Feds Closing Brief in FLDS Discrimination Case

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

Sameena Shina Majeed (DC Bar # 491725)
R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)
Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612)
Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)
Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862)
Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308)
Emily M. Savner (NY Bar #5214358)
Sharon I. Brett (NY Bar #5090279)
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone:
(202) 353-4081
Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
E-mail: emily.savner@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for the United States
12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13
14
15
16
United States,
No. 3:12cv8123-HRH
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES CLOSING
ARGUMENT REGARDING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
19
Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,

20
21
22
Defendants.
Pursuant to this Courts post-trial Scheduling Orders, ECF Nos. 983 & 1008, the
23 United States submits the following closing argument as a supplement to the United
24 States briefing, ECF Nos. 939 & 941, on the injunctive relief necessary to remedy
25 Defendants violations of 42 U.S.C. 14141 (Section 14141) and the federal Fair
26 Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq, and prevent future unlawful conduct.
27
28
I.
1
2
INTRODUCTION
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church
3 or Church) controls the Town of Colorado City and the City of Hildale (Cities)
4
5
6
7
8
through its ability to separate families, order followers to engage in criminal activity and
ignore the law, and punish dissenters. Like the Cities themselves, Defendants Colorado
City Marshals Office (CCMO) operates as an arm of the FLDS Church. The CCMO
regularly discriminates on the basis of religion, ignores constitutional protections afforded
to non-FLDS members and crimes committed by the Church, and obstructs the ability of
non-FLDS members and the United Effort Plan Trust (UEP Trust or Trust) to live and
operate in the community. Numerous outside law enforcement agencies that have
10
11
12
13
14
operated alongside the CCMO, as well as police practices experts, agree that the CCMO is
structurally unable to abide by the Constitution and function as a fair and effective
enforcer of the law, given the Cities entanglement with the FLDS Church. To ensure that
the Church does not use government law enforcement to enforce its religious edicts, and
to remedy decades of constitutional violations and establish constitutional policing in
15 Short Creek, the CCMO must be disbanded. Disbandment represents the most immediate
16 and effective resolution of the Cities longstanding pattern of unlawful conduct, and
17 disbandment can be achieved at a cost comparable to what the Cities pay for law
18 enforcement today.
19
Defendants have not only employed the CCMO systematically to violate the
20 Constitution for years, but they have also used their ability to regulate building permits,
21 water connections, and subdivision, as well as the CCMO, to frustrate the implementation
22 of lawful orders and the Trusts efforts to provide housing to non-FLDS families.
23 Although Defendants have modified their tactics over the years, their motivations have
24 remained constant: to obey FLDS leaders commands to oppose the sale of Trust land and
25 refuse to cooperate in any way with the reformed Trust or the apostates who seek
26 housing in the community.
27
28
The trial evidence, the jurys verdict, and the evidence introduced at the remedies
hearing establish the need for a comprehensive injunction to remedy the effects of
1 Defendants discrimination and protect the rights of all City residents going forward. The
2 Defendants intentional misconduct, which has continued not only since a general
3 injunction was issued in Cooke v. Colorado City, but also since this trial, as well as
4 Defendants last-minute and wholly inadequate attempts at reform, demonstrate the need
5 for significant court-ordered injunctive relief.
Courts have not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far
6
7
8
9
10
as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like
discrimination in the future. See International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431
U.S. 324, 364 (1977); see generally ECF No. 939. Accordingly, this Court should: (1)
disband the CCMO and require the Cities to transfer the provision of policing services to
outside law enforcement; (2) order Colorado City to approve the UEP Trusts subdivision
11
proposal already reviewed and approved by Mohave County; (3) impose specific
12
13
14
15
16
injunctive relief governing housing-related municipal services; and (4) appoint a monitor
1
to oversee all relief ordered under the FHA. See Proposed Order (Att. A).
II. RELIEF NECESSARY TO REMEDY DEFENDANTS PATTERN OR

PRACTICE VIOLATIONS AND PREVENT FUTURE DISCRIMINATION
A. Disbanding the CCMO is Necessary to Remedy Defendants Multiple Patterns
and Practices of Violating the Constitution.
17
18
1. The Severity and Unique Nature of the Constitutional Violations, and the
CCMOs Refusal to Reform, Make Disbandment Necessary.
19
The unprecedented nature of Defendants pattern or practice of violating multiple
20 constitutional amendments and the failure of all previous remedial attempts make
21 disbandment necessary. After six weeks of trial evidence, a jury concluded that
22 Defendants, through the CCMO, engaged in patterns or practices of conduct that violated
23 the: (1) First Amendments Establishment Clause; (2) Fourth Amendments prohibitions
24 on unreasonable seizures of persons and property and arrests without probable cause; and
25
The United States is authorized to seek relief with respect to the CCMO pursuant to
its claims under both Section 14141 and the FHA given that the United States alleged and
27 proved a denial, or discriminatory provision of, police services because of religion. See
Verdict at 14, ECF No. 932 (awarding damages to persons aggrieved by CCMOs
28 actions).
26
1
2
3
(3) Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. This verdict confirmed

Defendants decades-long history of impermissible entanglement with the FLDS Church
and the resulting discrimination against non-FLDS individuals and disregard for their
constitutional rights.
4
5
6
Defendants systemic violation of the Establishment Clause is unprecedented; no

other case has demonstrated that a law enforcement agency operates at the direction of and
as an arm of a church. The jurys verdict, as detailed in United States proposed findings
7 of fact, was supported by voluminous evidence of the CCMOs intentional, deeply

8 entrenched fusion with the FLDS Church. See generally Proposed Finding of Fact (Att.
9 B). This evidence includes proof that the Church appoints and controls CCMO officers
10 and the City officials who oversee them, see id. at Part III.B(4); the CCMO seeks and
11 follows FLDS leaders directives; see id. at Part III.B(5); the CCMO improperly supports
12 Church Security, see id. at Part III.B(6); and the CCMO participates in and ignores crimes
13 committed by FLDS members and the Church, see id. at Part III.C(3).
14
15
16
17
This unprecedented control of a law enforcement agency by a church directly

resulted in the CCMO carrying out the will of the FLDS Church through systemic patterns
or practices of violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Fourth Amendment. See id.
at Parts III.C-D. The trial included evidence of both the CCMO selectively not enforcing
laws against FLDS members and selectively targeting non-FLDS members for
18
19
20
21
unreasonable seizures and arrests. See id. at Part III.C(3)-(4), Part III.D. Much of the
CCMOs selective enforcement and unreasonable seizures centered on the now-reformed
and religiously neutral UEP Trust and its efforts to provide housing to non-FLDS families.
Despite constant scrutiny from outside law enforcement and other courts, the
22 CCMO remains undeterred by previous remedial efforts. The CCMO has persisted in its
23 unlawful conduct despite court orders in UEP Trust litigation, Exs. 528 & 3147; the Cooke
24 injunction against further housing discrimination, Ex. 3373; and multiple officer
25 decertifications by the Utah and Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training (POST)
26 agencies, see Att. B at Part III.C(5)(a). All four previous Chief Marshals who have served
27 since Warren Jeffs took control of the FLDS Church in the early 2000s either have been
28 decertified or have relinquished their certifications while under POST investigation and
1
2
3
five other CCMO officers have also been decertified. See id. Moreover, of this sevenmember force, the full Arizona POST board has initiated decertification proceedings
against six current officers, including current Chief Jerry Darger. See Att. C.
The CCMOs intention to continue its unlawful conduct, notwithstanding these
4
5
6
previous interventions, is illustrated further by its discriminatory and unreasonable arrests,

just before trial, of two non-FLDS members attempting to occupy property leased to them
by the Trust and of a Trust employee for trespass on Trust-owned property. See Att. B at
7 Part III.C(4)(i) & (b). Disbandment accordingly stands as the only remedy that will
8 ensure that Defendants are no longer in a position to continue fostering the CCMOs
9 impermissible fusion with the FLDS Church and discriminatory policing in the Cities. See
10 United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953) (finding suit for injunctive
11 relief is not moot unless defendant can meet heavy burden of demonstrating that there
12 is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated) (citation omitted).
13
14
15
2. Experts in Police Administration and in the CCMOs Law Enforcement

Practices Conclude that Disbandment is Necessary.
The unprecedented evidence of Church control led police administration expert
Jack Harris, the former Phoenix Police Chief with 39-years experience, to conclude that
16 disbandment is the most appropriate remedy and the remedy with the greatest likelihood
17 of success at eliminating the constitutional violations found. Harris Hrg Tr. 315-19, 34118 42; Ex. 506. Chief Harris considered various remedial options and found that any real fix
19 to the Cities policing practices would require wholesale replacement of CCMO personnel
20 (due to the clear biases and misconduct of the existing officers) and the chain of
21 command, and new policies and procedures (including those related to hiring and internal
22 affairs). He thus concluded that other, lesser remedies such as training and policy changes
23
24
25
26
alone or even the hiring of a new chief would most likely fail to end the CCMOs
entanglement with the Church. E.g., Harris Hrg Tr. 319-26 (new chief), 347, 382
(training, policies and procedures). Chief Harris concluded that a monitor for the CCMO
would also likely fail. See id. at 326-30. He found Defendants past conductincluding
their hostile attitude toward outside law enforcement and untimely and manipulated police
27
28
1
2
3
reportingshowed Defendants would effectively undermine a powerless monitor and

cause more litigation for this Court. See id. at 336, 384-85.
The FLDS-controlled town council and CCMO officers could similarly undermine
a receiver. Putting aside the fact that this option assumes it would be possible to find a
4
5
6
qualified individual who is able to relocate to the Cities and take on the day-to-day task of
building essentially a new department, as Chief Harris concluded, even a receiver with the
power to fire and hire could still face resistance from the town council, town manager, and
7 other city departments, as well as budgetary restraints by the town council, id. at 330-31,
8 336-37, which would also require the continued involvement of the Court. He opined that
9 a receiver would need to remove all CCMO officers, and even if all were fired
10 immediately, repopulating the CCMO with qualified, religiously neutral officers would
11 likely take a year. Id. at 332-33 (receiver would also need to make policy and practice
12 reforms). An outside law enforcement agency, like the county Sheriffs Offices, would
13 need to provide policing services during this de facto disbandment period. See id. at 333.
14 Disbandment thus represents the better, immediate, and certain reform that is necessary to
2
15 solve the CCMOs unprecedented, unconstitutional conduct. See id. at 336-38, 341-42.
In addition to Chief Harriss expert opinion, other local law-enforcement agencies
16
17
18
that have interacted with the CCMO for years believe disbandment is necessary. The
Mohave County Sheriffs Office (MCSO), including its incoming sheriff, has supported
disbandment for years. Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 184-85. The MCSO, whose jurisdiction
19
20
21
22
includes Colorado City, has a long history of dealing with the CCMOs problematic
conduct, resulting in a strained relationship lacking trust in CCMO, and believes
disbandment is the only way thats going to bring immediate and lasting relief. Id. at
186-88; see also Nelson Dep. Tr. Ex. 537 at 27, 72, 56 (describing lack of trust in CCMO
23 records and Chief Darger and Sheriffs directive to not treat CCMO as allied agency).
24 Based on its experience with the CCMO, the MCSO believes Defendants will resist,
25
Given AZ POSTs current proceedings against all but the newest CCMO officer,
even without Court intervention there will likely be a period during which the Cities must
27 rely on outside law enforcement. Given the decades of evidence concerning Defendants
commitment to putting the FLDS Church above all else, they should not be permitted to
28 re-staff and simply try again, with or without the oversight of a monitor or receiver.
26
1
2
3
delay, and ultimately defeat lesser reform attempts as seen by their refusal to change
despite POST decertifications, the Cooke case, constant litigation against the UEP Trust,
and subsequent court orders. Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 186-87. Attempts short of
disbandment, such as a receiver, will not result in reform, but rather more litigation and
4
5
6
further delay in providing residents with constitutional policing.

Washington County law enforcement, whose jurisdiction includes Hildale, also has
supported disbandment for years. The Washington County Sheriffs Office (WCSO)
7 supports disbandment because the jurys verdict confirms what WCSO deputies have
8 witnessed and what citizens have complained to them about for years. Pulsipher Hrg Tr.
9 233. Like other agencies, WCSO currently does not trust the CCMO to provide
10 religiously neutral policing. Id. at 234-36 (giving example of concern that CCMO will
11 cause children to be moved if WCSO alerts CCMO about coming into Hildale for child
12 custody issue). The Washington County Attorney echoed this problem, testifying to his
13 experience that the CCMO cannot be trusted to not communicate with criminal targets
14 associated with the FLDS Church. Belnap Hrg Tr. 497, 503. The Washington County
15
16
17
Attorney supports disbandment because in his experience, CCMO officers cannot put the
rule of law above the coercive pressure of Warren Jeffs, who demands absolute loyalty
and believes he is above the law. Id. at 500-01, 509; see also id. at 518-19 (relating
teaching of Warren Jeffs that instructs FLDS to return to illegal behavior quickly after
18
19
20
outside scrutiny fades). As long as the Jeffs regime retains its criminal control over the
Cities, the CCMO will continue to face this inescapable conflict. Id. at 511-12, 516-17.
Reform attempts short of disbandment will not fix a CCMO that is corrupt at its core. Id.
21 at 508 (stating we cannot expect reform through new branches grafted on corrupt root).
22 Most importantly, the Washington County Attorney supports disbandment because it will
23 change the lives of thousands of people who have been trapped by the CCMOs
24 efforts to carry out FLDS religious edicts and [Warren Jeffss] coercion. Id. at 518-19.
25
Based upon this evidence, this Court should find that disbandment is necessary to
26 release policing in the Cities from the FLDS Churchs control and ensure that the rule of
27 law, rather than Church edicts, prevails in the Cities.
28
1
2
3. The Counties Can Provide Constitutional and Superior Police Services.

The WCSO and MCSO are willing and able to provide constitutional, unbiased
police services in the Cities upon the CCMOs disbandment. While the Cities can choose
3
4
5
6
7
another outside law enforcement agency (or agencies) to provide police servicessubject
3
to this Courts approvalthe local Sheriffs represent the most practical choice. Both
WCSO and MCSO already respond to calls for service in the Cities. Pulsipher Hrg Tr.
232; Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 190-91, 202. WCSO currently has four deputies patrolling its
County at a time, responds to Hildale calls in 3-35 minutes depending on deputy location,
8 and can call upon other local Utah or Arizona law enforcement if needed for more
9 emergent responses. Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 232, 239-40. Similarly, MCSO currently is fully
10 staffed in the Colorado City area with six officers, five of whom live close enough to
11 respond in emergencies. Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 197.
12
These County Sheriffs already have a plan for providing cross-jurisdictional
13 services in the Cities. The Sheriffs Offices have had a good working relationship with
14 each other for years, already cross the state line to aid each other, and have recently
15
16
17
formalized a mutual-aid agreement regarding cross-jurisdictional policing. Schoppmann

Hrg Tr. 192; Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 245-46; Ex. 514. The agreement specifies that both
Sheriffs Offices will provide aid across the state line at the request of the other
jurisdiction or upon the discovery of an emergent situation. The WCSO and MCSO will
18
19
20
21
serve as back up for each other, and each will respond to calls requiring immediate action
in the others jurisdiction, providing initial response functions and holding the scene if the
other Sheriffs deputies are farther away. Id. at 2-3. The primary jurisdictions deputy
would take over upon his/her arrival. Id.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This Court should allow Defendants some flexibility in deciding what entity or
entities take over policing, and in how much police presence for which to contract.
Should the Court permit the Cities to contract with an agency(ies) other than the counties,
however, the Court should approve the acceptability of that agency(ies) as not likely to
carry on the CCMOs illegal conduct. The Court should also require Defendants to
contract for a police presence comparable to the 24-hour presence the CCMO claims it
provides. See Att. A at 10-11.
8
The Sheriffs plan also centralizes dispatching services through the St. George
1
2
3
Consolidated Dispatch Center, which would result in more efficient, centralized service
without the cost and risk of the Cities current, religiously biased dispatch services.
Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 200-02 (explaining MCSOs reluctance to use Cities dispatch);
4
5
6
Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 247-50 (describing service-related benefits of centralization of dispatch

throughout Washington County; detailing concerns with Cities dispatch center); Grenier
Hrg Tr. 298-99 (best option is for St. George to dispatch all services that Cities dispatch
7 center currently provides), 296 (Cities dispatch center prominently displayed photographs
8 of FLDS leaders); Att. B at Part III.B(6)(c) (involvement of Cities dispatch in sharing
9 confidential law enforcement information with Church Security); id. at Part III.C(5)(d)
10 (Cities alteration of dispatch call logs). Beyond already dispatching WCSO deputies in
11 Hildale, St. George has the technical ability, training, and experience effectively and
12 seamlessly to dispatch services in the Cities. Grenier Hrg Tr. 293-96, 314 (St. George
13 Dispatch has GPS mapping for cell phones and landlines, trains dispatchers to become
14 familiar with new areas of service, and commonly handles situations where callers phone
15
16
17
lacks GPS). St. George Dispatch can also easily absorb the relatively small number of
additional calls from the Cities. Id. at 297, 289-93; see also Exs. 472 & 473. Centralizing
dispatch will not only promote efficient coordination of policing services between MCSO
and WCSO, but will also further reduce response times in the event of an emergency by
18
19
20
allowing St. George to dispatch to the Cities any of the other law enforcement agencies it
already dispatches. Grenier Hrg Tr. 287-88, 299-301 (currently dispatches 37 agencies).
Recently, St. George took over dispatching for the city of Enterprise without issue, id. at
21 301, evidencing its ability also to provide a smooth transition of services for the Cities.
22
Both Sheriffs Offices have given Defendants and this Court flexible options for
23 providing services to the Cities, including options for cost-effective, non-duplicative

24 coordination.4 WCSO can already easily absorb additional calls for service in Hildale
25
4
Both Sheriffs would also continue to provide service for calls upon disbandment,
regardless of any contract for additional services. Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 236 (WCSO
27 responsible for primary police services, regardless of contract, if CCMO disbanded);
Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 193-94 (MCSO would provide service even if Colorado City
28
ignored its state-law responsibility to provide for police services).
26
1
2
3
without any additional deputies. Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 238-39 (estimating less than one
additional call per WCSO deputy per shift with disbandment of CCMO, which WCSO
could handle without additional staff). The WCSO is willing to contract with the Cities
for additional presence, which the WCSO already does for other Utah communities. Id. at
4
5
6
240-41. If the Cities wanted a 24-hour WCSO presence on the Hildale side, the WCSO
would provide that coverage with four additional deputies at a cost of approximately
$100,000 per deputy. Id. at 241-43; Ex. 527 (including salary, retirement, benefits,
7 operations, and equipment costs).

8
The MCSO would also contract with the Cities to become the primary law
9 enforcement presence in Colorado City. Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 190-91, 194; Ex. 513.
10 Arizona law requires Colorado City to contract with MCSO to provide primary service,
11 and the MCSO recently drafted a negotiable, proposed contract for Colorado City.
12 Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 203-05; Ex. 515; see also Ariz. Rev. Stat 9-104, 9-240, 9-498.
13 As currently drafted, MCSO would provide 20 hours of police presence per day in
14 Colorado City through three additional deputies and one sergeant. Ex. 515 at 2-3
15
16
17
(including, within stated cost, additional and specialized services (detectives, SWAT,
etc.), misdemeanor prosecutorial services, and liability coverage). MCSO currently
estimates this amount of additional service to cost approximately $436,000 a year, with an
initial first-year start-up cost of approximately $257,000. Id.at 1. MCSO stands ready to
18
19
20
provide whatever level of police presence the Cities want to contract. Schoppmann Hrg
Tr. 203-05, 195, 219-20 (stating MCSO can fulfill draft contract, despite any purported
budget or attrition issues). The Sheriffs have also stated their ability to provide response
21 to calls for service immediately. See Harris Hrg Tr. 337-38 (explaining WCSO able to
22 take over responding to calls for service immediately; MCSO prefers 30-90 days for
23 finalizing contracts, but could immediately start responding to calls for service).
24
It is important to note that the cost estimates described above might be dramatically
25 reduced while maintaining the current level of coverage. These estimates are based on
26 simultaneous full-time WCSO deputy coverage in Hildale and full-time MCSO deputy
27 coverage in Colorado City and thus the provision of nearly double the service that the
28 CCMO, which uses just one officer to cover both Cities at all times, currently provides.
10
1
2
3
The Sheriffs are willing to coordinate and stagger deputies schedules to avoid duplicative
costs and match the level of services already being provided in the Cities. Schoppmann
Hrg Tr. 205-07; Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 246-47, 281. If Defendants contracted for presence
comparable to current CCMO coverage, the WCSO and MCSO would stagger their
4
5
6
schedules to have only one deputy on duty and patrolling the Cities at a time. That deputy
would crossover into the other jurisdiction as needed. Such coordination should cut
proposed costs in half. Id.; see Ex. 535 (Option 2).
Thus, coordinated, 24-hour coverage by the Sheriffs, with dispatch by St. George,
8 would provide the same presence currently provided by the CCMO, at approximately the
9 same cost as the Cities currently budget for law enforcement and dispatch in year one and
10 for about $200,000 less in subsequent years. See Ex. 535 (showing comparison of first11 year costs of approximately $863,000 for Sheriffs coordinated 24-hour schedule Option
12 2, with current CCMO/Dispatch annual budget of $800,000 plus the cost of ancillary
13 services). Coordinated coverage by the Sheriffs is also approximately $90,000 cheaper
14 than the costs for policing and dispatch associated with the insufficient plan of
15
16
17
Defendants police consultant. See id. (projecting costs of consultants plan to be

$950,000 per year, plus costs of ancillary services, plus yet-to-be identified costs for
further, necessary remedial measures). If this Court considers the additional costs of a
receiver/monitor for the CCMO, the Sheriffs plan proves dramatically more cost
18
19
20
effective. Regardless, even if the Cities contracting with the Counties does cost more,
Defendants purported [f]inancial constraints may not be used to justify the creation or
perpetration of [their] constitutional violations. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502
21 U.S. 367, 392 (1992); accord Graves v. Arpaio, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1318, 1335 (D. Ariz.
22 2014), amended, No. CV-77-00479, 2014 WL 6983316 (D. Ariz. Dec. 10, 2014).
23
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should find that the appropriate and necessary
24 injunctive relief for Defendants longstanding, pattern and practice of constitutional

