GoofyJen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2016
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 1,166
Oh the one I saw (linked in the thread previously) I thought it said the sealed stuff was unsealed only for the new prosecutor to see it, not EIN. This is so confusing.
And another thing, I don't understand why MM thinks he's entitled to discovery on charges that haven't even been put to Ms Vallow Daybell yet.
That also happened. The conflict of interest issue from June 2020 for the concealment cases was unsealed for the prosecution the day before MM filed Motions to Compel in both the concealment and the murder cases.
The Motion to Compel in the concealment case is the one that had 169 pgs of juicy stuff that the state requested be sealed.
The Motion to Compel in the murder case is the one where MM demanded discovery at his convenience as opposed to making arrangements with the state. He put a statement at the end of his motion that he submitted at 3:30pm on Friday informing the state he was coming to the prosecutor's office at 10AM the following Monday to demand entire discovery. (The state had told him he would get any new discovery in July.) On Tuesday he submitted a ridiculous declaration in support of his Friday motion saying that the state did not tell him by 4am Monday morning that they would not be able/willing to submit to his demands. He claims in that declaration that he sent an email to the state demanding this meeting, and attached the email to the declaration. Unfortunately for him, the email (sent at 3:30pm on Friday) only indicated that a motion to compel was attached and made no mention of wishing to show up on Monday.
ETA: I am also baffled about how any motions are being entertained in either of her cases since her cases are stayed.
Last edited: