive
TASER
ESTIFIED:40
False
Pursuit
Jail/Prison
Other
11
17
Arrest
Force
CIVIL
For Pltf
11
For Deft
34
23
134
79
t6
CRIMINAL
For Pros
For Deft
ADMIN
tJ
For Deot
For Ofcr
163
98
Grand Jurv
TOTAL
46
24
lssues
28
12
27
Updated
08125114
Pagc
3I
MEYER
OOO5i
(2012) (Federal)
Expert witness for the defense, civil suit alleging excessive force during arrest,
TASER issues (Deposed)
TASER use and excessive force; my role was merely to demonstrate TASER and
explain to the jury how it works. (Testifie.)
Madrigal v. City of Santa Maria and Gounty of Santa Barbara (CA) (201 1) (Federal)
Expert witness for the defense of the city and the county, civil case alleging
excessive force and false arrest by personnel from both agencies. (Testified)
Updated
08125114
Page32
MEYER
OOO52
Updated 08125114
Pagc 33
MEYER
OOO53
(shooting). (Testified)
People v. Orange Gounty (GA) SherifPs Deputy Hibbs (2009)
Expert witness for the criminal defense, deputy accused of excessive force,
Updated 08125114
Pagc 34
MEYER
OOO54
STRATTON 00009
STRATTON 00010