25 violations is disbandment of the CCMO and transfer of all policing services to outside law
5
26 enforcement.
27
28
A transition to the Sheriffs providing policing services is the best means of

increasing trust in the local policing provider by all members of the community, both non11
B. Specific and Comprehensive Injunctive Relief is Necessary to Remedy

Defendants Violations of the FHA and Ensure Future Compliance.
As long as City officials continue to support the FLDS Churchs control of the land
3 in the Cities, Defendants will be motivated to discriminate on the basis of religion with
4 respect to housing. It is the religiously neutral UEP Trusts goal of distributing assets to
5 its beneficiaries that conflicts with FLDS religious mandates to maintain Trust land as
6 Church property. It is the Trusts mandate to provide housing to all beneficiaries who
7 meet religiously neutral criteria that conflicts with the FLDS Churchs historical means of
8 using control over Trust-owned homes to compel loyalty in the Church. Not surprisingly,
9 given that City-government positions are filled by loyalists appointed by the Church, this
10 religious opposition to non-FLDS families receiving housing on Trust land is a belief held
11 by City officials from Mayors Philip Barlow and Joseph Allred, to Town Manager David
6
12 Darger, to building official Andrew Barlow. This religious-based opposition to the Trust
and to permitting non-FLDS families to access Trust housing has driven Defendants to,
13
14
15
16
17
among other things: frustrate the Trusts decade-long effort to subdivide its land and
provide beneficiaries, including people who may happen to be out of FLDS favor, with
deeds to their homes; refuse to require the landowners consent on building permit
applications; block the smooth transfer of utilities when the Trust attempts to give a nonFLDS family a home; and establish an excessive impact fee for water services.
18
19 FLDS and FLDS residents. The WCSO and MCSO already engage in community20 oriented policing, attempt to regularly interact with the Cities residents, and are working
21
22
23
24
to increase community bonds. Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 282-83; Schoppmann Hrg Tr. 189-90.
Moreover, the provision of professional and unbiased services, itself, is likely to garner
support for the Sheriffs throughout the community. Harris Hrg Tr. 338-40, 382-83
(police practices expert explaining, the resolution is providing good police service, and if
you want fair, objective, good police service when you call the police about being a victim
and you get that, eventually, then, youre going to be satisfied with the police department
thats responding, whoever that may be.).
6
See, e.g., Ex. 43; Ph. Barlow Trial Tr. 3207 (admitting religious-based opposition to
subdivision); Allred Trial Tr. 2813 (asserting Fifth Amendment in response to questions
26
concerning conspiracy between FLDS Church and Cities to discriminate against non27 FLDS in terms of access to water); A. Barlow Dep. Tr. Ex. 3527 at 68 (objects to the
current management of the Trust solely because the Trust is not being managed in
28 accordance with the religious principles of its founders); Att. B at Part III.B(3).
25
12
As the religious motivations behind City officials actions show no signs of
2 diminishingas seen by their trial and post-trial admissions of continued adherence to

3 these beliefs, continued efforts to oppose subdivision, and stated disagreement with the
4 jury verdictmeaningful reform must come from the Court.
5
6
1. Ending Discrimination Against Non-FLDS Residents Requires Approval of

the Trusts Subdivision Proposal for Colorado City.
Jeff Barlow, the Trusts Executive Director, explained the Trusts goal with respect
7 to subdivision: to split parcels of land that currently occupy an entire block and contain
8 several homes into multiple, smaller parcels according to de facto property lines. Plats
9 depicting the new parcels will be recorded by Mohave County, allowing the Trust to deed
10 individual lots to Trust beneficiaries, preferably the existing occupant or the builder of the
11 home. Barlow Hrg Tr. 55-58; Exs. 529 & 532 at 1 (The proposed plat intends to
12 establish finite lots and roadways for properties within the town.).
13
A remedy allowing for the subdivision of the Trusts property in Colorado City
14 would significantly restrict the Cities future ability to engage in housing discrimination
15 on the basis of religion. Private ownership of land would limit the CCMOs ability to cite
16 Trust representatives for trespass and false reporting; deprive the CCMO of the
17 opportunity during disputes over occupancy agreements and evictions to support the
18 position of the FLDS person installed by the Church to claim occupancy over that of the
19
20
21
22
23
non-FLDS, legitimate occupancy-agreement-holder; and lessen the impact of other City

policies intended to make accessing housing more difficult for non-FLDS families and
management of Trust property more difficult for the Trust. As Jeff Barlow explained,
without subdivision, In essence the issues were dealing with now would go on in
perpetuity. Barlow Hrg Tr. 83.
Not only would ordering Colorado City to approve the Trusts subdivision
24
proposal, which has already received County approval, go far in preventing future FHA
25
26
27
violations, but it would also directly remedy the Citys discriminatory refusal to approve
subdivision. While Colorado City, like any municipality, has the authority to regulate its
land, it may not use that authority to attempt to keep non-FLDS families out of the
28
13
1 community because of their religion. The Cities have done just that. Hildale fought
2 subdivision to the Utah Supreme Court and was only subdivided in 2014 as a result of a
3 court order requiring Washington County to record the plats without Hildales consent.
4 See Ex. 477; Shields Dep. Tr. Ex. 536 at 23-26; Barlow Hrg Tr. 61-63. Colorado City
5 chose different tactics to oppose subdivision, and while it may appear that Colorado City
6 has made efforts to work with the Trust, the reality is that ten years after the Trust first
7
8
9
10
submitted its subdivision application, the City has not given final approval to a single plat.
Soon after the Trust first applied to subdivide in 2006, Colorado City adopted an
onerous subdivision ordinance that, while consistent with the level of development in a
city like St. George or Phoenix, has standards that are not in keeping with the level of
development in Colorado City. Full compliance with the subdivision ordinance would
11
require the UEP to dig up and replace nearly all water and sewer piping, pave all streets,
12
13
14
15
16
17
and construct sidewalks with curbs and gutters, at the unaffordable cost of $60 million.
Renstrom Hrg Tr. 416-18; Barlow Hrg Tr. 82-83. Although the ordinance applies to any
landowner seeking to subdivide, as Jeff Barlow explained, It just so happens that were
the ones that own the vast majority of the property. And in effect its an absolute block to
subdivision. Barlow Hrg Tr. 83. According to engineering expert Zachary Renstrom,
who has worked for the Trust for ten years, there are no problems in Colorado City that
18 would necessitate, from an engineering perspective, upgrading the water and sewer lines
19 or paving the dirt roads, which are ubiquitous in Colorado City and throughout
20 Washington and Mohave Counties. Renstrom Hrg Tr. 417-20. Further evidencing
21 Colorado Citys intent to use its land regulation authority to discriminate against non22 FLDS individuals is Colorado Citys application of its subdivision ordinance retroactively
23 not only to a subdivision request that predated the ordinance, but also to an existing,
24 inhabited community that predates the ordinance. As Mr. Renstrom explained, it is
25
26
27
28
14
1 standard practice for cities to grandfather in already-developed land and not

7
2 retroactively apply a new subdivision ordinance. Id. at 414-15.
The Trusts latest subdivision proposal should have been approved, but instead the
4 City honored, yet again, religious opposition to subdivision. In 2014, after litigation was
5 completed in Hildale, the Trust re-approached Colorado City. The Citys hired engineer,
6 Dale Miller, and Mr. Renstrom thereafter agreed to a process providing that already7
8
9
10
improved propertyproperty with (1) existing utility access, (2) access to a public rightof-way, and (3) some improvementswould be subdivided without the Trust making the
additional infrastructure improvements required by the ordinance. Renstrom Hrg Tr.
422-27; Ex. 484 at 5. A hesitant Town Council approved the concept in February 2015,
with the reservation that improved property be defined. See Ex. 3343 at 5; Renstrom
11
Hrg Tr. 424. That reservation was ultimately a poison pill, as the City has refused to
12
13
14
15
16
17
work with the Trust to hammer out which lots would be considered improved. See, e.g.,
Ex. 486 (Memo. of Understanding); Ex. 3363 (Devt Agreement); Renstrom Hrg Tr. 42931. The key definitional language proposed by the City remained vague and difficult to
apply, as seen by the fact that when Mr. Renstrom tried to apply it to actual Colorado City
blocks, he came up with different results than did Mr. Miller and than did Town Manager
Darger. See Exs. 487 & 3511; Renstrom Hrg Tr. 431-37; Miller Hrg Tr. 959-60.
18
The Trust, concerned given its decade of experience with a hostile City government
19 that any vagueness would be used against it and cause intractable issues going forward,
20 provided the City with a counteroffer that included a more practical definition of the
21 property eligible for the streamlined platting process and sought to eliminate ambiguity by
22 using a detailed map. See Ex. 490; see also Ex. 489 at 2. There is no engineering reason
23 why the City could not have accepted the Trusts counteroffer, or at least continued to
24 negotiate. Mr. Miller recognized that the Trusts counteroffer was an alternative place to
25 draw the line, Ex. 517 at 3, and expressed no legitimate engineering concerns with it at
26
7
See also Barlow Hrg Tr. 82 (These requirements may make sense for a new
subdivision in a field for a new development, but theyre absolutely unfair and completely
28 cost prohibitive for an as-built community like this. It would simply never happen.).
27
15
1 the time. He also failed to articulate any life safety problems with the Trusts
2 counteroffer when he testified at the remedies hearing. See Miller Hrg Tr. 981-82.
3
The Trust asked the City to comment on its counteroffer and proposed a meeting
4 for April 16, 2015, so that the parties could reach an agreement on the handful of still5 disputed lots. Exs. 516 & 490 at 1; Miller Hrg Tr. 959. The City did not attend the
6 meeting or provide comments on the counteroffer. See D. Darger Hrg Tr. 875-76.
7
8
9
10
Instead, three days before the proposed meeting, the Town Council withdrew its offer to
engage in a streamlined platting process, even for improved property. See Ex. 3344 at 8.
The Council voted to stop the engineers work together, end negotiations, and simply
advise the UEP to meet the Towns Subdivision Ordinance. Id. Colorado City did so for
religious reasons, voting after a dozen citizens spoke in opposition to any subdivision of
11
UEP land and to the non-religious management of the Trust, concepts contrary to the
12
13
14
15
16
17
intentions of the religious founders of the Trust. See id. at 3-7. The next morning,
Colorado City filed a motion for declaratory relief before the Cooke Court seeking
resolution of the question of Whether individuals who belong to an established religion
such as the [FLDS Church] have the right to the use and enjoyment of their dwellings, as
protected under the Arizona and federal Fair Housing Acts and without foregoing their
First Amendment rights. Ex. 3374 at 2; see also id. at 9-13 (detailing religious-based
18 opposition to subdivision). Colorado City has refused all attempts to re-engage with the
19 Trust on subdivision since, despite multiple efforts by Bruce Wisan, Jeff Barlow, and even
20 Mohave County Supervisor Gary Watson. See Barlow, Hrg Tr. 73-79, 113-14. What
21 Colorado City has said since the April 2015 Town Council meeting is, submit a new
22 application and start again. See D. Darger Hrg Tr. 827-28; Ex. 3500.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Miller wrote to the Cities, Bottom line is that electric power service and dust
controlled street surfacing need to be added to the UEP Trusts [sic] agreement to make it
palatable and to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the public. Ex. 517 at 4.
However, Mr. Renstrom has explained why these two concerns are unfounded. See
Renstrom Hrg Tr. 444-46. Mr. Millers concerns as of April 2015 were also directly
contrary to his earlier presentation to the Town Council that stated, [s]treet surfacing will
not be changed and utility service status remains as is. Ex. 484 at 4.
16
The Citys position now is that it was the Trust that walked away from a good deal
2 and that the City was fully cooperative. However, the full history that this Court has heard
3 throughout the six-week trial and the remedies hearing prove why the recent negotiations
4 broke down and why Colorado City will never allow subdivision: a City controlled by the
5 FLDS Church, the central aim of which is to maintain Trust property as church property
6 for use only by the FLDS faithful, was never going to let the Trust subdivide and deed
7
8
9
10
homes to non-FLDS families.

Without intervention from the Court, Colorado City will continue to act in bad faith
effectively to block subdivision. Town Manager Darger, for example, despite overseeing
the work of Mr. Miller, reviewing and commenting on the map created by Mr. Renstrom,
and receiving the Trusts counteroffer, continues to claim, [W]e dont know what the
11
proposal is. Weve never seen it. D. Darger Hrg Tr. 841. The City will oppose
12
13
14
15
16
17
subdivision for religious reasons in spite of the benefits to the City and its residents that
subdivision would bring: solving property tax delinquencies that create the risk of
foreclosure, allowing residents to gain title and build equity, promoting investment and
growth, and, as seen on the Hildale side, spurring county investment in resources like
schools and libraries. Barlow Hrg Tr. 57-65. While the Trust could submit a new
subdivision application and seek variances, Mr. Renstrom, who has attempted to work
18 with the Cities for ten years, concludes that such an effort would be futile. Renstrom
19 Hrg Tr. 493. As Mr. Barlow described, that would require the people who are
20 discriminating by passing the ordinance in the first place to be in charge of the
21 exemptions. Barlow Hrg Tr. 117.
22
The Trust has finalized subdivision plats and received Mohave Countys
23 determination that the plats meet the engineering specifications necessary for recording.
24 See Exs. 532 & 533; Barlow Hrg Tr. 77-82; Renstrom Hrg Tr. 447. However, Mohave
25 County is unable to record the plats without a City stamp. Given the lack of any health or
26 safety concerns with the Trusts subdivision proposal, the Citys decade-long
27 unwillingness to approve the plats despite agreement on the engineering, the Citys
28 religious-based opposition to subdivision that shows no sign of abating, and the ability of
17
1 subdivision to put an end to many of the means the Cities have used to violate non-FLDS
2 families housing rights, the Court should order that Colorado City stamp the plats already
3 approved by Mohave County so that the Trust may submit them for final state and county
4 approval and recording. See Att. A at Part IV.
2. Policies and Procedures for Handling Building Permits Would Promote

Equal Treatment.
5
6
The Cities have used their authority to regulate building permitting to prevent both
7 the UEP Trust from managing its property and non-FLDS families from living in the
8 community.9 To prevent future misuse of this authority and to reverse City actions
9 intended to discriminate, the Court should order the Cities to adopt non-discriminatory
10 policies and procedures that will ensure, among other things, (1) that the Cities only issue
11 building permits when an applicant has the property owners consent; (2) building permits
12 will not be handled in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner; and (3) protections and
13 process when the Cities take any adverse action on a permit or application. See Att. A at
14 Part V.A. See also Ex. 505 at 2 (UEP Trust, recommending order[ing] the Cities to
15 obtain permission from the Trust for any building permits on Trust property).
Evidence established that the Cities building-permit form previously contained a
16
17 signature line for the property owner, and that the signature line was removed because the
18 Cities did not want to put FLDS members in a position where they were required to
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
For evidence of disparate enforcement of the 180-day expiration rule for building
permits, compare Cooke Trial Tr. 2832-34 (City officials told the Cookes, non-FLDS, that
existing permit for property for which they held occupancy agreement was expired), with
Ex. 3527 at 89-90 (building official testifying that Cities havent really wanted to be that
strict with the 180-day expiration rule for building permits), 91 (that he has exercised his
discretion in handling permit expirations), 92 (that generally, 180-day rule was probably
just ignored ). For evidence of denial of non-FLDS families requests for building
permits, see, e.g., Cooke Trial Tr. 2834-37 (Cities denied the Cookes a permit and instead
granted a permit for the property to individual who had previously abandoned the property
the same day the Cookes inquired as to status of their pending permit application), 2878;
Exs. 362 & 363; Cook Trial Tr. 2754-55 (denied building permit by Hildale). For
evidence of disparate and discretionary assessment of fee for working without a permit,
see, e.g., Ex. 3527 at 99-101 (building official aware that assessing work-without-a-permit
fee is not discretionary, but admitting to using subjective judgment without application of
any official criteria in determining when to assess fee).
18
10
1 communicate with the Trust.
Jeff Barlow testified how this policy has made the Cities
2 complicit in occupants modifying Trust property without permission, including in ways

3 that devalue the property. See Barlow Hrg Tr. 33-37 (explaining that the Trust would
4 grant permission for structures to be built if they made sense, but for religious reasons,
5 some occupants do not want to interact with the Trust and therefore do not ask the Trust
6 before building). By not requiring all occupant-applicants to obtain permission of the
7
8
9
landowner before the Cities issue a building permit, the Cities are intentionally promoting
the violation of the Trusts property rights and impairing the Trusts ability to manage its
property and provide housing.
Andrew Barlow, the Cities building official, testified that although he is in the
10
process of revising the Building Departments forms and procedures, he has no intention
11
of including a requirement that a non-owner applicant obtain the owners permission

12
13
14
15
16
17
before a permit will be issued and in fact he objects to such a requirement. Ex. 3527 at 56,
81-82, 85. He objects because the Building Departments purpose is . . . not particularly
to get involved in land disputes. Id. at 56. There is no evidence that requiring the
owners signature would involve the Cities in land disputes. Moreover, this justification is
the exact opposite of the rationale that the Cities have taken with respect to transferring
water connections. There, the Cities are proactively seeking verification of rightful
18 occupancy or property right by requiring an applicant to get the permission of the prior
19 water customer to transfer a water connection, specifically to further illegitimate claims of
20 occupancy. The difference being that building-permit applicants who do not want to
21 approach the Trust for permission before obtaining a building permit are primarily FLDS,
22 while Trust occupants seeking to obtain water connections are primarily non-FLDS, as
23 FLDS families are shuffled from house to house by the Church and utility accounts are
11
24 rarely updated. Compare Barlow Hrg Tr. 36, with id. at 29-30.
25
10
See Ex. 3286; V. Barlow Trial Tr. 2384-85; A. Barlow Trial Tr. 3316-18, 3361; J.
26 Barlow Trial Tr. 1622-23.

11
Andrew Barlow, the only Building Department employee, who was hired by and
reports to David Darger, Ex. 3527 at 22-23, 28, also expressed religiously motivated bias
28
against the Trust on numerous occasions: (1) personally objecting to the current
27
19
Requiring the Cities to reinstate the signature line for the property owner on the
2 building permit application would remedy a religiously motivated policy that has a real
3 effect on the Trusts ability to manage and preserve its housing stock. Additionally,
4 requiring written policies and procedures for the Building Department, of which none
5 currently exist, Ex. 3527 at 24-25, 42-43, that include the specific provisions outlined in
6 the Proposed Order, see Att. A 20, would limit the Cities ability to continue to handle
7
8
9
10
building permits in a discriminatory manner and make future discrimination easier to

detect and remedy.
3. To Ease Utility Connection Issues New Residents are Facing, Cities Should
Amend Water Regulations.
Since the Cities ability to deny outright new water connections to non-FLDS
11 families moving into the Cities was proscribed following the Cooke case, the Cities have
12 adopted other means of interfering with the ability of new, non-FLDS residents to receive
13 water at homes for which they have occupancy agreements or even deeds. As Jeff Barlow
14 testified from his experience and from helping others through this process, the Cities have
15 used what is an ever-changing and opaque policy to deny or delay transferring utilities to a
16 new resident. To transfer utilities from the prior customer to the new customer, the Cities
17 have required (or told new customers that they require) the new customer to obtain the
18 prior customers consent to terminate their service by obtaining their signature on a form,
19
20
even if the new customer has proof that he/she has the right to occupy the property for
which he/she is seeking a connection. See Ex. 496 at 18; Barlow Hrg Tr. 22-24. Since
21
22 management of the Trust solely because the Trust is not being managed in accordance
with the religious principles of its founders, id. at 68 (opinion of Fiduciary Wisan), 69
23 (opinion of UEP Board of Trustees); Ex. 43; (2) following Warren Jeffs 2003 dictate to
24 stop building on a home to which he had been assigned by the FLDS Church, see Ex.
25
26
27
28
3527 at 70-73; Att. B 54; (3) expressing no concern that there is evidence that the Cities
changed the building permit form for unlawful reasons, Ex. 3527 at 58-60, despite
receiving annual fair housing training, id. at 25-27; (4) living in multiple Trust homes
without obtaining occupancy agreements because he didnt think the UEP was being
managed the right way, meaning that it was not adher[ing] to the religious mandates that
it was created to follow, id. at 76-81; and (5) refusing to pay occupancy fees for the last
approximately eight years for the same reason, id. at 78-81.
20
1 Mr. Barlow applied for services in 2015, the Cities have apparently changed their policy
2 to allow a transfer of services without the permission of the prior customer when the new
12
3 customer presents the Cities with proof of a court-ordered eviction.
The Cities may have
4 changed the policy further to provide that if the new customer is unable to obtain the prior
5 customers consent to the transfer, and the prior customer is delinquent in payment, the
6 Cities will transfer the utilities to the new customer if they are unable to reach the prior
7
customer after a period of time. See Barlow Hrg Tr. 26-27.

The current policy is hindering new residents from moving into the community, see
8
9
10
id. at 27, and the Court can infer from the Cities prior efforts to discourage non-FLDS
families from moving into the communities, including by denying them water
13
connections, that such discouragement is exactly what the Cities intended. Additionally,
11
while on its face this policy applies to any resident attempting to transfer utility service,
12
13
14
15
the policy disproportionately affects non-FLDS families, who are the ones moving into
homes in the community in large numbers and attempting to obtain utility services,
whereas when FLDS Church members are shuffled from home to home by the Church,
14
the name on the utility account is rarely updated. See id. at 29-31.
16
17
Given the history of the FLDS Church and City officials ignoring court orders
related to the Trust, including the Trusts authority to even issue occupancy agreements,
18 there should not be a waiting period to transfer services when the new customer has a
19 prima facie claim to occupy the property. The Court should therefore order that the Cities
20 eliminate any provisions preventing or delaying new customers from transferring utility
21
22
12
26
13
The option of presenting the Cities with an eviction order to effectuate a transfer of
utility services does not solve the problem. Neither Utah nor Arizona law requires a new
23
occupant or owner to go through the entire eviction process if a property is unoccupied.
24 This option, therefore, only works to further the claim of occupancy, valid or not, of a
prior customer and serves as another means of forcing the Trust, new occupants, or new
25 owners to complete a potentially unnecessary eviction process.
27
See Ex. 3373 at 6; Verdict at 11, ECF No. 932 (finding that Twin City Water
Authority engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated the FHA).
14
See also Wyler Trial Tr. 465-66 (discussing the midnight shuffle of FLDS
28 residents who refuse to cooperate with Trust).
21
1 services if the new customer attests to his/her ownership of the property or the owners
2 permission to occupy the property and provides proof of such ownership or permission.
15
3 See Att. A at Part V.B.
4. Reevaluation of the Cities Culinary Water Impact Fee Would Result in

More Fairly Priced Water for New Customers.
4
5
6
In addition to erecting roadblocks to stop new, non-FLDS customers from

transferring existing water connections to their names, the Cities have adopted a culinary
7 impact fee for new water connections that, at $12,000 per standard connection, the Cities
8 own engineer admits is larger than normal. Shaffer Hrg Tr. 935. An independent
9 engineering firm developed the report that recommended a maximum culinary water
10 impact fee of $12,210, see Ex. 3360 at 44, however, as the Cities engineer and Mr.
11 Renstrom testified, the Cities did not provide their engineers with information that would
12 have drastically reduced the fee. Because of problems with the report justifying the
13 current fee, and the potential impact on the ability of new residents to access utilities in
14 their homes, the Court should order that the impact fee be reassessed.
Working through David Darger, the Cities engineers relied on city data to perform
15
16 their analysis. Shaffer Hrg Tr. 914. Without data from the Cities on customers water
17 usage broken down by residential users and commercial users, the engineers could not
18 estimate average water usage per residential connection. Id. at 915-21; Ex. 3360 at 5.
19
20
The result: large commercial or industrial outliers were improperly included in the
calculation of the average usage per connection and thus the entire report was skewed
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
The Court should take judicial notice of the manner in which other municipalities in
Arizona and Utah handle transfers of utility service. See, e.g., Apply for Utility Services,
www.sgcity.org/utilities/applyforutilityservices (St. George, Utah) (requiring applicant to
complete form that requires, in relevant part, only name of owner or landlord and
indication of whether the property is owner-occupied or a rental/lease and attestation that
information provided is true and correct); City of Kingman Water Service,
www.cityofkingman.gov/Departments/UtilityBilling.aspx (City of Kingman, Arizona)
(requiring deposit, proof of identification, and copy of rental agreement to transfer water
connection between tenants).
22
1 toward a higher fee.
16
City staff working with the engineers should have been able to
2 identify outliers, as Mr. Renstrom, the Trusts engineer, did, to create a more accurate
3 report with a lower per-connection fee. See Renstrom Hrg Tr. 400-01.
At the Cities urging, the engineers also included in their report costs for water
5 resources that the UEP Trust had informed the Cities it was willing to provide for free,
17
6 including water rights and access to a Trust-owned pipeline into Water Canyon. There
is uncontroverted testimony that the Cities never followed up and never told their
7
8
9
10
engineers to inquire about what the Trust would charge to provide the Cities with these
substantial water resources. D. Darger Hrg Tr. 859-60, 864-65; Shaffer Hrg Tr. 909-10,
922-23, 927-28; Barlow Hrg Tr. 76-77. Instead, it was the Cities, and David Darger
specifically, who indicated that the unnecessary costs of water rights and access to Water
11
Canyon should be included in the report. See Ex. 508 at 6 &12; Shaffer Hrg Tr. 924-25,
12
13
14
15
16
932-33. Were City officials not motivated by religion to refuse to deal with the Trust,
they could have reduced impact-fee-eligible costs by approximately 25%. See Ex. 3360 at
43 (financed costs of Water Rights and Water Canyon Spring as percentage of total impact
fee eligible costs); Shaffer Hrg Tr. 936-37 (agreeing that costs for purchasing water rights
and developing pipeline contributed to driving up fee from around $7,000 to $12,210).
17
These problems with the impact fee analysis are what make the Cities adopted fee
18 out of step with the fees in surrounding communities, which are predominantly in the
19 range of approximately $6,100 to $8,600. See Ex. 3505 at 4; Shaffer Hrg Tr. 934-35;
20 Renstrom Hrg Tr. 406. See also Ex. 508 at 13 (prior version of report, not including
21 purchase of water rights or development of Water Canyon pipeline, assessed maximum
22 impact fee of $7,087). The Cities now suggest that the Trust has not offered these water
23
16
See Renstrom Hrg Tr. 399-402 (estimating that exclusion of approximately 25
24 outliers using an astronomical amount of water would have reduced the usage per
25 residential connection figure by 20-30%); Shaffer Hrg Tr. 917-18 (agreeing that four or
five big commercial users could skew the estimation of average use per connection).
26
17
See Renstrom Hrg Tr. 402-06, 493-94 (been in multiple meetings where water
27 resources have been offered); Renstrom Trial Tr. 2692, 2737-38 (same; Cities did not
respond); Barlow Hrg Tr. 76-77; Ex. 3360 at 43 (including as impact fee eligible
28 improvements, costs for purchase of water rights and Water Canyon Spring collection).
23
1 resources in good faith because an offer has not been made in writing (despite the fact that
2 the Cities never asked the Trust to take that next step) and that the concerns of the Trusts
3 engineer are without basis because he did not state them at the city council meeting when
4 the fee was being adopted (despite the fact that the city council has acted as the Churchs
5 rubber stamp for years). In refusing to sit down with the Trust and discuss options that
6 would reduce the cost of water for residents by thousands of dollars, the Cities further
7
8
9
10
demonstrate that they are motivated by the desires to avoid negotiating with the Trust and
to create a higher fee that will deter new, non-FLDS residents from obtaining water.
18
Therefore, the Court should order that the Cities culinary water impact fee be reassessed
by another qualified engineer, this time using full information. See Att. A at Part VI.
11
5. Discrimination-Free Provision of Housing-Related Municipal Services

Requires a Monitor.
12
Assuming they are implemented fully, the reforms described above will remedy
13 ways in which the Cities are making housing unavailable and discriminating in the
14 provision of services. However, the Cities histories make clear that without continued
15 oversight, they will find new ways to discriminate and carry out FLDS religious mandates.
16 Therefore, the Court should appoint a monitor to oversee the Cities activities to ensure
17 that they are no longer able to use their municipal authority to discriminate against non18 FLDS families. See Att. A at Part VIII.
The monitors responsibilities should include reviewing applications for municipal
19
20
21
22
23
services (and the Cities handling of such applications), evaluating proposed modifications
to City ordinances, regulations, or policy documents, and reviewing resident complaints of
housing-related discrimination against the Cities. See id. at 48. The monitor should
make regular reports to the United States and, should the monitor find evidence of a
violation of the Courts order or an intent to discriminate based on religion, the monitor
24
should notify the United States and the Cities, which would be required to respond and
25
take corrective action. See id. at Part VIII.C.
26
18
See Jethro Barlow Trial Tr. 1620-21 (families moving into unfinished homes in the
community without existing water connections are primarily non-FLDS because they are
28 the ones willing to cooperate with the Trust in moving onto Trust land).
27
24
An oversight entity with broad authority is necessary because the Cities cannot be
2 trusted to end their pattern of discriminatory conduct or implement Court-ordered reforms

3 in good faith. The nature of the violations here, including that the FLDS Church was
4 controlling the city governments, is proof that the Cities are not motivated to eliminate
5 discrimination. The prospect of self-initiated reform is also not likely given Defendants
6 officials views that the jury verdicts in this case and in Cooke were incorrect, see, e.g.,
7
8
9
10
Ex. 3527 at 107, 141-42, their failure to recognize any wrongdoing on their part, see, e.g.,
J. Darger Hrg Tr. 700, and their beliefs that outside agencies are conspiring to come after
the Cities and their leaders because of their religious beliefs, see, e.g., D. Darger Trial Tr.
4078 (discussing efforts by the Department of Justice, the UEP, and the government to
discriminate, intimidate, and target him).
11
Evidence too that no change is likely without significant Court involvement is the
12
13
14
15
16
17
fact that the Cities were found to have violated the FHA in the Cooke case in 2014, but
effectively nothing has changed since. Town Manager Darger could not cite a single
19
significant change made to the way the Cities do business since the Cooke verdict.
The
Cities are doing fair housing training, but they have done that for years. See D. Darger
Hrg Tr. 857-58. The Cities are looking into revising policies and creating new
ordinances, see id. at 809-10 (water transfer policy), 822-23 (zoning ordinance); Ex. 3527
18 at 81-82 (building permit application form), but there is no guarantee that the policies they
19 adopt will not be discriminatory, and in fact, there is every indication that they will
20 continue to have the purpose and effect of discriminating against non-FLDS families.
21
The only continuing relief ordered in the Cooke case is a general injunction to not
22 violate the FHA for ten years. See Ex. 3373 7. Since then, instead of making serious
23 attempts at reform, the Cities have continued to act in ways that make housing unavailable
24 to, and constitute discrimination against, non-FLDS residents, including (1) arresting Isaac
25
19
See D. Darger Hrg Tr. 804-05 (describing reform efforts since Cooke as a
heightened awareness in the sensitivity of the court orders, discrimination-related
27 trainings, and an attempt to focus on customer service). See also Ex. 3527 at 142-44
(building official has not read Cooke injunction, is not aware of what was ordered, and has
28 not made changes to departments operations or training since Cooke verdict).
26
25
1 Wyler in December 2015 for trespassing on Trust property, (2) refusing to guarantee that a
2 person with Trust permission could go onto Trust property to make repairs without being
3 arrested by the CCMO in September 2015, see Ex. 536 at 82-97, (3) arresting Richard
4 Holm, a non-FLDS individual and a witness for the United States, for felony theft and
5 trespass for moving a trespassers property on land he owns, Att. B at Part III.C(4)(d),
6 (4) replacing the discriminatory no-new-water policy with an excessive impact fee in
7
8
9
10
2015, (5) obstructing new residents ability to obtain utility services, and (6) stalling the
Trusts 2014 to 2016 attempts to re-engage Colorado City on negotiating subdivision. It is
not surprising then, given that the Cities have expressed no interest in reform and given
that the Cooke injunction has allowed them to continue to engage in discriminatory
conduct, that relying on the Cooke injunction is essentially the Cities proposed remedy to
11
address the violations found by the jury in this case. See ECF No. 940 at 2, 12-24. Jeff
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Barlow explained why more is needed: Because regardless of how each issue is solved,
the discrimination issue is not solved. And so theyll simply discriminate in a new
creative method. Thats been our experience. Barlow Hrg Tr. 84. See also Ex. 505 at 2
(UEP Trust recommending appointment of receiver with greater powers than a monitor
over all functions of Cities governments); Ex. 536 at 62-64, 108-10 (Trust attorney
explaining problems with Cities have not been resolved since Cooke).
A general injunction to comply with the law will fail miserably. Nor are the
19 targeted reforms identified above enough. A full remedy to the FHA violations here
20 requires appointment of an entity with authority to deter, investigate, and help hold
21 Defendants to account for further attempts to discriminate.
22
23
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter the attached Proposed Order and,
24 (1) disband the CCMO and require the Cities to transfer policing services to an outside
25 law enforcement agency; (2) order Colorado City to approve the Trusts subdivision
26 proposal; (3) impose detailed injunctive relief governing the provision of certain housing27 related municipal services; and (4) appoint a monitor to oversee FHA-related relief.
28
26
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December 2016,
STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM
Chief
Special Litigation Section
3
4
5
SAMEENA SHINA MAJEED

Chief
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
6
7
R. TAMAR HAGLER
CHRISTY E. LOPEZ
Deputy Chiefs
8
9
10
ERIC W. TREENE
Special Counsel
11
s/ Emily M. Savner
SEAN R. KEVENEY
MATTHEW J. DONNELLY
EMILY M. SAVNER
SHARON I. BRETT
Attorneys
Phone:
(202) 353-4081
Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on December 9, 2016, I caused a copy of the foregoing United States
Closing Argument Regarding Injunctive Relief to be sent via the Courts ECF system to
3 the following:
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Jeffrey C. Matura
Asha Sebastian
Melissa J. England
Graif Barrett & Matura, P.C.
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attorneys for Defendant Town of Colorado City
R. Blake Hamilton
Ashley M. Gregson
Durham Jones & Pinegar
111 East Broadway, Suite 900
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Attorneys for Defendants City of Hildale, and Twin City Water Authority
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
s/ Emily M. Savner
EMILY M. SAVNER
Attorney for the United States
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 24

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2
3
4
United States,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:12cv8123-HRH
v.
6
7
8

Defendants.
9
10
ORDER
11
12
13
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
On June 21, 2012, the United States filed suit against the Town of Colorado
14 City, Arizona, the City of Hildale, Utah, Twin City Power, and Twin City Water
15
Authority, Inc. (collectively Defendants). The United States brought that action under
16
17
the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 14141. The United
18 States specifically alleged, among other things, that Defendants engaged in a pattern or
19 practice of discrimination in the provision of housing and related services against non20
FLDS individuals on the basis of religion and denied rights granted under the Fair
21
22
Housing Act to a group of persons in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3614(a), and that the
23 Defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of police misconduct that denied persons

24 rights protected by the United States Constitution in violation of the Violent Crime
25
Control and Law Enforcement Act , 42 U.S.C. 14141.
26
27
2.
On March 7, 2016, a jury returned a finding of liability against all
28 Defendants under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3614(a), concluding that Defendants
had, in fact, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in housing on the basis of
2 religion or denied rights protected by the Fair Housing Act to non-FLDS individuals.
3
4
3.
The jury also returned an advisory verdict under the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act , 42 U.S.C. 14141, concluding that the Town of Colorado
5
6
City and the City of Hildale, through their joint police department, the Colorado City
7 Marshals Office (CCMO), engaged in multiple patterns or practices of police

8 misconduct in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
9
States Constitution.
10
4.
11
Based on the jurys advisory verdict and the Courts own findings of fact
12 and conclusions of law, see Order, ECF No. ____, the Court concluded that the Town of
13 Colorado City and the City of Hildale violated 42 U.S.C. 14141 by engaging in multiple
14
patterns or practices of police misconduct in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
15
16
Amendments to the United States Constitution.

5.
17
The Court entered a final judgment against the City of Hildale, the Town of
18 Colorado City, and Twin City Water Authority, Inc. under the Fair Housing Act and a
19
final judgment against the City of Hildale and the Town of Colorado City (Cities) under
20
21
42 U.S.C. 14141.
6.
22
The Court now enters the following Order to remedy the effects of the
23 Defendants violations of 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 14141.

24
II.
GENERAL INJUNCTION
25
26
7.
The Cities, their agents, employees, successors and assigns, and all persons
27 in active concert or participation with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from:
28
a. Refusing to negotiate for the sale or rental of a dwelling, denying a
1
2
dwelling, or otherwise making a dwelling unavailable because of
religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(a);
b. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental or sale
of a dwelling because of religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(b); or
6
7
c. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with a person in the
exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or
enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other
10
person in the exercise or enjoyment of, a right granted by the Fair
11
Housing Act, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3617.
12
13
14
8.
Defendants Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah, are also permanently
enjoined from violating the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable seizures of
15
16
persons and property and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth
17 Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 14141, enjoined from
18 violating, through law enforcement activities, the Establishment Clause of the First
19
Amendment, and enjoined from infringing, through law enforcement activities, persons
20
21
rights to Equal Protection of the Laws on the basis of religion under the Fourteenth
22 Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 14141.

23
24
III.
9.
THE COLORADO CITY MARSHALS OFFICE

The Cities CCMO shall be disbanded and shall cease all activities within
25
26
three months of this Order. The Cities are thereafter prohibited from reestablishing or
27 operating any municipal-controlled police law enforcement service, providing their own
28
police law enforcement services, and employing any municipal staff to also perform the
2 functions of a police law enforcement officer.

3
4
10.
Colorado City and Hildale shall contract with an outside, currently-
established law-enforcement entity (or entities) to provide law-enforcement services
5
6
within the city limits of Colorado City and Hildale. The Cities shall contract for outside
7 law-enforcement services that will meet the safety and law-enforcement needs of their
8 Cities, and that will provide a minimum of one police officer present in the Cities for 24
9
hours a day.
10
11
11.
Within one month of this Order, Colorado City and Hildale shall file a
12 notice to this Court as to whether they intend to contract for law-enforcement services
13 with the Mohave County Sheriffs Office and the Washington County Sheriffs Office. If
14
the Cities do not intend to contract with the Sheriffs, that notice shall advise the Court of
15
16
what law-enforcement entity or entities the Cities intend to contract with and the reasons
17 why the Cities believe that law-enforcement entity is a reasonable choice and qualified to
18 provide the required law-enforcement services in the Cities.
19
12.
Within two months of this Order, Colorado City and Hildale shall submit to
20
21
this Court the signed contract or contracts with the outside law-enforcement entity or
22 entities. The contract(s) shall contain a requirement that its execution is contingent on this
23 Courts approval of the contract terms, including the outside law-enforcement entity or
24
entities with which the Cities elect to contract. The contract(s) shall require that the
25
26
outside law-enforcement entity or entities shall start providing the law-enforcement
27 services required in Paragraph 10 within three months of this Order.

28
13.
Any outside law-enforcement entity may elect to include contract provisions
2 and associated costs that provide for dispatching of their deputies through a dispatching
3 service other than the Cities dispatch service, such as the St. George Consolidated
4
Dispatch Center.
5
6
14.
The initial contract(s) with the outside law-enforcement entity or entities
7 shall be for a minimum two-year period. After the initial minimum two-year period, the
8 Cities shall renew the contract(s) continuously for one-year periods, or longer periods if
9
the outside entity or entities prefer, unless and until this Court approves the Cities
10
11
12
contracting with a different outside entity or amends this Order.

15.
In renewing the contracts, the outside law-enforcement entity or entities
13 shall be permitted to change the costs of providing law-enforcement and any dispatch
14
services, provided such changes are made in good faith and are reasonable and consistent
15
16
with the costs the entity or entities charge to provide similar services to other
17 municipalities. The outside law-enforcement entity or entities shall be permitted to make

18 other good-faith changes to the terms of the contracts as are required in the exercise of
19
its/their best business judgment and best law-enforcement judgment. Should the Cities
20
21
disagree with any contractual changes imposed by the outside law-enforcement entity or
22 entities, the Cities may object to the changes and petition this Court for review of those
23 changes.
24
16.
The Cities shall make best efforts to ensure that there is a safe and smooth
25
26
transition of services from the Cities to the outside law-enforcement entity or entities, and
27 any other dispatching service the outside law-enforcement entity or entities may use.
28
IV.
SUBDIVISION
17.
Within seven days of the entry of this Order, the Town of Colorado City
3 shall, in coordination with the United Effort Plan (UEP) Trust, stamp the UEP
4
subdivision plats already reviewed and approved by Mohave County in October 2016 as
5
6
approved pursuant to Court Order and exempted from the Colorado City Land Division
7 Ordinance. The Town shall not require the UEP Trust to comply with the Towns Land
8 Division Ordinance for purposes of these subdivision plats.
9
18.
With regard to any future subdivision applications, the Cities must apply any
10
11
ordinances or regulations in effect at the time of the application in a non-discriminatory
12 manner, including with regard to the consideration of any exemptions or variances

13 requested.
14
V.
NON-DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE

PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES
15
16
A. Adoption of Building Department Policies and Procedures
17
19.
Within thirty days of the entry of this Order, the Cities shall develop and
18
19 submit to the United States for its approval objective, uniform, non-discriminatory
20 policies and procedures to govern the operation of the Cities Building Department and
21 the functions of the Cities building official(s) (Building Department Policies and
22
Procedures) related to handling building permits and applications for associated licenses
23
24
and certificates, including but not limited to building permit application requirements, the
25 plan review process, building inspections, bases for permit application denials and permit
26 revocations, and the assessment of fees.
27
20.
The Building Department Policies and Procedures shall specifically include
28
the following:
a. A provision stating that the Cities may not take any action with respect to
any building permit for arbitrary reasons, or on the basis of religion or
religious affiliation;
b. A provision stating that the Cities shall not issue a building permit unless
6
7
the applicant has provided the Cities with an application form that
includes the signature of the property owner;
c. A provision stating that should the Cities determine that any building
10
permit should be declared void or expired, the Cities must provide at
11
12
least 14 days advance, written notice to the property owner and permit
13
applicant of the permit expiration or cancellation. The notice must state
14
the basis for the Cities decision that the permit is void or expired;
15
d. A procedure that allows permit holders or permit applicants to file an
16
17
appeal of an adverse decision by the Cities with respect to a permit (e.g.,
18
a decision to deny, withdraw, void, or cancel a permit); and
19
e. A building permit application form that includes lines for the name,
20
contact information, and signature of the propertys owner or the owners
21
agent or representative.
22
23
24
21.
Within five days of the United States approval of the Building Department
Policies and Procedures, the Cities shall implement the Building Department Policies and
25
26
Procedures and make them available upon request in any office where municipal business
27 is conducted or where the Cities employees or officials regularly interact with members
28 of the public.
22.
Upon the United States approval of Building Department Policies and
2 Procedures and for the duration of this Order, no building permit shall be issued on any
3 application that does not include the signature of the property owner or the owners agent
4
or representative.
5
6
23.
For the duration of this Order, the Building Department Policies and
7 Procedures may be modified only if written notice is given to counsel for the United
8 States and to the Monitor (see Section VIII below) thirty days before the proposed
9
modifications are to take effect and the United States and the Monitor make no objection
10
11
thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must specify the modification requested
12 and any documentation supporting the modification.

13
14
24.
The Building Department Policies and Procedures may not be enforced in a
manner that discriminates based upon religion.
15
B. Amendments to Water Services Regulations
16
17
18
19
25.
Within thirty days of the entry of this Order, the Cities shall develop and
submit to the United States for its approval proposed amendments to their Water Services
Regulations to specify that in order to transfer an existing water connection from the
20
21
name of an existing customer to the name of a new customer where the existing customer
22
has not applied to transfer service to the new customers name, the new customer need
23
only (1) attest, under penalty of perjury, by signing and submitting the application for
24
utility services that the new customer owns the property for which they are seeking a
25
26
utility connection or has the owners permission to occupy or obtain utility services at the
27
property, and (2) show proof of ownership of the property or permission to occupy or
28
obtain utility services at the property. Such documentation may take the form of a deed
8
1
2
3
4
or an occupancy agreement, rental agreement, lease, or other document showing

permission by the owner to occupy or seek utility services.
26.
Under the revised Water Services Regulations, in order to transfer service
for water or any other utility service, the Cities shall not require new customers to: obtain
5
6
the permission of the existing customer by using the Utility Services Disconnect or
7 Termination Application form (Ex. 496 at 18) or by any other means; provide proof that
8 the new customer has extinguished all other potential occupants rights to the property at
9
issue; or wait any period of time for utility service to be transferred so that the existing
10
11
customer can be contacted if the new customer provides the attestation and proof of
12 ownership or the right to occupy or obtain utility services described in the preceding
13 paragraph.
14
27.
Within five days of the United States approval of the revised Water
15
16
Services Regulations, the Cities shall implement the revised Water Services Regulations
17 and make them available upon request in any office where municipal business is
18 conducted or where the Cities employees or officials regularly interact with members of
19
the public.
20
21
28.
For the duration of this Order, the Water Services Regulations may be
22 modified only if written notice is given to counsel for the United States and to the Monitor
23 thirty days before the proposed modifications are to take effect and the United States and
24
the Monitor make no objection thereto. The notice referenced in this paragraph must
25
26
27
specify the modification requested and any documentation supporting the modification.
29.
The Water Services Regulations may not be enforced in a manner that
28 discriminates based upon religion.
C. Websites and Public Notice
1
2
30.
Within thirty days of the entry of this Order, the Cities shall develop
3 publicly available internet websites for each municipality, if such websites do not already
4
exist. The Cities shall maintain these websites with the materials specified below for the
5
6
7
duration of this Order.

31.
The Cities shall prominently post on the home page for each website the
8 following:
9
a) The identity and contact information for every elected or appointed city
10
11
12
13
14
official, as well as the head of each city department.

b) Notice of all upcoming city council meetings and utility board meetings.
Notice of city council meetings shall be posted at least 48 hours prior to
any city council meeting and must include notice of all topics to be
15
16
17
18
19
addressed at the meeting and copies of any proposed ordinances,

policies, or motions that may be the subject of a vote at the meeting.
c) An internet link to mechanisms to apply via the internet or access any
forms required by the Cities to apply for any municipal services,
20
21
22
23
24
including but not limited to building permits, utility connections or

transfers, subdivision applications, and public-records requests.
d) An internet link to the current versions of all municipal ordinances and
codes as well as all municipal regulations, procedures, and policies,
25
26
including the Building Department Policies and Procedures, developed
27
pursuant to Section V.A. above, and the Water Services Regulations,
28
revised pursuant to Section V.B. above. All documents linked pursuant

10
to this subparagraph shall be updated within five business days of any
1
2
adoption, amendment, or repeal. The Cities shall maintain paper and
electronic copies of all versions of the documents described in this
Paragraph in effect for the duration of this Order.
e) The following language, which will include an internet link to this Order:
6
7
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona has held that
the City of Hildale and the Town of Colorado City engaged in illegal
discrimination on the basis of religion and have violated the federal Fair
10
Housing Act, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the
11
12
United States Constitution, and the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 14141.
13
The District Court has ordered the City of Hildale and the Town of
14
Colorado City to make certain changes to the operations of the local
15
government to ensure the City and Town are complying with federal law.
16
17
You may view and print a copy of that Order here [linking to this
18
Order].
19
VI. CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE
20
21
32.
The Court shall appoint, using the procedures set forth below, a licensed
22 engineer or engineering firm (Engineer) to perform a review of the Cities culinary

23 water impact fee.
24
33.
The Parties shall confer regarding the selection of the Engineer and provide
25
26
the Court with an agreed-upon selection within thirty days of the entry of this Order. If
27 the Parties are unable to reach agreement on an Engineer within thirty days, the Parties
28 shall each submit the name(s) of a potential Engineer(s) to the Court, and the Court shall
11
select one or more persons or entities to serve as the Engineer from among the candidates
2 proposed by the Parties.

3
4
34.
Within ninety days of the Courts appointment of the Engineer, the Engineer
shall perform a review of the Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan & Impact Fee
5
6
Analysis for the Cities conducted by Sunrise Engineering and, after consultation with
7 representatives of the UEP Trust, including the Trusts retained engineer, the Cities, and
8 any other person or entity the Engineer deems necessary, provide the Parties and the Court
9
with an updated culinary water impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis
10
11
12
(Updated Impact Fee Report).

35.
Should the Updated Impact Fee Report recommend a maximum eligible
13 impact fee that is lower than the Cities current impact fee, the Cities shall revise their
14
existing impact fee accordingly within thirty-five days.
15
16
36.
The Engineer shall have timely, full, and direct access to any City officials
17 or employees, documents, data, or any other information in the Cities possession,

18 custody, or control that the Engineer deems necessary to produce the Updated Impact Fee
19
Report.
20
21
37.
The Cities shall bear the cost of and cooperate freely and fully with all
22 reasonable activities and requests of the Engineer.

23
24
38.
The Engineer shall not be considered an employee or represented party of
the Cities for purposes of Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, and counsel for the
25
26
United States shall not be restricted in any way from communicating directly with the
27 Engineer.
28
39.
For the duration of this Order, the amount of any impact fee for culinary
12
water connections may only be modified if written notice is given to counsel for the
2 United States and the Monitor thirty days before the proposed modification is to take
3 effect and United States and the Monitor make no objection thereto. The notice
4
referenced in this paragraph must specify the new impact fee amount and must include
5
6
7
8
9
any reports or analyses supporting the modification.

VII.
40.
MANDATORY EDUCATION & TRAINING

Within ninety days of the entry of this Order, and annually thereafter for the
duration of this Order, the Cities shall provide in-person training on the requirements of
10
11
this Order, the policies, procedures, and regulations, and ordinances adopted or amended
12 pursuant to this Order, the requirements of the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth
13 Amendment, and the requirements of the FHA to the following individuals: (1) all city
14
council members; (2) all elected officials, including the mayors of the Cities; (3) all
15
16
members of the Utility Board; (4) the city/town managers; (5) all employees or officials
17 who have duties related to the planning, zoning, permitting, construction, or occupancy of
18 residential housing; and (6) all employees or officials responsible for approving, initiating,
19
or stopping the provision of water service, sewer service, waste-disposal service, or other
20
21
similar, municipal services to real property. In addition to addressing the requirements
22 identified above, the training shall specifically address the appropriate separation between
23 municipal government, and the functions of municipal government and the FLDS Church,
24
or any other religious entity.
25
26
41.
The training shall be conducted by a qualified third person or organization
27 other than the Cities counsel, and the qualified person or organization must be approved
28
13
in advance by the United States. The training will be of at least three hours duration.
2 The Cities shall bear all costs associated with the training.
3
4
42.
Within sixty days of the entry of this Order, the Cities shall supply the name
of the person(s) or organization(s) proposed to provide training pursuant to this Section to
5
6
counsel for the United States, together with copies of the professional qualifications of
7 such person(s) or organization(s) and copies of all materials to be used in the training.
8
9
43.
Within thirty days of when an official or employee is hired in a position
covered by Paragraph 41 above, or undertakes new duties that would require him/her to
10
11
attend training under the terms of this Order, the Cities shall distribute to each such person
12 a copy of this Order and copies of all written materials from the most recent training
13 session.
14
44.
All persons required to attend training under the terms of this Order shall
15
16
verify, under penalty of perjury, that they attended each required training session.
17 Verification of attendance shall be submitted to the United States, for the initial training,
18 and to the Monitor, for all trainings thereafter.
19
VIII. MONITOR
20
21
45.
The Court shall appoint, using the procedures set forth below, one or more
22 monitors (Monitor) who shall have the authorities and responsibilities set forth below.
23
24
A. Appointment of Monitor
46.
The Parties shall confer regarding the selection of the Monitor and provide
25
26
the Court with an agreed-upon Monitor within sixty days of the entry of this Order. If the
27 Parties are unable to reach agreement on a Monitor within sixty days, the Parties shall
28 each submit the name(s) of potential Monitor(s) to the Court, and the Court shall select
14
one or more persons or entities to serve as the Monitor from among the candidates
2 proposed by the Parties.

3
4
B. Authorities and Responsibilities of Monitor

47.
The Monitor shall have the responsibility of reviewing municipal decisions
5
6
by the Cities implicating the Fair Housing Act and overseeing implementation of all non-
7 law-enforcement aspects and terms of this agreement. As part of his/her monitoring role,
8 the Monitor shall:
9
a. Conduct regular site visits, during which the Monitor shall interview city
10
11
officials, review documents, attend meetings. The Monitor may also
12
request interviews or meetings with, or request documents from, any
13
other person or entity the Monitor deems relevant to conducting his/her
14
other responsibilities. Statements made by Hildale and Colorado City
15
16
officials to the Monitor shall be subject to penalties for perjury.
17
b. Review the Cities handling of all applications or requests related to
18
utilities (both new utility connections and utility transfers), building
19
permits and associated licenses and certificates, subdivision, zoning
20
21
amendments and variances, and applications for exceptions to or relief
22
from any municipal land-use decisions, rules, or ordinances. In the event
23
that any of the above-described applications or requests are denied or not
24
decided within thirty days, the Cities must provide to the applicant(s) and
25
26
27
28
to the Monitor the reason(s) for any such situations in writing.

c. Review all modifications (including enactments, adoptions, amendments,
or repeals) by the Cities, or any component department or board, to any
15
ordinances, regulations, procedures, or policies affecting housing or
1
2
related to the provision of municipal services related to housing,
including but not limited to those related to zoning, planning,
subdivision, building permits, licenses, residential rental taxes, and
utility service connections (e.g., culinary water service, irrigation water
service, sewer service, and waste disposal).
7
8
d. Review all complaints by any resident or other person or entity regarding
any municipal actions considered or taken by the Cities potentially
10
affecting rights associated with housing, including associated municipal
11
12
services, and investigate such complaints as the Monitor deems
13
appropriate.
14
e. Review any changes proposed by the Cities to the Building Department
15
Policies and Procedures, the Water Services Regulations, or the culinary
16
17
water impact fee and provide a statement of objection or no-objection to
18
the Cities and the United States within thirty days of receiving notice of
19
the proposed changes.
20
f. Issue reports to the Parties and the Court containing an analysis of the
21
22
Cities progress towards compliance with the terms of this Order, as
23
described in Section VIII.C., below.
24
48.
The Monitor shall not be considered an employee or represented party of the
25
26
Cities for purposes of Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, and counsel for the
27 United States shall not be restricted in any way from communicating directly with the
28 Monitor.
16
49.
The services, operations and facilities to be monitored include all the Cities
2 services, operations and facilities dealing with, involved in or responsible for any aspects
3 of utility services including but not limited to culinary water (including service, supply,
4
connections, fees and development), building permits, subdivision approval, land use, and
5
6
planning and zoning, irrespective of how the Cities have or shall have organized,
7 structured, incorporated, or titled such services, operations or facilities.

8
9
50.
The Monitors obligations and authority shall include monitoring for
compliance with this Order by the Cities councils, commissions, boards, committees,
10
11
departments, elected and non-elected and appointed and non-appointed officials, officers,
12 council or board members, personnel, employees, contractors, agents, servants, delegates,

13 designees, bailees, business partners, joint venturers, vendors, financers and suppliers.
14
51.
The Monitors ongoing responsibility and authority under this Order to
15
16
conduct monitoring shall not be impacted by any modification by the Cities of who
17 provides or manages any relevant services, operations or facilities, or how any such
18 services, operations or facilities are provided or managed.
19
52.
The Monitor shall have timely, full, and direct access to any relevant
20
21
individuals, documents, meetings, reviews, data, or trainings that are in the possession,
22 custody, or control of the Cities and are necessary to evaluate compliance with this Order.
23
24
53.
The Cities shall bear the cost of and cooperate freely and fully with all
reasonable monitoring activities and requests of the Monitor. Such cooperation shall
25
26
27
28
include, but is not limited to:

a. Providing the Monitor with advance, timely notice of all regular and
emergency public meetings of Cities councils, boards, commissions,
17
1
2
3
4
committees and departments, sufficient to allow the Monitor adequate

time to make arrangements to attend such meetings.
b. Allowing the Monitor full access to all meetings described in the
preceding paragraph.
5
6
c. Providing the Monitor advance, timely notice of every instance in which
a council, board, or other arm or department of the Cities intends to meet
in executive session, with a description of the purposes for the executive
session. The Monitor shall be empowered to request attendance at all
10
11
such executive sessions and, in the event attendance is denied, the Cities
12
shall maintain a recording of the executive session and the Monitor shall
13
have the right to petition this Court for a further order, upon a showing of
14
good cause to believe that the executive session involves matters relevant
15
16
to compliance with the terms of this Order, the United States
17
Constitution, or the Fair Housing Act, requiring the Cities to allow the
18
Monitor to attend the relevant executive session(s) or, if the executive
19
session has taken place, to have a copy of the recording of the executive
20
21
session and any documents discussed at the executive session. In the
22
event a Monitor attends an executive session or receives access to a
23
recording of an executive session as provided in this Order, the Monitor
24
shall comply with the laws of the applicable state governing
25
26
confidentiality of legitimate executive session information.
27
28
18
d. Allowing and facilitating the Monitors full access to all individuals,
1
2
documents, meetings, reviews, data, and trainings as described in the
preceding paragraphs; and
e. Providing and facilitating the Monitors free, open, and immediate access
to all documents, records, files and information of the Cities, including
6
7
without limitation: 1) all paper, electronic, photographic, video and audio
data, information, documents, fields or records within the custody or
control of the Cities or their agents; 2) all correspondence or
10
communications (including without limitation all electronic mail, instant
11
12
messaging, radio, text or other forms of communication) to, from or
13
among any of the Cities councils, boards, commissions, departments,
14
committees, elected and non-elected and appointed and non-appointed
15
officials, officers, council members, board members, personnel,
16
17
employees, contractors, agents, servants, delegates, designees, bailees,
18
business partners, joint venturers, vendors, financers and suppliers; and
19
3) any and all planning, policy, reporting, decision or investigative
20
records or materials of the Cities.
21
22
54.
Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Order or the Parties
23 acting together, the Monitor shall not make any public or press statements (at a conference
24
or otherwise) or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the Cities or their
25
26
agents, representatives or employees, or disclose information provided to the Monitor
27 pursuant to this Order. Absent a court order, the Monitor shall not testify in any other
28 civil litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the Cities or any of
19
their agents, representatives, or employees related to this Order, nor testify in any other
2 civil litigation or proceeding regarding any matter or subject that he or she may have
3 learned as a result of his or her performance under this Order, nor serve as a non-testifying
4
expert in any other civil litigation or proceeding regarding any matter or subject that he or
5
6
she may have learned as a result of his or her performance under this Order. Unless such
7 conflict is waived by all Parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide
8 consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitors
9
responsibilities under this Order, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by
10
11
any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigants or claimants attorney, in
12 connection with a claim or suit against the Cities or their departments, officers, agents or
13 employees. The Monitor is not a State/County or local agency or an agent thereof, and
14
accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records
15
16
subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or
17 otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Order shall
18 be liable for any claim, lawsuit or demand arising out of the Monitors performance
19
pursuant to this Order. This provision does not apply to any proceeding before a court
20
21
related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Order. The
22 Monitor shall be considered an agent of the Court.

23
24
C. Reporting by the Monitor

55.
The Monitor shall provide to the United States a report every ninety days for
25
26
the first two years following the entry of the Order. After the first two years, the Monitor
27 shall, in his or her discretion and with the approval of the United States, decrease the
28
20
frequency of reporting to every six months. The Monitor will report to the Court upon the
2 Courts request.
3
4
56.
The reports to the United States described in the previous paragraph shall set
forth the complete efforts and findings of the Monitor over the reporting period regarding
5
6
compliance by the Cities with the terms of the Order regarding non-law enforcement
7 matters. The reports will, at a minimum, 1) detail the Monitors activities as described in
8 Paragraph 47, above, and 2) identify any obstacles to the work of the Monitor and any
9
resistance on the part of city officials to the implementation of this Order or the work of
10
11
12
the Monitor.
57.
Should the Monitor determine that any action or inaction by the Cities,
13 including but not limited to actions taken in connection with any applications or requests
14
regarding any utility services, building permits, zoning amendments or variances, or
15
16
subdivision, or any modification to any ordinance, regulation, policy, or procedure,
17 constitutes evidence of a violation of the terms of this Order, or evidence of discrimination

18 because of religion, or a violation of the Fair Housing Act, the Monitor shall report to the
19
United States and the Cities in writing and demand immediate action by the Cities to
20
21
22
23
24
correct such issues.

a. Within ten days of the Monitor informing the United States of any
alleged non-compliance with the terms of this Order, the Cities shall
provide the United States with a written, comprehensive response to the
25
26
Monitors report.
27
28
21
b. The Cities will make available for interviews, to be conducted by the
1
2
United States, any employees or agents of the Cities whom the United
States wishes to interview in connection with the Monitors report.
IX.
RECORD KEEPING AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
58.
The Cities shall be responsible for maintaining and preserving, or
7 supervising the maintenance and preservation of all records, including but not limited to
8 electronic records and files, created in association with complying with this Order.
9
59.
The Cities will provide the United States full and direct access to all staff,
10
11
employees, facilities, documents, records, files, and data related to this Order. The United
12 States shall also be permitted to accompany the Monitor on any inspections or tours.
13 Upon reasonable notice to counsel for the Cities, representatives of the United States or
14
the Monitor shall be permitted to inspect and copy all records associated with compliance
15
16
with this Order at any and all reasonable times or, upon request by the United States, the
17 Cities shall provide copies of such documents. This right of access shall apply to all
18 aspects of this Order.
19
60.
The United States will work with the Cities and their attorneys to access
20
21
involved personnel, documents, and facilities in a reasonable manner that is consistent
22 with the United States right to seek enforcement of this Order and minimizes
23 interruptions to daily operations.
24
61.
Any Monitor appointed in this Case will, along with the United States,
25
26
27
28
maintain all confidential or non-public information in a confidential manner.

X.
JURISDICTION, SCOPE, AND TIME FOR PERFORMANCE

62.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this case to enforce the terms of this
22
1
2
Order.
63.
This Order shall be in effect immediately upon entry. Section III of this
3 Order shall remain in effect permanently or until such time as this Court amends this
4
Order. The remainder of this Order shall remain in effect for a period of at least 10 years
5
6
7
from the date of its entry, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 65, below.
64.
The United States may move the Court to extend the duration of the Order in
8 the event of noncompliance, whether intentional or not, with any of its terms, or if it
9
believes the interests of justice so require.
10
11
65.
Any time limits for performance imposed by this Order may be extended by
12 mutual written agreement of the parties. The other provisions of this Order may be
13 modified by motion to the Court.
14
66.
The parties shall endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any
15
16
differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this Order prior to bringing
17 such matters to the Court for resolution. However, in the event the United States contends
18 that there has been a failure by the Town of Colorado City or the City of Hildale, whether
19
willful or otherwise, to perform in a timely manner any act required by this Order or
20
21
otherwise to act in conformance with any provision thereof, the United States may move
22 this Court to impose any remedy authorized by law or equity, including, but not limited to,
23 an order requiring performance of such act or deeming such act to have been performed,
24
and an award of any damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys fees which may have been
25
26
27
28
occasioned by the violation or failure to perform.

XI. EFFECT ON LITIGATION HOLDS
67.
The parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Order, litigation is not
23
reasonably foreseeable concerning the matters described herein. To the extent that any
2 party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically

3 stored information, or things related to the matters described in this Order, the party is no
4
longer required to maintain such a litigation hold.
5
6
68.
The preceding paragraph does not relieve the Cities of any record keeping
7 responsibilities imposed by the terms of this Order.

8
9
XII. COSTS OF LITIGATION

69.
The United States shall submit its petition for costs within ninety days of
10
11
the entry of this Order. All parties shall be responsible for their own attorneys fees.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

Sameena Shina Majeed (DC Bar # 491725)
R. Tamar Hagler (CA Bar #189441)
Christy E. Lopez (DC Bar #473612)
Eric W. Treene (NY Bar #2568343)
Sean R. Keveney (TX Bar #24033862)
Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar #6281308)
Emily M. Savner (NY Bar #5214358)
Sharon I. Brett (NY Bar #5090279)
Phone:
(202) 353-4081
Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
Attorneys for the United States
12

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13
14
15
United States,
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff,
No. 3:12cv8123-HRH
v.
UNITED STATES DIGEST OF

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
Pursuant to this Courts Order, ECF No. 983, regarding post-trial briefing, the
United States hereby submits the following digest of proposed findings of fact in
connection with the Defendants liability under 42 U.S.C. 14141 (Section 14141).
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5
II. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 6
A. Background of the Municipal Government Defendants ........................................... 6
B. Background of Short Creek and of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints ...................................................................................................... 8
1) Short Creek and the Dominance and Control of the FLDS Church................. 8
2) The United Order ........................................................................................... 13
3) Church Security .............................................................................................. 14
C. Background of the State Takeover of the UEP Trust ............................................. 16
III. LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. 14141 ............................................................. 19
A. Legal Standard for Liability Under 42 U.S.C. 14141 .......................................... 19
B. Defendants Pattern or Practice of Violating the First Amendments
Establishment Clause .............................................................................................. 21
1) Legal Standard................................................................................................ 21
2) CCMO and Other City Officials Subscribe to the Beliefs, and are Subject to
the Pressures, of the FLDS Church ................................................................ 22
3) CCMO Officers and City Officials Personally Oppose the Non-FLDS
Administration of the UEP Trust ................................................................... 26
4) The FLDS Church Selects and Controls the CCMO and City Officials ........ 29
5) City Officials Seek and Receive Direction Regarding their Official Duties
from the FLDS Church ................................................................................... 34
6) The CCMO is Entangled with FLDS Church Security .................................. 42
a. The CCMO and Church Security Work Together to Guard FLDS
Leadership and Monitor Outside Law Enforcement in the
Community............................................................................................. 43
b. The CCMO Improperly Provides Training and Equipment to
Church Security ..................................................................................... 44
c. The CCMO Illegally Shared Law Enforcement Information with
Church Security ..................................................................................... 45
d. The CCMO Aided Church Securitys Harassment of Non-FLDS
Members................................................................................................. 46
7) CCMO Officers and Other City Officials Communicated with and
Financially Supported FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs While He was a
Federal Fugitive.............................................................................................. 47
8) The Cities Engaged in Religiously Biased Hiring of Three CCMO
Officers in 2014 to Keep the CCMO Staffed with FLDS Loyalists .............. 51
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
CCMOs Pattern of Discriminatory Policing in Favor of FLDS Members

and Against Non-FLDS Members.................................................................. 54
C. Defendants Discriminatory Pattern or Practice of Violating the Fourteenth
Amendments Equal Protection Clause .................................................................. 54
1) Legal Standard................................................................................................ 54
2) The Historical Background of an Established Religion behind the CCMOs
Discriminatory Actions .................................................................................. 55
3) The CCMOs Failure to Investigate, and Affirmative Support of, Crimes
Committed by FLDS Members ...................................................................... 55
a. Supporting Federal Fugitive Warren Jeffs ............................................. 56
b. Ignoring Underage Marriages ................................................................ 56
c. Ignoring Distribution of Prescription Drugs and Narcotics ................... 58
d. Ignoring Widespread Food-Stamp Fraud .............................................. 59
e. Ignoring Illegal Poaching ....................................................................... 59
f. Ignoring Illegal Manufacture of Unregistered Gun Silencers ............... 60
g. Bias for the FLDS Church During Child Custody Disputes.................. 60
h. Other Examples of Favorable Treatment of FLDS Members................ 61
i. Ignoring Church Hacking of Individuals Email Account..................... 61
j. Facilitating Church Security Burglary of Records of Church Crimes
at R&W, and Attempt to Prevent Subsequent Recovery
of those Records) ................................................................................... 62
k. Facilitating Destruction of Evidence in Fatal Forklift Incident ............. 68
l. Failing to Investigate Hit-and-Run of Randy Jessop ............................. 69
m. Failing to Investigate the CCMOs Own Misconduct ........................... 70
4) The CCMOs Efforts to Target, or Refuse to Provide Services to the
Non-FLDS UEP Trust and Non-FLDS Members .......................................... 70
a. Bias in Handling Property Disputes, Generally ..................................... 70
b. Allowing Constant Harassment of UEP Worker Isaac Wyler, and
Arresting Him in 2015 ........................................................................... 75
c. Arresting Excommunicated Former Bishop William E. Jessop ............ 78
d. Failing to Provide Services to Richard Holm, and Arresting
Him in 2015 ........................................................................................... 79
e. Arresting Excommunicated Jerold Nathan Williams at His Home ....... 84
f. Attempting to Block Christopher Jessop from Occupying Church
Property, and Failing to Investigate Vandalism ................................... 88
g. Arresting Guy Timpson for Posting Eviction Notice ............................ 91
9)
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Blocking Patrick Pipkin from His Home Because of FLDS

Bishops Directive ................................................................................. 92
i. Arresting Patrick Pipkin and Andrew Chatwin Multiple Times
at the Zoo ............................................................................................... 93
5) Systemic, Programmatic Departures from Policing Norms and Standard
Policies, Practices, and Procedures, and Other Circumstantial Evidence
of the CCMOs Intent to Discriminate on the Basis of Religion ................... 99
a. Non-Effect of High Decertification Rate ............................................. 100
b. Failure to Conduct Internal Affairs Investigations .............................. 101
c. Lack of Training and Written Policies and Consequential Lack of
Accountability ...................................................................................... 104
d. Untimely and Altered Police Records ................................................. 105
e. Improper Involvement and Influence of Town Manager in CCMO
Operations ............................................................................................ 109
f. Pattern of Resistance to Outside Law Enforcement and Complacency
with Lack of Trust by Outside Law Enforcement and Residents ........ 110
g. Other Findings of Discrimination ........................................................ 113
D. Defendants Pattern or Practice of Violating the Fourth Amendment.................. 113
1) Legal Standard.............................................................................................. 113
2) Unreasonable Seizure of Property by Euthanizing Horse ............................ 115
3) Unreasonable Seizure of Persons and Arrests Without Probable Cause ..... 118
a. Unreasonable Detention of Steve Bateman ......................................... 118
b. Unreasonable Arrest of Isaac Wyler in December 2015 ..................... 119
c. Unreasonable Arrests of Patrick Pipkin & Andrew Chatwin in
October 2015 ........................................................................................ 120
d. Unreasonable Arrest of Richard Holm in July 2015............................ 120
e. Unreasonable Arrest of Guy Timpson in 2014 .................................... 121
f. Unreasonable Arrest of Jerold Nathan Williams at his Home
in 2012.................................................................................................. 121
g. Unreasonable Arrest of William E. Jessop .......................................... 121
h.
23
24
25
26
27
28
I.
1
2
1.
INTRODUCTION
The United States brought this action in June 2012 alleging that Defendants
3 violated the police misconduct provisions of 42 U.S.C. 14141, and the Fair Housing Act,
4 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. Compl., ECF No. 1.
5
2.
The Defendants are the Town of Colorado City and the City of Hildale. See
infra 6-19.
7
3.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
At the conclusion of a jury trial ending in March 2016, a jury found that
Defendants had violated the FHA; that jury also issued an advisory finding that
Defendants had violated Section 14141 by engaging in a pattern or practice of violating
three constitutional amendments. That advisory verdict found Defendants, through the
Colorado City Hildale Marshals Office (CCMO), had engaged in a pattern or practice
of violating the First Amendments Establishment Clause; a pattern or practice of
violating the Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable seizures of property and
persons, and arrests without probable cause; and a pattern or practice of violating the
Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. See Jury Verdict, ECF No. 932.
4.
17
As set forth below, this Court now adopts the Jurys advisory verdict
18 regarding Section 14141, and finds Defendants Colorado City and Hildale liable, through
19 their CCMO, of engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First
20 Amendments Establishment Clause; a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the
21 Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable seizures of property and persons, and
22 arrests without probable cause; and a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the
23 Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause.
24
25
26
27
This case involved a third Defendant, Twin City Water Authority, which is not
28 relevant to the violations of Section 14141.
5
5.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 &
2 1345 and 42 U.S.C. 3614. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) as a substantial
3 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Arizona.
II.
4
5
BACKGROUND
A. Background of the Municipal Government Defendants

6.
Defendants Colorado City and Hildale (Cities) are municipal governments
7 located on a remote part of the Arizona and Utah state boarder; they have separate city
8 councils, mayors, and managers, but employ a police department, the CCMO, that jointly
9 provides law enforcement for both Cities, with officers that are certified in both States.
10 See infra 7-19.
11
7.
The Town of Colorado City is a town organized under the laws of the State
12 of Arizona. Colorado City was incorporated in 1985. Stipulated Facts, 121-22.3

13
8.
Hildale is a city organized under the laws of the State of Utah. Stipulated
14
Facts, 122.
15
9.
16
17
18
Hildale is governed by a city council which consists of a mayor and five
council members. The City Council makes decisions regarding issues involving Hildale
and its residents. Stipulated Facts, 124.
10.
19
Colorado City is governed by a town council, which consists of a mayor, a
20 vice mayor, and five council members. The Town Council makes decisions regarding
21 issues involving Colorado City and its residents. Stipulated Facts, 124.
22
23
24
Throughout this Digest of Proposed Findings of Fact, the United States provides
25 summary paragraphs followed by the more detailed evidence establishing the summary.
26
See Transcript of Record at 121-22, United States v. Colorado City, No. 12-CV-8123
27 (Jan. 20, 2016, a.m.). For ease of reference, the United States provides citations by
witness name, or as here, other non-testimonial portions of the transcript, and the page
28 number.
6
11.
The CCMO is the joint police department of Colorado City and Hildale. At
2 the time of the trial, the CCMO employed a chief marshal, a sergeant, and five deputy
3 officers. Stipulated Facts, 122. The Chief Marshal of Colorado City is also the Chief of
4 Police for Hildale. Stipulated Facts, 122.
5
12.
Employees of the CCMO are employees of the Town of Colorado City.
6 Stipulated Facts, 122; Ex. 1074.

7
13.
The Colorado City Town Council also has the authority to hire new police
officers to work for the CCMO. The Chief has the authority to terminate a police officer,
9
but that officer may file a grievance appeal, which is then heard by the Colorado City
10
Town Council. Stipulated Facts, 124.

11
12
13
14
15
16
14.
The Chief also has the authority to discipline a police officer. If discipline
occurs, Colorado Citys policies and procedures apply which give the disciplined officer
the option to appeal any such discipline to the Colorado City Town Council. Stipulated
Facts, 124.
15.
The Colorado City Town Council also adopts a yearly budget, which
17 includes compensation for the police officers. Stipulated Facts, 124.

18
16.
Arizona POST, which stands for Peace Officers Standards and Training, is a
19 state agency that certifies every police officer who works in Arizona. L. Mann, 1551;
20 Stipulated Facts, 124-25. Utah POST is a state agency that certifies every police officer
21 who works in Utah. Stipulated Facts, 125.
22
17.
Because the police officers who work for the CCMO provide police services
23
in both Arizona and Utah, every officer with the CCMO is dual certified by Arizona and
24
Utah POST. Stipulated Facts, 125.

25
26
27
18.
At the time of trial, CCMO personnel included Chief Jerry Darger (brother
of Colorado City Town Manager David Darger), Sergeant Sam Johnson, and Deputies
28
1 Curtis Cooke, Hyrum Roundy, Jacob Barlow, Jr., Daniel Musser, Daniel Roy DR
2 Barlow, and Shem Jessop. D. Darger, 3801-03.
3
19.
The Dispatch Center is a department of Colorado City that dispatches
4 emergency services (i.e., police, fire, and emergency medical services) for Colorado City
5 and Hildale. It is a physical part of the Town Hall. D. Darger, 3805-06.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
B. Background of Short Creek and of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-Day Saints
1) Short Creek and the Dominance and Control of the FLDS Church
20.
The Town of Colorado City and the City of Hildale are two communities
separated by the state line dividing Utah and Arizona. Together, the communities are
commonly referred to as Short Creek. D. Barlow, 194.
21.
The Short Creek community was established as a fundamentalist Mormon
13 settlement in the late 1920s. D. Barlow, 223. To this day, the community remains
14 composed predominantly of fundamentalist Mormons, many of whom belong to the
15 Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) and many
16 of whom practice plural marriage or polygamy. Id. at 194.
17
22.
The early settlers of Short Creek decided, for religious reasons, to hold all
18 real property in common and chose to create a religious land trust to accomplish that goal.
19 D. Barlow, 223. The United Effort Plan Trust (UEP or UEP Trust) was thus created
20 by the FLDS Church as a religious trust to hold, manage, and distribute to its members
21 real property and other religious consecrations (i.e., donations) received from members of
22 the Church. Stipulated Facts, 123.
23
23.
The UEP Trust is organized under the laws of the State of Utah. Stipulated
24
Facts, 123. It owns real property within Colorado City and Hildale, including
25
approximately 90 percent of the residential housing in Hildale and Colorado City. D.

26
Barlow, 224.
27
28
24.
The FLDS Church is led by a Prophet, whose followers believe receives the
2 revealed work of God. D. Barlow, 195-96. From 1986 until 2002, Rulon Jeffs was the
3 Prophet of the FLDS Church. Id. at 197. Following Rulon Jeffss death in 2002, his son
4 Warren Jeffs, succeeded him as Prophet. Id. at 199; W. Jessop, 728; R. Holm, 1737-38
5 (describing how Warren Jeffs used his position at an FLDS school and his control over the
6 publication of religions pamphlets to position himself to succeed Rulon Jeffs). Warren
7 Jeffs remains the Prophet to this day. D. Barlow, 200.
8
25.
Warren Jeffs continues to communicate with his followers from his prison
9 cell using a variety of methods, including coded letters, employing attorneys fraudulently
10 to take messages out of prison under the guise of protected, attorney-client
11 communications, and secretly recorded, regular visits with loyal relatives. See W. Jessop,
12 800-04 (explaining how Warren Jeffs sent hundreds of coded messages addressed to one
13 of three trusted wives, which messages were then decoded and shared with followers); Ex.
14 128; J. Smith, 701-03 (explaining why Texas prison officials believed Warren Jeffs may
15 have been sending encrypted communications from his prison cell); W. Jessop, 804-05
16 (explaining how the Church used attorneys to smuggle communications to Warren Jeffs);
17 I. Jeffs Dep. Tr. 44-454 (brother of Warren Jeffs, testifying to visiting Warren Jeffs in
18 prison on at least a monthly basis); G. Wilbanks, 949-50 (Warren Jeffss brothers Isaac
19 and Nephi Jeffs generally visit Warren Jeffs in prison every week); T. Jeffs, 1331-33
20 (explaining how Warren Jeffss brothers use hidden recorders during jail or prison visits to
21 record Warren Jeffss messages to his followers); B. Meldrum, 4288-89 (Warren Jeffs has
22 broadcast sermons from where he was being incarcerated to the LSJ Meeting House on
23 multiple occasions); J.N. Williams, 1832-33 (Generally one of those brothers would go
24
25
The testimony of Isaac Jeffs was presented by way of deposition designation. Mr.
26 Jeffss testimony was not transcribed into the trial transcript. See Tr. Tran. 988-91.
27 Therefore, citations to Mr. Jeffss testimony are to the portions of his deposition testimony
played into the trial record. See ECF No. 775 (containing the depositions designations and
28 counter-designations for Isaac Jeffs).
9
1 to the jail and get whatever [Warren Jeffs] had to say and bring it back, and it was
2 presented to people.).
3
26.
The FLDS Church in Short Creek also has a bishop. From 1936 until 2003,
4 Fred Jessop served as the Bishop in the community. D. Barlow, 198. Following Fred
5 Jessop, William E. Jessop served as the Bishop until 2007. Id. at 200. Lyle Jeffs
6 succeeded William E. Jessop as Bishop and, with the exception of a few brief periods and
7 at least through the trial in this case, has served as the Bishop since 2007. Id.
8
27.
Warren Jeffss rise to the position of Prophet changed life in Short Creek for
his followers. See D. Barlow, 203. As Warren Jeffs rose to power, the Church exercised
10
more and more control over its members. Id.; see also C. Jeffs, 993 (Since Warren Jeffs
11
has become the prophet, the leader, he has taken away the privilege for a husband and
12
wife to embrace . . . You can no longer hug your children or kiss your children or
13
caress.); I. Wyler, 437-38; R. Holm, 1740-41 (excommunications increased when Warren

14
Jeffs came to power).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28.
For example, the practice of communal work projects changed. The Short
Creek community had long had a practice of organizing Saturday work projects. D.
Barlow, 202. Under Warren Jeffs, however, the Saturday work projects were no longer
voluntary, but compulsory. Id. at 226. As Dowayne Barlow explained: [T]heres none
of us that wanted to cross hairs with Warren Jeffs, and it became a compulsion. . . . We
were told to sign in. Our time was being accounted and we were being watched. Id.
Warren Jeffs also ordered that all the children in the community be taken out of public
school. Id. at 203.
29.
Warren Jeffs had the ability to enforce his new rules through the threat of
25 excommunication. Warren Jeffs and FLDS leaders had the ability to excommunicate
26 disloyal members and, by so doing, to separate those members from their wives, their
27 children, and their families. D. Barlow, 219-20, 221 ([E]xcommunication meant a
28 complete loss of their wives and their children and []banishment from the community.);
10
1 see also id. at 245-46 (discussing the excommunication of Mayor Richard Allred); C.
2 Jeffs, 1005 (describing the consequences of loss of United Order membership); J. Darger,
3 4651 (confirming that his father, City Councilmember Ron Darger was sent away from the
4 community by the FLDS Church). Thereby, the FLDS Church maintains significant
5 personal control over members and those excommunicated from the Church who desire to
6 return. See V. Barlow, 2347.
7
30.
Individuals who were not members of, or who opposed the Church, were
8 considered apostates and FLDS members were instructed by Church leaders to leave
9 [apostates] alone severely and to have nothing to do with them. V. Barlow, 2349; I.
10 Wyler, 440-41 (describing Warren Jeffss leave-apostates-alone-severely sermon), 452-54
11 (describing the business and social consequences of excommunication); R. Holm, 1741-44
12 (describing devastating financial consequences of excommunication and explaining how
13 his two wives were assigned [ ] in marriage to a younger brother).
14
31.
Membership in the FLDS Church is fluid because members are frequently
15
excommunicated, or sent to repent, and then let back into the Church. See H. Barlow,
16
2026 (referencing a point in July 2012 when the FLDS Church leadership
17
excommunicated all Church members and all had to be re-interviewed by FLDS Bishop
18
Lyle Jeffs in order to be back in the Church). See also B. Meldrum, 4260 (former IT
19
Manager for the Cities, testifying that he considers himself to be FLDS, meaning I think
20
and act and talk like an FLDS, and that although he is not an active member of the
21
Church right now, [] I still believe as an FLDS person), 4279-83 (describing that he was
22
a member of the FLDS Church prior to 2011, he was trying to become a member of the
23
Church from 2011 to 2013 and considered himself to hold non-member status at that
24
time, and in March 2013 was told by Bishop Lyle Jeffs that he was no longer a member
25
and to leave the Cities); S. Johnson, 4448 (testifying that although he is no longer an
26
active member of the FLDS Church and no longer permitted by the Church to attend
27
meetings, he still [has] a belief in the FLDS religion.).

28
11
32.
The FLDS Church teaches that the Churchs law comes first and mans
2 law comes second. S. Bateman, 2317; see also Ex. 83 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, Sept.
3 5, 2004, stating, in part, I told these brethren the Lord had told me to answer my enemies
4 nothing and to go into hiding to not even answer the courts . . . .) (emphasis added).
5 Thus, the FLDS Church teaches its members that it is acceptable to make
6 misrepresentations to outside law enforcement in order to protect the religion. C. Jeffs,
7 993-94 ([T]he term was agree with an adversary while in their way and then go on
8 carrying on your life when they let you go.); E. Wayman, 1902 (Church teaches that it is
9 acceptable to lie to law enforcement to protect the Prophet). FLDS leaders have also
10 taken steps to discourage a witness from testifying in these proceedings. C. Jeffs, 1019
11 (testifying that Lyle Jeffs told her to answer them nothing if called as a witness in this
12 case); see also Ex. 103 at 1 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs exhorting his followers not to
13 cooperate with the Government and to answer them nothing); S. Johnson, 4456-57
14 (testifying that it was suggest[ed] to him by FLDS Church leaders that he should
15 answer nothing to those who inquire about the religion); J. Darger, 4662-63 (refusing to
16 verify his signature).
17
33.
FLDS Church leaders and the City officials refused to answer numerous
18 questions under oath relating to the operations and activities of the FLDS Church and the
19 Churchs coordination with the Cities governments, direction of City activities, and
20 efforts to aid, encourage, and/or direct the Cities to violate the United States Constitution
21 and the Fair Housing Act. See J. Allred, 2799-2819; D. Darger, 3980-89, 4026-28; I. Jeffs
22 Dep. Tr. 38-102; L. Jeffs, 2584-613.5
23
24
25
26
27
28
In addition to drawing adverse inferences from City employees refusals to answer

questions based on the Fifth Amendment, see Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th
Cir. 2000), the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences from FLDS Church leaders,
including Isaac and Lyle Jeffss, assertions of the Fifth Amendment and refusal to answer
questions. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1997). See also D.
Barlow, 239 (Court finding that foundation for application of hearsay exception for
statements of co-conspirators had been established).
12
2) The United Order
34.
The United Order is a fundamental cornerstone of FLDS religious
3 teachings. V. Barlow, 2350-51.

4
35.
Beginning in approximately 2010, the FLDS Church began efforts to
5 implement a version of a United Order in Short Creek. D. Barlow, 288; C. Jeffs, 1001-02.
6 To gain membership in this elite subgroup of the FLDS Church, individuals needed to be
7 interviewed by then-Bishop Lyle Jeffs and then be baptized into the Order. D. Barlow,
8 288.
9
10
11
36.
United Order members made covenants to not disclose their membership in
the United Order or discuss doctrines of the Order with anyone, including outside law
enforcement. H. Barlow, 2069-70; D. Barlow, 290; C. Jeffs, 1002.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
37.
The United Order directs that non-members are not to associate with
members; non-United Order family members are not permitted to live in the same
household as United Order members, which results in the separation of husbands from
wives, and children from parents. H. Barlow, 2070; V. Barlow, 2351; L. White, 3441; J.
Jessop, 3530; D. Barlow, 307-09; E. Wayman, 1905-06; T. Rohbock, 1938-39; B.
Meldrum, 4289 (testifying that when he was asked to leave the United Order, he was told
he was no longer married).
38.
A person kicked out of the United Order and separated from his or her
21 family has a strong incentive to try to get back into the United Order in order to get his or
22 her family back. H. Barlow, 2071; Philip Barlow, 3186. See also B. Meldrum, 4281-83
23 (describing that he was a member of the United Order for about a week in 2011, and
24 after being told he was no longer a member of the United Order, he was trying to become
25 a member for approximately two years, holding the status during that time of non26 member).
27
39.
Members of the United Order were required to turn over everything they
28 owned, including personal effects and titles to property, to the Church. H. Barlow, 2068-
13
1 69; D. Barlow, 290-91. All personal property, down to a members toothbrush, was to be
2 inventoried and turned into the Storehouse, the physical building where members
3 consecrated property was held and where members obtained food and other necessities
4 when they needed it. D. Barlow, 289, 292-93; see also Ex. 48 (photograph of the
5 Storehouse); T. Jeffs, 1337-38 (The instruction that was given by my father [Bishop Lyle
6 Jeffs] was you would record down to every item down to the toothbrush.). Property
7 inventories were to be regularly updated and delivered to FLDS leaders. D. Barlow, 2948 95; E. Wayman, 1905; see also Ex. 292 (United Order personal stewardship record).
9 Individuals who were admitted to the United Order were briefed on the requirements and
10 expectations of membership, including how to inventory property to be delivered to the
11 Storehouse and how members should access the Storehouse. D. Barlow, 295-96
12 (describing United Order orientation meetings); T. Jeffs, 1338 (same).
13
40.
Access to the Storehouse was restricted to United Order members. D.
14 Barlow, 293; B. Meldrum, 4323. United Order members were not supposed to obtain
15 food or other necessities from anywhere other than the Storehouse. D. Barlow, 293; see
16 also Exs. 50 & 51 (showing food and clothing sections of the Storehouse); W. Jessop,
17 790; C. Jeffs, 1003; T. Rohbock, 1943-44. Accordingly, loss of United Order membership
18 meant not only the loss of family relationships, but also the loss of access to the
19 Storehouse and the loss of any personal property that the member had delivered to the
20 Storehouse. D. Barlow, 309.
21
22
23
24
25
26
3) Church Security
41.
In 2004, the FLDS Church organized a formal security force, the purpose of
which was to provide protection to Church leaders and keep Church leadership informed
as to events taking place in the community. D. Barlow 269-70; see also id. at 281 (In
time, church security turned from being a security force that protected the people to
becoming a network that spied on the people for the church leadership.); T. Rohbock,
27
28
14
1 1947-48 (explaining that Church Security was to, among other things, provide time for
2 Church leaders to escape any threatening or outside law enforcement situation.).
3
42.
Church Security grew from 20-30 members in 2007 to hundreds of members
4 by 2013. Patrick Barlow, 2922. The members were organized into teams that were
5 assigned specific shifts and captains. See Exs. 44 & 45 (Church Security schedule and
6 rosters); T. Rohbock, 1952-53.
7
43.
The Church designated Willie Jessop to play a central role in Church
Security. D. Barlow, 269; W. Jessop, 726-27 (describing how he became involved in

9
providing security to Prophet Rulon Jeffs); see also N. Hanna, 1120 ([Willie Jessop] was
10
security or head of security for the FLDS organization during the period of time that
11
Warren Jeffs wasprior to his incarceration.).

12
13
14
15
16
44.
Church Security would meet regularly in the LSJ Meeting House (the place
of worship for the FLDS Church in Short Creek), where they would receive instructions
and briefings. Patrick Barlow, 2924-25.
45.
Church Security monitors various areas of the community using cameras
17 that fed into a control room in the LSJ Meeting House, conducts physical surveillance at
18 the Meeting House and other locations around the community, provides security to FLDS
19 meetings to keep non-members out, and monitors the community, particularly watching
20 non-FLDS residents, UEP representatives, and outside (e.g., county) law enforcement. G.
21 Timpson, 1413-15; T. Jeffs, 1350 (explaining how Church Security scouts were to look
22 for [a]ny suspicious vehicle or any type of law enforcement vehicle); Patrick Barlow,
23 2922-26, 2928, 2939-40 (describing monitoring and photographing non-FLDS residents
24 with the goal of finding a way to get them to move out of the community); see also C.
25 Jeffs, 1007-10 (describing being followed by Church Security members Mayor Philip
26 Barlow and Councilmember Anthus Barlow).
27
28
15
46.
Church Security, typically driving SUVs or pickup trucks with tinted
2 windows, regularly follows non-FLDS community members and outside law-enforcement

3 officers. G. Timpson, 1412; see D. Cashin, 2883-85; C. Jessop, 2536-37.
4
47.
Church Security also had access, through the Meeting Houses control room,
5 to City-owned cameras located on city property. G. Timpson, 1419-20; T. Rohbock,

6 1958-59. Some of the cameras that Church Security used for surveillance, and which
7 were fed into the control room, were on city buildings and Church Security had the ability
8 to move and zoom the cameras. G. Timpson, 1419; Patrick Barlow, 2932-33; see also B.
9 Meldrum, 4289-91 (describing locations of city cameras, which were all networked, and
10 some of which were so-called Point Tilt Zoom cameras that could be moved and zoomed
11 remotely), 4291-92 (stating that it would have been possible for non-City employees using
12 non-City computers to access feeds of Cities cameras).
13
48.
Church Security vehicles would be posted 20-25 miles outside of the Cities
14
on the road leading into the community from Hurricane, Utah. D. Cashin, 2885-87; C.
15
Jeffs, 1006-07.
16
17
18
19
20
21
49.
Church Security vehicles are frequently on scene when the patrolling
Washington County Sheriffs Office (WCSO) deputy arrives in response to a call for
service. D. Cashin, 2885.
C. Background of the State Takeover of the UEP Trust
50.
In 2005, at the request of the State of Utah, a Utah state probate court took
22 control of the UEP Trust away from the FLDS Church and appointed Bruce Wisan, an
23 accountant from Salt Lake City, as the trustee or special fiduciary to oversee the UEP.
24 Stipulated Facts, 123. Among other things, the Trust was reformed to operate on a
25 religiously neutral basis. I. Wyler, 460-61.
26
51.
Bruce Wisan served as the special fiduciary for the UEP Trust until 2015, at
27 which time he began to transition management and control to a Board of Trustees.

28 Stipulated Facts, 124.
16
52.
The FLDS Church was opposed to the 2005 state takeover of the Trust and
2 directed its members to answer them nothing with respect to all government
3 intervention with respect to the Trust. D. Barlow, 225. To answer them nothing in the
4 FLDS Church means that a member is not to cooperate with, communicate with, or even
5 acknowledge a person or entity outside the FLDS Church. Id. at 225; see also supra 32.
6 Specifically, the FLDS Church has instructed members not to associate with the UEP
7 Trust, Bruce Wisan, and the Utah state court judge exercising oversight authority over of
8 the Trust, Judge Denise Lindberg. V. Barlow, 2369 (explaining that FLDS Church
9 directed that Bruce Wisan and Judge Lindberg were tools of the devil), 2384; I. Wyler
10 465-66.
11
53.
The FLDS Church also ordered its members in Short Creek to stop
12 developing the community. D. Barlow, 226-28; W. Jessop, 791; see also Ex. 112
13 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, Dec. 25, 2003, ordering that there be no more new housing
14 starts on UEP land); G. Timpson, 1388. Instead, loyal members were to contribute all
15 assets that would have been used to develop Short Creek to the FLDS effort to develop the
16 Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch in Texas. D. Barlow, 227-28.
17
54.
Beginning in approximately 2008, under the direction of Judge Lindberg
18
and Bruce Wisan, the UEP began requiring Trust participants to execute Occupancy
19
Agreements to live in a home on Trust property. I. Wyler, 462-64. The holder of an

20
Occupancy Agreement is required to pay an Occupancy Fee of $100 per month to live in a
21
Trust home. Id. at 463-64. Persons residing in Trust homes are also required to pay their
22
portion of the property taxes assessed by the County for the lot on which the home sits. I.
23
Wyler, 464; J. Barlow, 1581-83.

24
25
26
27
28
55.
FLDS Church members believe that the UEP Trusts Occupancy
Agreements are an attack on their property rights as they believe that the land belongs to
the Church and was illegally taken from the Church. H. Barlow, 2066-67. Therefore,
with the exception of a brief period in 2008, FLDS members largely refuse to execute
17
1 Occupancy Agreements or pay the monthly $100 Occupancy Fee. I. Wyler, 464-65
2 (Only the people that were considered apostate or ex-FLDS were paying those fees.); E.
3 Wayman, 1903-04 (explaining that Church members were instructed we were never
4 never supposed to give them a dime oror cooperate with [the Trust].); H. Barlow, 2067
5 (explaining that the Churchs position on Occupancy Agreements changed over the years
6 and at some point the Church decided that members should sign Occupancy Agreements
7 and try to maintain control of the property in the hopes that it could one day be returned to
8 Church); see also I. Jeffs Dep. Tr. 32-36 (brother of Warren Jeffs, testifying that he has
9 never executed an Occupancy Agreement for the two properties he has considered his
10 domicile in Hildale and Colorado City); R.B. Jessop, 2476-77 (City Councilmember,
11 refusing to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds, whether he has an Occupancy
12 Agreement for certain residential properties).
13
56.
Church members are moved around by the Church from UEP house to UEP
14 house, without informing the UEP Trust and without the Trusts permission, as the
15 landowner, in order to make it difficult for UEP management and outside law enforcement
16 to know who lives where. H. Barlow, 2067; Patrick Barlow, 2947-48; Philip Barlow,
17 3218-19. This practice is sometimes referred to in the community as the midnight
18 shuffle. I. Wyler, 465-66; J. Barlow, 1584-85 (discussing swapping or shifting of
19 residences).
20
57.
On April 3, 2008, the State of Texas conducted a search of the YFZ Ranch.
21
N. Hanna, 1052-53; D. Barlow, 229. Texas Rangers served a second warrant on April 6,
22
2008, searching for evidence of sexual assault of a child. N. Hanna, 1053. As a result of
23
that search, the State of Texas removed a number of FLDS children from the Ranch and
24
placed them in state custody. D. Barlow, 229-30; W. Jessop, 765. One of the immediate
25
results of the 2008 search of the YFZ Ranch was the displacement of families living on
26
the Ranch. D. Barlow, 230. Many of those FLDS families then relocated to Short Creek,
27
placing a strain on the housing stock in the community. Id.

28
18
58.
In November 2008, the FLDS directed its members to take formal steps to
2 oppose Bruce Wisans administration of the UEP Trust. D. Barlow, 229, 232 (Lyle Jeffs
3 called the meeting and then introduced Willie [Jessop] as the coordinator for this effort.).
4 Among other things, FLDS members signed a Declaration of Beneficiaries that was to be
5 filed in federal court in an effort to remove Bruce Wisan as the Special Fiduciary of the
6 UEP Trust. See Ex. 43; see also D. Barlow, 231. That declaration states, in part:
1. I am aware of the original intent of the settlers of the United Effort

Plan Trust (the UEP) and have consecrated my time, talents, materials,
monies, and property to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints (the Church). I am a voluntary member of the Church which
is an association formed by our mutual consent to promote our common
objective to ensure that the UEP is administered in compliance with
constitutional requirements and in a matter that meets our just wants and
needs.
2. As a member of the Church I am a beneficiary of the UEP and
have seen the effects of the administration of the UEP by the States of Utah
and Arizona which have taken the management of the UEP away from the
Church . . . which prevents the UEP from meeting my just wants and
needs. . . .
5. I am opposed to the sale of any sacred or consecrated UEP
Property including, Sacred Sites, Harker Farm, and Berry Knoll Farm
without the approval of the Church.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Ex. 43.
16
17
III.
20
21
A. Legal Standard for Liability Under 42 U.S.C. 14141
18
19
LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. 14141
59.
Section 14141 makes it unlawful for any governmental authority . . . to
engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives

persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. 14141(a). The United States Section 14141
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
For the reasons stated on the record in the United States exceptions to the Final Jury
Instructions and Verdict Forms, the United States maintains its objection that, as plead, the
United States claim under 42 U.S.C. 14141 does not require a pattern or practice to be
found with respect to a particular constitutional Amendment in isolation. Rather, the
United States maintains that its claim under Section 14141 requires only proof of a pattern
or practice of conduct in violation of the United States Constitution, and that this pattern
or practice can aggregate violations across various Amendments. Regardless, in this case,
the evidence also establishes separate patterns or practices of conduct by Defendants that
violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
19
1 claim rests on three Constitutional provisions, namely the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
2 Amendments.
3
60.
A pattern or practice here requires proof that the Defendants conduct was
4 not just an isolated event or an accidental, unintentional occurrence, but rather that it was
5 a repeated failure by, or a regular practice or policy of Defendants to engage in, the
6 violations of the Constitution. See, e.g., Intl Bhd. Of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S.
7 324, 336 n.16, 360-62 (1997) (interpreting pattern or practice language in Title VII);
8 The Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 701-02 (9th
9 Cir. 2009) (citing Intl Bhd. of Teamsters); United States v. Balistrieri, 981 F.2d 916, 929
10 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying Intl Bhd. of Teamsters to FHA).
11
61.
The United States can prove a pattern or practice by showing a series of
12
incidents that violate the Constitution or by showing that the Defendants maintained a
13
policy that violated the Constitution. Evidence that the Defendants maintained a policy
14
alone, even if not enforced, is sufficient to establish a pattern or practice. See United
15
States v. Garden Homes Mgmt. Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d 413, 423 (D.N.J. 2001) (Proof
16
that a party adopted a discriminatory policy satisfies the Fair Housing Acts pattern and
17
practice requirement.); United States v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 F. Supp. 2d 819,
18
842-43 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (The Attorney General may demonstrate the existence of a
19
pattern or practice of discrimination [under the FHA] by showing the existence of a

20
discriminatory policy alone.); United States v. City of Parma, 494 F. Supp. 1049, 1055,
21
1095 (N.D. Ohio 1980) (The existence of a discriminatory policy, statute, or ordinance is
22
itself a discriminatory pattern or practice.) (citations omitted), affd as modified, 661

23
F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1981); United States v. Hughes Meml Home, 396 F. Supp. 544, 551
24
(W.D. Va. 1975) (The demonstrated existence of a policy of discrimination is sufficient

25
to constitute the pattern and practice, and it is unnecessary for the United States to prove
26
numerous specific occasions on which the discriminatory policy was carried out.). This
27
policy need not be written.

28
20
62.
Where a pattern or practice is established by a series of incidents, no
2 minimum required number of incidents must be proved. See United States v. Bob
3 Lawrence Realty, Inc., 474 F.2d 115, 124 (5th Cir. 1973) (holding that [t]he number of
4 violations is not determinative in establishing a pattern or practice); United States v. W.
5 Peachtree Tenth Corp., 437 F.2d 221, 227 (5th Cir. 1971). The United States does not
6 need to show that the Defendants violated the Constitution constantly or with every
7 decision or action. Rather, even only a few incidents may establish that failing to comply
8 with the Constitution was the Defendants regular or standard practice. Id.; see also
9 Stastny v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 628 F.2d 267, 278 (4th Cir. 1980) (holding, in
10 employment discrimination context, proof does not need to show a statistical pattern and
11 may show a sufficient number of instances of similar discriminatory treatment). In
12 making this pattern or practice determination, the Court views the evidence as a whole,
13 rather than examining each of the incidents separately as if they were unrelated parts. See,
14 e.g., City of Parma, 494 F. Supp. at 1055 (The character and effect of a general policy is
15 to be judged in its entirety, and not by dismembering it as if it consisted of unrelated parts.
16 Even intrinsically lawful acts may lose that character when they are constituent elements
17 of an unlawful scheme.) (citations omitted).
18
19
B. Defendants Pattern or Practice of Violating the First Amendments

Establishment Clause
1) Legal Standard
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
63.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides that
governments shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Clause

mandates governmental neutrality neutrality between religion and religion, and
between religion and nonreligion. Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954,
971 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The government may not place its prestige,
coercive authority, or resources behind a single religious faith or behind religious belief in
general, compelling nonadherents to support the practices or proselytizing of favored
28
21
1 religious organizations. Id. (citation omitted). To violate the Establishment Clause, the
2 Defendants, through the CCMO, need to have engaged in conduct that:
(1) had no secular purpose, Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d
1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 61213 (1971)); or
(2) 7had the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion,
id.; or
(3) fostered an excessive government entanglement with religion, id.; or
(4) had the purpose or effect of endorsing, favoring, or promoting religion,
particularly if it had the effect
8 of endorsing one religion over another,
Newdow, 597 F.3d at 1037; or
(5) fused governmental and religious functions, Larkin v. Grendel's Den,
Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 126-27 (1982); or
(6) coerced people to support or participate in religion or its exercise,
otherwise established a state religion or religious faith or tended to do so,
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Conduct violating any one of the above tests constitutes a violation of the
12
13
Establishment Clause.
2) CCMO and Other City Officials Subscribe to the Beliefs, and are Subject
to the Pressures, of the FLDS Church
14
15
64.
Many, if not all, City officials, including those with responsibility for hiring
16
and directing the operations of the CCMO, as well as CCMO officers themselves, have
17
been lifelong members of the FLDS Church and members of the United Order. See infra
18
65-72. As such, they not only hold the religious beliefs of the Church, but also have
19
been subjected to the pressure that the FLDS Church places on its members to abide by
20
illegal Church dictates or face excommunication and thus the loss of their homes, families,
21
22
23
24
25
26
Governmental action has the primary effect of advancing or disapproving of religion

if it is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as
an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious
choices. Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified Sch. Dist., 27 F.3d 1373, 1378 (9th Cir. 1994)
(internal citation omitted). The effect is analyzed from the point of view of an objective
reasonable observer who is informed . . . [and] familiar with the history of the
government practice at issue. Id. (citation omitted).
8
Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full
members of the political community. Newdow, 597 F.3d at 1037 (internal citation
28 omitted).
27
22
1 and employment. See supra 34-40 (background on United Order); infra 80-85
2 (excommunications of City officials).
3
65.
For example, current Hildale Mayor Philip Barlow, current Colorado City
4 Mayor Joseph Allred, current Colorado City Town Manager David Darger, and former
5 Hildale City Managers Jerry Barlow and Vincen Barlow have all been members of the
6 United Order. V. Barlow, 2345-46, 2350, 2353-54; Philip Barlow, 3181; D. Barlow, 297;
7 D. Darger, 4026-28 (Town Manger, refusing to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds,
8 whether he has ever attended a United Order meeting and which other City officials and
9 CCMO officers have attended United Order meetings). Councilmembers Carlos Jessop,
10 Vergil Steed, Davis Roundy, and R. Brian Jessop were also members of the United Order.
11 D. Barlow, 297; see also G. Timpson, 1410-11 (identifying City officials who were also
12 United Order members); T. Rohbock, 1941; B. Meldrum, 4260 (former IT Manager and
13 dispatcher for the Cities, testifying that he considers himself to be FLDS and although he
14 is not an active member of the Church right now, but I still believe as an FLDS person),
15 4279-83 (testifying at a later date that he was in the United Order for approximately one
16 week in 2011 and that he left his position with the Cities in 2013 because the FLDS
17 Bishop instructed him to leave the community); W. Barlow, 3729-30, 3754-55 (former
18 Communications Supervisor for the Dispatch Center, Utility Department employee, and
19 Hildale City Recorder, testifying that he has [held] the FLDS beliefs as sacred all his
20 life and has been taught the concept of the United Order all his life); A. Barlow, 3356
21 (Building Official, testifying that he believed he was a member of the FLDS church when
22 he was hired by the Cities in 2012); J. Jessop, 3445 (Utility Board President testifying he
23 has been member of the United Order).
24
66.
City Councilmember Kimball Barlow was not only a member of the United
25
Order, but also participated in managing the Storehouse, D. Barlow, 297; H. Barlow,
26
2134, as did Colorado City Mayor Joseph Allred, T. Rohbock, 1980-81. See also D.
27
Darger, 4029 (asserting Fifth Amendment in response to questioning regarding Kimball

28
23
1 Barlows role in administering the Storehouse); J. Allred, 2818 (refusing to answer, on

2 Fifth Amendment grounds, questions about his work as a manager of the Storehouse).
3
67.
Longtime FLDS Bishop Fred Jessop simultaneously served as bishop and as
4 a city council member. R. Holm, 1745-46. William E. Jessop, who succeeded Fred
5 Jessop as the FLDS Bishop, also served on the Hildale City Council while he was the
6 FLDS Bishop. Philip Barlow, 3139-40.
7
68.
All CCMO officers were also members of the FLDS Church and the United
Order at some point. See B. Meldrum, 4285 (has seen CCMO officers at the LSJ Meeting
9
House attending church services); S. Bateman, 2315 (same); T. Rohbock, 1940-41. See
10
also D. Musser, 4220, 4326 (current CCMO Officer, testifying that Warren Jeffs officiated
11
his wedding in 2005; testifying that he was a member of the FLDS Church at the time he
12
was hired by the CCMO in 2014, now asserting he is no longer an active member); S.
13
Johnson, 4333-34 (current CCMO Sergeant, testifying that he was a member of the FLDS
14
Church all his life until he was told he was no longer allowed or welcome to their
15
meetings in March of 2012, since then, has not been an active member of the FLDS
16
Church), 4434-38 (testifying that after being told he could no longer attend meetings and
17
after being promoted to Sergeant, he still desired to return to full membership in FLDS
18
Church, still adhered to FLDS faith, and stated in 2013 interview with Utah POST that he
19
was still an FLDS member), 4453 (stating he does not know if he was ever a member of
20
the United Order); J. Darger, 4571 (current CCMO Chief, stating he was a member of the
21
FLDS faith all his life until he stopped being an active member in approximately 2012
22
or 2013), 4657 (admitting that it is possible he could become a member of the FLDS
23
Church again). Former CCMO Chiefs Helaman Barlow and Jonathan Roundy, current
24
Chief Jerry Darger, and Officers Curtis Cooke and Hyrum Roundy, Daniel Musser, Daniel
25
Roy Barlow, and Jacob Barlow, Jr. (the latter three of whom were hired by the CCMO in
26
just 2014) have all attended United Order member-only meetings. H. Barlow, 2069; V.
27
Barlow, 2351-53; D. Barlow, 296; C. Jeffs, 1007; T. Jeffs, 1339.

28
24
69.
To support the Cities litigation in this case, the Church has adjusted the
2 membership status of multiple CCMO officers at times that were helpful to the Cities
3 position in this lawsuit. See supra 68 (showing Chief Darger and Sergeant Johnson both
4 claiming they became inactive members around the time of the United States suit, and
5 Officer Musser claiming he changed to an inactive member after being hired as an officer
6 in 2014); supra 31 (discussing Church-dictated and ever-changing nature of membership
7 in Church).
8
70.
CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke has written to Warren Jeffs in prison, including
9 as recently as 2013, expressing his continued faith in Warren Jeffs as Prophet. See Ex.
10 130 (also listing his Storehouse ID number).
11
71.
City officials and CCMO officersincluding former CCMO Chief Helaman
12
Barlow, CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy, Colorado City Town Manager David Darger, and
13
Hildale City Manager Vincen Barlowwere separated from their families by the United
14
Order. H. Barlow, 2070-72; V. Barlow, 2349, 2354; D. Darger, 3924-26 (refusing to

15
answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds, questioning as to the personal reasons he moved

16
out of his familys home in Colorado City).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
72.
Many City officials also served, or serve, on Church Security. See Exs. 44
& 45 (Church Security schedule and rosters); Patrick Barlow, 2964 (explaining that the
rosters are labeled, e.g., School Setup Crew, to hide the fact that they were Church
Security documents); Philip Barlow, 3175-76. Vincen Barlow was a member of Church
Security while he was in the United Order and was involved in surveillance, watching for
law enforcement and others who were on a watch list and reporting information to the
Meeting House control room, and working in the control room. V. Barlow, 2381-82.
Other City officials who have worked on Church Security include current Colorado City
Mayor Joseph Allred, who would run the control room during Church meetings; current
Hildale Mayor Philip Barlow; former Colorado City Mayor Terrill Johnson; current Town
Manager David Darger, who was a team leader; Utility Board Member Guy Timpson;
25
1 Communications Supervisor and City Recorder Warren Barlow; Councilmember R. Brian

2 Jessop, who held a leadership role in Church Security; Councilmembers Anthus Barlow,
3 Carlos Jessop, Winford Barlow, Dennis Darger, Virgil Steed, J.D. Roundy, and Kimball
4 Barlow; City Clerk Vance Barlow; and now-CCMO Officers Daniel Roy Barlow and
5 Jacob Barlow, Jr. V. Barlow, 2382; D. Darger, 3980-89 (admitting his name and phone
6 number are listed on Church Security roster (Ex. 45) but stating, if Im involved with any
7 sort of a Church or religious activityor anything like that then its private; admitting to
8 previously refusing to answer questions, on Fifth Amendment grounds, regarding his
9 involvement in Church Security and regarding whether he had ever been inside the control
10 room in the LSJ Meeting House; refusing to confirm whether he worked on same Church
11 Security crew as Jacob Barlow, Jr. and Joseph Allred, but saying one could deduct that);
12 J. Allred, 2814-18 (refusing to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds, questions about his
13 involvement in Church Security, including while he was a City official, and the activities
14 of Church Security); T. Rohbock, 1959-60 (stating that Joseph Allred, Philip Barlow,
15 Anthus Barlow, and David Darger worked as Church Security in the control room);
16 Patrick Barlow, 2926-28, 2934, 3000; Philip Barlow, 3104, 3177-79; D. Barlow, 282-83;
17 T. Jeffs, 1341-42; W. Barlow, 3733 (admitting he has been part of neighborhood watch
18 type functions).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3) CCMO Officers and City Officials Personally Oppose the Non-FLDS

Administration of the UEP Trust
73.
CCMO officers and City officials have made their religious opposition to
the reformed UEP Trust clear, including objecting to the authority of the Court-appointed
Trustee and his authority to manage UEP Trust land in a non-religious manner. Their
strongly held personal religious beliefs are not easily divorced from their conduct of their
official duties. See infra 74-79. See also supra 50-58 (background on FLDS
opposition to state takeover of UEP Trust); infra 191-388 (ignoring and supporting
crimes committed by FLDS, and targeting non-FLDS for crimes).
28
26
74.
Many CCMO officers and City officials have also signed the Declaration of
2 Beneficiaries stating their personal opposition to the state takeover of the UEP Trust and
3 its management on non-religious principles, including former CCMO Chiefs Helaman
4 Barlow, Jonathan Roundy, and current CCMO Chief Jerry Darger, CCMO Sergeant Sam
5 Johnson, CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke, Colorado City Mayor Joseph Allred, Hildale
6 Mayor Philip Barlow, Colorado City Town Manager David Darger, Hildale City
7 Councilmembers Brian Jessop and Carvel Nielsen, and Building Official Andrew Barlow.
8 Ex. 43; H. Barlow, 2018-21; D. Barlow, 232-33; Philip Barlow, 3206-07; D. Darger,
9 4043-44; S. Johnson, 4444-45; J. Darger, 4662-65 (current CCMO Chief, stating he had
10 strong convictions about his beliefs when the Trust was taken over and did not agree
11 with the takeover); see also A. Barlow, 3341-45 (testifying that despite no longer being a
12 member of the FLDS Church, still agrees with language of Declaration of Beneficiaries
13 and believes Bruce Wisan is acting at odds with Church), 3380-81; J. Jessop, 3548 (stating
14 that States takeover of the UEP Trust violated [his] religious rights).
15
75.
CCMO Sergeant Sam Johnson was frustrated that Judge Lindberg appointed
16 Bruce Wisan, who has no association with the FLDS Church, to act as the UEP Trusts
17 fiduciary: to appoint somebody that had never been a part of a religion to officiate in the
18 affairs of religious things, yes, that was a frustration. S. Johnson, 4479-80. On the
19 instruction of FLDS Church leaders, Sergeant Johnson has also refused to acknowledge
20 that Mr. Wisan has authority over the UEP. Id. at 4480-81. He viewed the state takeover
21 of the UEP as a hostile takeover because [t]he state took over a religious trust that
22 controlled property and appointed an individual to manage that trust [on] behalf of the
23 beneficiaries that had never been a part of the same church or faith. Id. at 4559.
24 Sergeant Johnson even acknowledges that divorcing his personal feelings to carry out his
25 official duties may be a little bit of a struggle. Id. at 4559-60.
26
76.
CCMO officers and City officials also have refused to sign Occupancy
27
Agreements (or have since moved without Trust permission) and have refused to pay the
28
27
1 $100 per month Occupancy Fee that the UEP Trust began charging around 2008. I.
2 Wyler, 467 (stating that not a single City official has paid Occupancy Fees since April,
3 2008); J. Barlow, 1602-04 (stating that Mayor Joseph Allred and CCMO Officer Hyrum
4 Roundy, for example, do not have current Occupancy Agreements; other City officials,
5 including city council members and CCMO officers, signed Occupancy Agreements in
6 2008 but have since become noncompliant). At the time of trial in this case, CCMO Chief
7 Jerry Darger owed an unknown sum in unpaid Occupancy Fees. J. Darger, 4660-61.
8 CCMO Sergeant Johnson owed approximately $6,000 in unpaid Occupancy Fees. S.
9 Johnson, 4461. Hildale Mayor Philip Barlow owed the UEP $8,350 in unpaid Occupancy
10 Fees. Philip Barlow, 3216.
11
77.
CCMO officers and City officials are among those FLDS members who
12 have moved into UEP homes without permission. J. Barlow, 1602-03; I. Wyler 466
13 (explaining that Hildale Mayor Philip Barlow and CCMO Officers Hyrum Roundy and
14 Curtis Cooke moved among UEP homes without the UEPs permission); J. Jessop, 3532
15 (Utility Board President, admitting to moving from UEP home to UEP home without
16 informing the Trust and without signing Occupancy Agreements).
17
78.
In 2009, CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy received paperwork from the UEP
18
Trust indicating that he would need to apply for an Occupancy Agreement for his home.
19
Officer Roundy stated to the responding WCSO deputy that he did not believe he had to
20
comply or receive Bruce Wisans permission in order to live in the home. D. Cashin,
21
2900-01.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
79.
Despite the fact that the UEP Trust was taken over and reformed in 2005,
the City officials responsible for overseeing the CCMO and CCMO officers still make
statements showing they view UEP land as Church property. CCMO Officer Curtis
Cooke told Christopher Jessop in 2013 that he needed to get off property for which Mr.
Jessop had an Occupancy Agreement, referring to it as Church property, C. Jessop,
2515-17, and CCMO Officer Daniel Musser testified in 2016, The property in Colorado
28
1 City is all in dispute, D. Musser, 4245. See also Philip Barlow, 3217 (Hildale Mayor,
2 testifying at trial that UEP land is Church controlled until its evicted off, despite the
3 fact that the Trust is now court-ordered to operate on religiously neutral terms).
4
4) The FLDS Church Selects and Controls the CCMO and City Officials
80.
For decades, the FLDS Church has controlled who serves in the CCMO and
6 within the Cities governments, including who serves as mayor and on the city councils
7 for both Colorado City and Hildale. FLDS leaders exert this control by removing City
8 officials through religious excommunications and sending them away from the Cities, and
9 by directing who the Cities hire to fill City positions, including as CCMO officers. See
10 infra 80-99.
11
12
13
14
15
81.
FLDS Church teachings dictate that one must receive approval from the
FLDS Church to take a position in the Colorado City or Hildale government; if one were
to accept such a position without receiving Church approval, he or she would be
considered aspiring, meaning seeking control or authority, and risk losing his Priesthood
(i.e., membership in the FLDS Church). V. Barlow, 2355.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
82.
The FLDS Church instructs followers who fall out of favor with the Church
to repent from afar or leave the community; to comply with this instruction, the follower
must abandon any employment with the Cities governments. For example, Richard
Holm, who had been a council member for 20 years, resigned because he was
excommunicated from the FLDS Church. R. Holm, 1744-45. Brian Meldrum, a
dispatcher for the Dispatch Center and the Cities IT Manager, was instructed by Bishop
Lyle Jeffs in March 2013 that he was no longer a member of the Church and that he
should leave the community, which he did, informing the Cities that he was resigning
from his City positions. B. Meldrum, 4279-81.
83.
On January 10, 2004, Warren Jeffs consolidated his control over the FLDS
27 Church, the Short Creek community, and the City governments. D. Barlow, 219-21; W.
28 Jessop, 731-34. At a meeting at the LSJ Meeting House attended by over 3000
29
1 community members, Warren Jeffs excommunicated 21 men, including Colorado City

2 Mayor Dan Barlow and Hildale City Councilmember Joseph Barlow. D. Barlow, 220; W.
3 Jessop, 734-35; I. Wyler, 445-46; see also Ex. 23 (Sermon of Warren Jeffs, Jan. 10, 2004,
4 excommunicating 21 members). Dan Barlow resigned as Mayor the next day. D. Barlow,
5 222; V. Barlow, 2347. After Warren Jeffs excommunicated Mayor Dan Barlow and
6 Councilmember Barlow, he chose Richard Allred and Donald Richter to replace them.
7 See Ex. 68 at 4-5 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, Jan. 14, 2004; [T]he Lord named Richard
8 Allred to take care of that job [as mayor]; I am impressed that Donald Richter will be a
9 councilman.).
10
84.
When Warren Jeffs later excommunicated Colorado City Mayor Richard
11 Allred, it was the Church that directed that Terrill Johnson be appointed to fill the
12 vacancy. D. Barlow, 245-47; see also Ex. 114 at 1 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, Feb. 15,
13 2006, confirming the handling, or excommunication, of Mayor Richard Allred and
14 ordering him to resign as mayor); Ex. 89 at 2 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, May 1, 2006,
15 noting that Richard Allred is living in Fargo, North Dakota, as he was directed). Terrill
16 Johnson was also later excommunicated and sent away. J.N. Williams, 1830. Terrill
17 Johnsons replacement, George Barlow, then suffered the same fate. Id. (explaining,
18 George Barlow was a mayor for a while, and he got sent away.).
19
85.
Warren Jeffs also excommunicated Hildale Mayor David Zitting. See V.
20
Barlow, 2366-67 (explaining how Warren Jeffs instructed that a patriarch was
21
excommunicated and needed to remove himself from the community and how, thereafter,
22
Hildale Mayor David Zitting, the only patriarch in the community, resigned); D. Barlow,
23
249 (explaining how David Zitting was handled by Warren Jeffs, stripped of his family,
24
and banished); J.N. Williams, 1830. The Church then selected Mayor Zittings
25
replacement, the current Mayor of Hildale, Philip Barlow. V. Barlow, 2358.

26
27
28
86.
Hildale Mayor Philip Barlow even admitted it was possible that the FLDS
Church suggested to him that he should apply for a position on the City Council originally
30
1 in 2006. Philip Barlow, 3139. He had no prior experience in government. Id. Philip
2 Barlow was selected by the City Council as a nominee instead of Jethro Barlow, who was
3 working for the reformed UEP Trust and associating with non-FLDS individuals at the
4 time, despite the fact that [i]f [the Council] were looking just at professional credentials
5 Jethro would be the obvious choice. Ex. 263 (City Council Executive Session Meeting
6 Minutes); Philip Barlow, 3143-45.
7
87.
The FLDS Church controlled numerous other municipal appointments.
8 Meetings between City officials and Church leaders in which personnel decisions were
9 made took place [a]ll the time, including [h]ow to replace the mayors or how to replace
10 city council members or who we should hire for the road departments or who we should
11 hire in the Marshals Office. W. Jessop, 783-84.
12
88.
For example, Davis Roundy, Carlos Jessop, and Brian Jessop were all
13
appointed to fill vacancies on the City Council on orders from the Church. D. Barlow,
14
240, 245.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
89.
Vincen Barlow became Hildale City Recorder on orders from Bishop Lyle
Jeffs. V. Barlow, 2354-56. Vincen Barlow was later asked by Lyle Jeffs to take the
position of City Manager in a meeting with then-City Manager Jerry Barlow and Lyle
Jeffs in Bishop Jeffss office. Id. at 2356-57. Vincen Barlow then informed Mayor Philip
Barlow about this conversation with Mr. Jeffs and was, at the next City Council meeting,
on or about July 2011, voted into the position. Id. at 2357-58.
90.
Guy Timpson was chosen for a position on the Utility Board by the Church.
23 G. Timpson, 1372-73; see also id. at 1375 (explaining that every member of the Utility
24 Board was also an FLDS member). Later, when Mr. Timpson left the FLDS Church, was
25 no longer attending FLDS Church meetings, and was no longer a member of Church
26 Security, a Utility Board member who was then a member of the FLDS Church expressed
27 to City Manager Vincen Barlow that they wanted to get Mr. Timpson off of the Board. V.
28 Barlow, 2358-61. Vincen Barlow informed them that Mr. Timpson had only about a year
31
1 left on his appointment, and that the best course of action would be to let him finish his
2 term and then not reappoint him, for fear of direct termination being easily identified as
3 discrimination. Id. at 2359. Mr. Timpson was removed from the Utility Board and
4 replaced in January 2013, when his term expired. Id. at 2361.
5
91.
As it has with these other city government positions, the FLDS Church has,
6 for decades, also controlled who becomes a police officer with the CCMO. See W.
7 Jessop, 728-30, 783-85; D. Barlow, 240. Accordingly, CCMO officers have discussed
8 how being an officer was a Church calling. H. Barlow, 2064. To hire new officers, the
9 CCMO put together a list of names that would be submitted to Bishop Lyle Jeffs or
10 Prophet Warren Jeffs who would review the names on the list and instruct someone to fill
11 the CCMO position. Id. at 2017.
12
92.
Officers Sam Johnson, Preston Barlow, Curtis Cooke, Mica Barlow, Hyrum
13
Roundy, Jesse Barlow, Daniel Roy Barlow, and current Chief Jerry Darger were all hired
14
on Church orders. H. Barlow, 2018; D. Barlow, 240-43 (explaining how Jesse Barlow,
15
Jerry Darger, and Curtis Cooke were all selected to attend the police academy at an R&W
16
meeting; describing how Sam Johnson and Mica Barlow were given a Church mission
17
to join the CCMO); C. Jeffs, 998-1001 (explaining that Church directed Daniel Roy
18
Barlow to become a CCMO Officer and that Bishop Lyle Jeffs directed Curtis Cooke to
19
become a CCMO Officer); see also J. Darger, 4647-49 (admitting that application to join
20
CCMO did not take long to fill out, he was the only one who applied, he was never
21
interviewed for the position, and he was an FLDS member at the time he applied); D.
22
Darger, 3830-31 (stating that Officers Hyrum Roundy and Curtis Cooke were the only
23
applicants in 2007).
24
25
26
27
93.
Before then-Colorado City Mayor Dan Barlow and then-CCMO Chief Sam
Roundy Jr. approached Helaman Barlow and asked him whether he would be willing to go
to the police academy in 1994, Prophet Rulon Jeffs had spoken to Mayor Barlow about it
28
32
1 and told Mayor Barlow that it would be a good thing for Helaman Barlow to do. H.
2 Barlow, 2015-16.
3
94.
The Church also chose Helaman Barlow to fill the position of CCMO Chief.
4 While it could have done so at any time, the Colorado City Town Council voted to appoint
5 Helaman Barlow as Chief at the next Town Council meeting after Bishop John Wayman
6 informed Helaman Barlow that he supported his becoming Chief and saying that he would
7 relay this support to Town Manager David Darger and Mayor Joseph Allred. H. Barlow,
8 2022-23.
9
95.
In June of 2012, Colorado City Mayor George Barlow wrote to Warren Jeffs
10
asking who should be appointed to the position of CCMO Chief. See Ex. 118 (stating,
11
[I]t would be very helpful to get his sure word on who [the Lord] desires to occupy that
12
position [of police chief]); D. Barlow, 201-02 (testifying that Mayor George Barlows
13
priesthood name is George B. Allred). Not only did Mayor Barlow seek the advice of a
14
convicted felon on who should become CCMO Chief, but he also asked Warren Jeffs to
15
identify individuals to go to the police academy. See id. ([I]f the Lord has some men
16
prepared who he wants to go into police academy their names would be helpful.).
17
18
19
20
21
22
96.
FLDS Church leaders have boasted about their ability to control CCMO
hiring, with Lyle Jeffs saying, [T]hey can continue to decertify our police, and we will
continue to send men back into the police academy to become officers to prevent any of
the out-of-town [law-enforcement agencies] to have to take their place. T. Jeffs, 1310.
97.
CCMO Sergeant Sam Johnson has testified as recently as July 2013, more
23 than a year after he claims he was demoted to inactive status in the FLDS Church, that he
24 would still possibly resign from his position with the CCMO if the Church asked him to.
25 S. Johnson, 4452.
26
27
28
33
98.
The last time, prior to the trial in this case, that the Cities have hired a
2 CCMO officer who was not affiliated with the Short Creek community was in the late
3 1980s. D. Darger, 3833.
4
99.
The CCMOs hiring and promotion practices, until at least 2014, were not in
5 line with generally accepted police practices, as hiring was done by designation and with
6 no evidence that any objective hiring criteria were being applied, or any background or
7 other diligence checks were conducted on candidates. J. DeLopez, 2275-78.
8
9
10
5) City Officials Seek and Receive Direction Regarding their Official Duties
from the FLDS Church
100.
In addition to giving orders regarding City and CCMO personnel, the FLDS
11 Church inappropriately controls the City and CCMO personnel in the administration of
12 their official duties. See infra 101-127. See also J. Harris, 4857-59 (opining that
13 evidence supports finding that CCMO were taking direction from the FLDS Church,
14 which is not an acceptable police practice); see also supra 25 (describing the means by
15 which Warren Jeffs has communicated with his congregation in Short Creek).
16
101.
FLDS leaders have taught that all of the institutions in Short Creek,
17 including the UEP Trust, the city governments, and the utility companies, exist to serve
18 the Prophet. See I. Wyler, 434-35.
19
102.
On or about March 1, 2006, and while he was a federal fugitive, Warren
20
Jeffs sent a message to the entire CCMO stating, As far as official duties, I remind the
21
brethren that Priesthood has the right to rule. See Ex. 102 at 7 (Message to the Police
22
Department in Short Creek) (emphasis added); N. Hanna, 1145-46.

23
24
25
26
27
28
103.
Accordingly, City officials with both Hildale and Colorado City have, for
years, taken direction from FLDS leaders with respect to the conduct of municipal affairs,
including regarding regular city business and legal strategy, and have given Church
leaders regular updates with non-public information. V. Barlow, 2378-79; R.B. Jessop,
2498-99 (City Councilmember, refusing to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds,
34
1 questions about whether he received instructions from Warren Jeffs and Lyle Jeffs on how
2 to conduct city business); see Exs. 33, 34, 35, 39, 117, 118.
3
104.
For example, on one occasion, Colorado City changed a flood-control
4 project, despite an outside engineers recommendation and at considerable cost to the

5 Town, because Bishop Fred Jessop so instructed. R. Holm, 1746-47.
6
105.
By way of further example, City officials ignored financial misconduct
involving municipal funds that benefitted the FLDS Church, as City officials were aware
8
that their municipal water supplier was improperly funneling large amounts of money to
9
the FLDS Church. The Cities purchase culinary, that is, drinking water, from Twin City
10
Water Works (TCWW), a private not-for-profit utility company. Stipulated Facts, 123.
11
Joseph Allred, the current Mayor of Colorado City, served simultaneously as an officer of
12
TCWW and as Town Clerk for Colorado City. J. Barlow, 1635-38; see D. Barlow, 257;
13
see also Ex. 40. Joseph Allred, and by extension the Cities, was aware of, and involved
14
in, TCWWs efforts to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars to the FLDS Church and
15
the YFZ Ranch. See id.; see also Exs. 286A1 & 286B1 (summaries of TCWW bank
16
records showing money diverted to the Storehouse and to Blue Ox Transportation, a

17
supplier for the YFZ Ranch). As Richard Holm, a former City Councilmember explained,
18
the Cities had a responsibility to ensure (1) that TCWW was not overcharging the Cities in
19
order to transfer money to the FLDS Church, and (2) that TCWW was spending its funds
20
appropriately to invest in piping and water-delivery equipment. R. Holm, 1747-49. When

21
Mayor Joseph Allred was asked questions about these issues at trial, he refused to answer,
22
asserting the Fifth Amendment. See J. Allred, 2797 (Q. And that would extend to being
23
concerned about whether government money is carefully spent, is that right? A. At the
24
instruction of counsel, Im asserting my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United
25
States Constitution and respectfully decline to answer.); see also id. at 2804-12. City
26
officials did nothing to address or stop that improper diversion of resources. Id.; see also
27
28
35
1 R.B. Jessop, 2490-91 (City Councilmember, testifying he had heard something about
2 TCWW misusing funds, but did nothing about it).
3
106.
Then-CCMO Chief Sam Roundy, Jr., along with all the then-CCMO
4 officers, met with then-FLDS Prophet Rulon Jeffs and Warren Jeffs to discuss criminal
5 matters being handled by the CCMO. H. Barlow, 2064-65.
6
107.
In 2004, then-CCMO Chief Sam Roundy, Jr. was reporting to Prophet
Warren Jeffs on the status of excommunicated City officials. See Ex. 82 at 1 (Dictation of
8
Warren Jeffs, May 17, 2004, noting how Chief Sam Roundy had reported to Warren Jeffs
9
on former Mayor Dan Barlow).

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
108.
Warren Jeffs also received reports of closed city council executive session
meetings. See Ex. 8 at 4 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, Apr. 22, 2005, discussing report of an
executive-session meeting); see also, e.g., Ex. 31 (Letter from Mayor Zitting to Lyle Jeffs,
April 14, 2006, reporting on City business); Ex. 26 (Letter from Mayor Zitting to Warren
Jeffs, Aug. 26, 2006, noting that Warren Jeffs has been receiving reports and information
about Hildale City affairs).
109.
In 2012, Mayor George Barlow wrote a letter to Warren Jeffs in prison
18 relaying town legal plans, including the fact that We have much litigation (legal arguing)
19 going on with people trying to take down the city especially our local marshals, and
20 asking Warren Jeffs for advice on how to handle the litigation: I guess My question is,
21 does the Lord approve of what I am doing and will I have his blessings by going forward
22 or does he want me to stop and let him handle it a different way. Ex. 118; D. Barlow,
23 201-02 (testifying that Mayor George Barlows priesthood name is George B. Allred).
24
110.
In another letter to Warren Jeffs in 2012, Mayor George Barlow informed
25 Warren Jeffs that the City is planning to create a city charter and asks what name they
26 should use for the City. Mayor Barlow writes, We know you have the keys to all
27 wisdom, knowledge and understanding and we sincerely desire the mind and will of God
28
36
1 in every aspect and yearn to know if we should proceed with this idea or change it
2 altogether. Ex. 117; D. Barlow, 201-02 (testifying that Mayor George Barlows
3 priesthood name is George B. Allred).
4
111.
In December 2005, Warren Jeffs conveyed specific instructions to Colorado
5 City Mayor Richard Allred and Hildale Mayor David Zitting, supported with the explicit
6 threat of excommunication, that the mayors were not to compromise with the outside
7 world or allow non-FLDS businesses to come into Short Creek. See Ex. 75 (Dictation of
8 Warren Jeffs, Dec. 3, 2005); N. Hanna, 1126-29.
9
112.
From 2004 until 2011, the FLDS Church frequently conveyed instructions
10
and directives to City officials during regular, private meetings held at R&W Excavation,
11
an FLDS-affiliated business in Hildale that was owned by Willie Jessop. D. Barlow, 234.
12
For at least the period 2008 to 2011, those meetings were held on a weekly basis. Id.; W.
13
Jessop, 766; H. Barlow, 2065-66; J. Allred, 2813-14, 2818-19 (refusing to answer, on

14
Fifth Amendment grounds, questions about meetings held at R&W and whether
15
conspiracy between Cities and FLDS Church to deprive people of their civil rights was
16
discussed there); see also D. Darger, 4033 (stating he has not been to Willie Jessops
17
business since Mr. Jessop left the FLDS Church).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
113.
City officials who regularly attended these meetings included: (1) Jerry
Barlow, Hildale City Manager; (2) Kimball Barlow, Colorado City Town Councilman; (3)
David Darger, Colorado City Town Manager; (4) Jacob Barlow, Fire Chief; and (5)
Helaman Barlow, CCMO. D. Barlow, 236-37; see also W. Jessop, 769-70, 781; G.
Timpson, 1376-78. Church officials who attended included: (1) Bishop Lyle Jeffs; (2)
Willie Jessop, Church Legal Coordinator; (3) Wendell Nielsen, First Counselor to the
Prophet; and (4) Merrill Jessop, Second Counselor to the Prophet. D. Barlow, 237; see
also W. Jessop, 770-72; G. Timpson, 1377-78; D. Darger, 4031 (admitting that it is
possible that he was at R&W when Lyle Jeffs was present and town business was
discussed).
37
114.
During the R&W meetings, City officials received direction from Church
2 leaders on a variety of topics. H. Barlow, 2066 (explaining that at these R&W meetings,
3 FLDS Church leaders, usually Merrill Jessop, Wendell Nielsen, or Lyle Jeffs, would be
4 calling the shots; topics of discussion concerning City business at the R&W meetings
5 included subdividing the land, ongoing litigation, and Occupancy Agreements); G.
6 Timpson, 1376-78.
7
115.
Church leaders directed city officials to oppose the UEPs efforts to
8 subdivide land in Short Creek, including using their control over water to do so, and to
9 oppose efforts of Bruce Wisan. See D. Barlow, 238-40, 248 (recounting order by Lyle
10 Jeffs, to City officials: We cannot work with thesewith Bruce Wisan. Its a
11 compromise if we do.); W. Jessop, 768-69 ([T]here was a lot of strategies on how we
12 could get the church and the citys legal teams to work together to stop the subdividing or
13 property . . . .), 772-73 ([T]he strategy was it was non-members wouldnt have wet
14 water but the bishops office did control the water so that would give the cities a way to
15 keep non-members from being able to get water hookups potentially.).
16
116.
It was at R&W meetings that the Church gave orders on how the Cities
17
should handle the Cooke litigation. W. Jessop, 781-83. The Church specifically ordered
18
the Cities not to settle the Cooke case. Id. at 782.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117.
Warren Jeffs repeatedly gave instructions to high-ranking City officials that
they were not to meet with or compromise with the outside world. D. Barlow, 218. On
one occasion, Warren Jeffs specifically instructed Colorado City Mayor Dan Barlow not
to meet with Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Id. Mayor Barlow complied with
that instruction. Id.
118.
In addition to following specific Church directives regarding how to carry
26 out City business, religious teachings more generally informed City officials and CCMO
27 officers conduct. See infra 119-127.
28
38
119.
Following a directive from Warren Jeffs to not use the internet, for a period
2 of time, the Cities severed the internet connections to the Cities and turned off the data
3 capabilities on their phones, which affected City officials ability to perform city business.
4 For example, City officials were no longer able to access internet domains needed for
5 grant application and reporting, they could no longer publish the city council agendas on
6 the Utah public meeting website, and they could no longer send and receive emails
7 directly. V. Barlow, 2379-80.
8
120.
Despite evidence introduced at the Cooke trial that then-CCMO Chief
9 Helaman Barlow had made recordings of his conversations with outside law enforcement
10 and sent them to Warren Jeffs while Jeffs was a fugitive, the Town Manager David Darger
11 did not look at the evidence because it would have violated his religious oath that forbids
12 him to look at Warren Jeffss priesthood records. See D. Darger, 3974 ([I]f I feel like
13 that theres a personal, private record that has to do with other people that I may not
14 choose to look at that, and thats my constitutional right.).
15
121.
CCMO Sergeant Johnson has refused to answer questions about how the
16
FLDS Churchs dictate not to acknowledge Bruce Wisan affects the ability to perform his
17
job as a CCMO officer. S. Johnson, 4482.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
122.
FLDS Prophet Rulon Jeffs attended a lunch to celebrate Helaman Barlows
graduation from the police academy and instructed him that his job was to stand between
the Church and all harm and that being a police officer was his calling from the
Church. H. Barlow, 2016. As a member of the United Order, former Chief Barlow
consecrated his service firearm to the Church. Id. at 2069. Chief Barlow followed the
instruction from FLDS Prophet Rulon Jeffs to use his role as a police officer to protect the
FLDS Church as best [he] could during the 19 years that he served as an officer with the
CCMO. Id. at 2017.
123.
CCMO officers would take actions to protect the FLDS Church while also
28 attempting to maintain their law enforcement certification: there was times when I
39
1 would stretch and other officers would, everything we could to protect the Church and
2 also be able to do our duty as a police officer. If we lost our certification, were really no
3 value to the Church. H. Barlow, 2139.
4
124.
After CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow left the Church, the Cities began a
5 campaign to force him out of his job, citing other CCMO officers newfound lack of trust
6 in him and false allegations of alcoholism. Chief Barlow left the FLDS Church with his
7 wife in July 2012 and thereafter his relationship with his fellow officers and other City
8 officials changed as they became more distrustful of him. H. Barlow, 2026-28. In
9 November 2013, Chief Barlow was deposed in this case and viewed the personal writings
10 of Warren Jeffs. Id. at 2028; V. Barlow, 2349. Colorado City Town Manager David
11 Darger was present for the deposition. H. Barlow, 2028-29; V. Barlow, 2349-50. There is
12 an FLDS Church directive prohibiting members from looking at the personal writings of
13 Warren Jeffs, as they are considered sacred and members are taught that they risk losing
14 their testimony if they look at the writings of the Prophet. H. Barlow, 2028; V. Barlow,
15 2349-50. David Darger left the room on multiple occasions when Helaman Barlow
16 viewed Warren Jeffss personal writings during the deposition. H. Barlow, 2028-29; V.
17 Barlow, 2349-50; D. Darger, 3935. Within days of the deposition, Mr. Darger began a
18 campaign to terminate Chief Barlows employment with the CCMO, including making
19 false accusations that Chief Barlow was under the influence of alcohol at his deposition.
20 H. Barlow, 2029-31; see also D. Darger, 3848-49 (describing discontent with Chief
21 Barlow within CCMO between 2013 and 2014 and smelling alcohol on his breath,
22 resulting in meeting with Town Council in January 2014); but cf. id. at 3928-31 (admitting
23 that he took no action and said nothing at the time he allegedly smelled alcohol on Chief
24 Barlows breath including, e.g., saying anything to the Towns attorney at or before the
25 deposition). At a Town Council executive session meeting held on January 10, 2014,
26 CCMO officers and staff informed the Council of concerns they had with Chief Barlow:
27 Sergeant Johnson stated, on police work he has confidence [in Chief Barlow] but does
28
40
1 not on a personal level; Lovisa White stated, there has been a noticeable increase in
2 tension between officers; Officer Cooke agreed that there was tension, that he did not
3 think it would be easily overcome, and that the loss of confidence in the Department
4 would probably not go away just by simply reassigning H. Barlow to patrol and
5 appointing a new Marshal as he felt there is question of H. Barlows integrity; Officer
6 Roundy expressed that there was a definite rift between himself and Marshal H. Barlow
7 [and] did not know why; multiple officers suggested that the rift was due in part to the
8 fact that Chief Barlow was seen as aligned with Willie Jessop, who was a known
9 outspoken critic of the FLDS Church at the time. Ex. 1151; D. Darger, 3999. Chief
10 Barlow was subsequently put on administrative leave. H. Barlow, 2031. An internal
11 affairs investigation was conducted after Chief Barlow testified truthfully about his
12 conduct during his tenure with the CCMO in April 2014. Id. at 2040-41; see also D.
13 Darger, 3854-56. Chief Barlows employment with the CCMO was terminated by Town
14 Council in September 2014. D. Darger, 3856.
15
125.
The Church and the Cities also took action against Vincen Barlow, then-
16 Hildale City Manager and Chief Helaman Barlows brother, when Vincen Barlow
17 disobeyed Church directives, also based on false allegations of alcoholism. Vincen
18 Barlow was also present at Chief Barlows November 2013 deposition. V. Barlow, 234919 50. Vincen Barlow did not leave the room when Chief Barlow was shown the personal
20 writings of Warren Jeffs. Id. Vincen Barlow was separated from his family later that day
21 when he arrived home after the deposition, his family was no longer in the house they
22 had shared. Id. at 2350. The Cities then began a campaign to remove Vincen Barlow
23 from his position as City Manager based on alleged alcoholism. Id. at 2395-97, 2400-03,
24 2405-06. In 2014, Vincen Barlow left his position with the City of Hildale because the
25 community knew he was no longer a member of the Church and that he was not trying to
26 get back into the Church; he was shunned, both personally and professionally, including
27 no longer being invited to meetings held by other city officials. V. Barlow, 2370-72.
28
41
126.
Pressure imposed by the Church to follow its dictates is such that former
2 CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow and former Hildale City Manager Vincen Barlow admitted
3 to perjuring themselves on multiple occasions while members of the FLDS Church
4 because the Church had total control over their families and doing otherwise would have
5 meant being retaliated against, losing their jobs with the City, and being exiled. H.
6 Barlow, 2023-24 ([T]he Church had total control over my family, my kids.); V. Barlow,
7 2372-74.
8
127.
Other City officials and CCMO officers have also lied under oath to protect
9 the Church without consequence or discipline. H. Barlow, 2170-71. For example,

10 statements under oath by CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy that he knew nothing about
11 Church Security are not truthful and he was not terminated by the CCMO. Id. at 2171-72.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
6) The CCMO is Entangled with FLDS Church Security

128.
The CCMO has such an entangled relationship with FLDS Church Security
that the CCMO effectively has served as an arm of Church Security. H. Barlow, 2078-80;
see S. Bateman, 2315; W. Jessop, 727-28; see also J. Allred, 2815-19 (refusing to answer,
on Fifth Amendment grounds, questions about coordination between CCMO and Church
Security and illegal activities of Church Security). Compare S. Johnson, 4494-95 (giving
non-credible denial of knowledge of existence of Church Security), and J. Darger, 467071 (same), and H. Barlow, 2171-72 (testifying Hyrum Roundy denied knowledge of
Church Security), with G. Meyer, 4745-46 (according to best practices, police should have
a working relationship groups in the community; would be appropriate for CCMO to
know about Church Security if they had a legitimate relationship), and J. Harris, 4861
(stating it would be unusual in small town for police department to be unfamiliar with a
private security force that had a presence in the community).
25
26
27
28
129.
Church Security members communicated among themselves and with the
CCMO using encrypted radios and Nextel Direct Connect phones. D. Barlow, 280-81; W.
Jessop, 761-62; G. Timpson, 1415-16; see also D. Darger, 3981-82 (admitting that his
42
1 Nextel Direct Connect number could be the number listed for him on Church Security
2 rosters); Ex. 45 at 2, 5, 7, 9 (listing David Dargers direct line number in the format of a
3 Nextel Direct Connect code); S. Johnson, 4495-96 (stating he had a Nextel Direct Connect
4 phone until approximately 2013, as did essentially all the other CCMO officers).
5
130.
The relationship between the CCMO and Church Security is not appropriate
6 according to normal police practices. See J. Harris, 4857-58.

7
a. The CCMO and Church Security Work Together to Guard FLDS

Leadership and Monitor Outside Law Enforcement in the
Community
8
9
10
11
12
13
131.
The CCMO inappropriately entangled itself with the FLDS Church by
working alongside Church Security to provide security to FLDS Church leaders and
protect them from outside law enforcement. See infra 132-135.
132.
CCMO officers provided security during FLDS Church services. S.
14 Bateman, 2315.
15
133.
CCMO officers provided escort services for the FLDS Prophets Rulon Jeffs
16 and Warren Jeffs. S. Bateman, 2315; W. Jessop, 727-28.

17
18
19
134.
CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke, armed and in full uniform, sat outside FLDS
Bishop Lyle Jeffss office while Bishop Jeffs interviewed FLDS Church members for
membership in the United Order. See V. Barlow, 2352.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
135.
WCSO Deputy Darrell Cashin received calls from CCMO Chief Fred
Barlow on multiple occasions wherein Chief Barlow would indicate he knew that Deputy
Cashin was in town or on his way into town despite the fact that Deputy Cashin had not
informed CCMO officers of his whereabouts and had not seen any marked CCMO
vehicles. D. Cashin, 2887-88; see supra 48 (Church Security vehicles would be posted
20-25 miles outside the Cities on main roads leading into community).
27
28
43
b. The CCMO Improperly Provides Training and Equipment to

Church Security
1
2
136.
The CCMO inappropriately entangled itself with the FLDS Church by
providing training to Church Security, including on how to obstruct outside law

4
enforcement, and by providing Church Security with police-issue equipment. See infra
5
137-143.
6
7
8
9
10
11
137.
The CCMO regularly provided training to Church Security on topics that
included hand-to-hand combat, firearms and Tasers, and slow walking or otherwise
interfering with outside law enforcement. H. Barlow, 2079-80; V. Barlow, 2382-83;
Patrick Barlow, 2935-39; D. Barlow, 270-72.
138.
CCMO officers, including Curtis Cooke, Helaman Barlow, and Jonathan
12 Roundy participated, at various points, in these trainings. T. Rohbock, 1961-62; H.

13 Barlow 2079; V. Barlow, 2382-83; Patrick Barlow, 2936-38; see D. Barlow, 277-78
14 (stating CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke was present at Taser training).
15
139.
The CCMO also arranged for Church Security member Willie Jessop to
16 attend sniper training meant for law-enforcement officers only. W. Jessop, 758.
17
140.
One function of Church Security was to protect FLDS leaders from outside
18
law enforcement. See T. Jeffs, 1343. Church Security, therefore, developed plans to help
19
FLDS leaders escape in the event that outside law enforcement came to the LSJ Meeting
20
House. Id. The CCMO participated in developing that plan by providing training to
21
Church Security where the CCMO pretended to be outside law enforcement and raided
22
the LSJ Meeting House in order for Church Security to practice its response. H. Barlow,
23
2079-80; Patrick Barlow, 2938-39; W. Jessop, 760-61. Cf. S. Johnson, 4500-04

24
(admitting to participating in active shooter training at the LSJ Meeting House in or

25
around 2005 or 2006, shortly before the FBI tried to serve subpoenas on the LSJ Meeting
26
House; the training was set up by then-CCMO Chief Fred Barlow and then-CCMO
27
Officer Jonathan Roundy also participated).

28
44
141.
In addition to providing training on how to respond to outside law
2 enforcement at the Meeting House, CCMO officers also worked with Church Security to
3 make sure the exit routes from the Meeting House remained open in the event that outside
4 law enforcement came to the building. W. Jessop, 750-52 ([O]ur first defense was the
5 marshals.).
6
142.
Church Security implemented these trainings on January 14, 2006, to slow
7 down efforts by the FBI to serve grand jury subpoenas on Church leaders at the LSJ
8 Meeting House. D. Barlow, 272, 276-77; R. Foster, 649; see also R.B. Jessop, 2500-02
9 (City Councilmember, refusing to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds, questions
10 concerning his involvement in the events of January 14, 2006). When FBI agents
11 approached the Meeting House that morning, FLDS members saw them and tried to hold
12 the front doors of the building shut. R. Foster, 650. CCMO Officers Helaman Barlow and
13 Mica Barlow refused to assist the FBI. Id. at 651-52; see also W. Jessop, 754-55 (stating
14 CCMO were involved in implementing plan to slow down the FBI).
15
143.
Church Security also had access to police-issue equipment, including Tasers
16
and night-vision binoculars. Thomas Jeffs, who acted as personal bodyguard to his father,
17
Bishop Lyle Jeffs, received the binoculars directly from CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy,
18
who had obtained them illegally using his police badge. T. Jeffs, 1344-46.
19
c. The CCMO Illegally Shared Law Enforcement Information with

Church Security
20
21
144.
The CCMO inappropriately entangled itself with the FLDS Church, and
22 engaged in illegal conduct, by sharing confidential law-enforcement information,

23 specifically vehicle-registration information, with Church Security in order to help
24 identify outsiders in the community. See infra 145-149.
25
145.
In particular, the CCMO would run license plates for Church Security and
26
report back to Church Security on registrant information, including the registrants name
27
and address. H. Barlow, 2080-81, 2130; D. Barlow, 270, 279-80; C. Jeffs, 1010-14; G.
28
45
1 Timpson, 1422-23; see Patrick Barlow, 2934-35 (stating he received vehicle information
2 after reporting the license number, and stating that Church Security did not have its own
3 access to law enforcement databases to look up license plates); T. Jeffs, 1350-52 (stating
4 Joseph Allred obtained license plate information via the Nextel Direct Connect system
5 while working for Church Security).
6
146.
CCMO Sergeant Sam Johnson has provided non-law enforcement
7 personnel, including Willie Jessop, with registration information multiple times. See S.
8 Johnson, 4498-99 (testifying it was very possible Jessop was among the civilians he
9 provided with registration information over a ten-year period).
10
147.
CCMO Chief Jerry Darger has provided non-law enforcement personnel
11
with registration information on more than one occasion. J. Darger, 4643-44.

12
148.
13
14
15
16
17
This sharing of information from law-enforcement databases happened on
multiple occasions and to such an extent that then-CCMO Sergeant Helaman Barlow and
then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy were concerned about the CCMOs liability and
instructed Church Security to provide, at minimum, a manufactured reason for requesting
that the CCMO run a license plate. H. Barlow, 2081-82.
149.
18
The CCMOs sharing of confidential law-enforcement information,
19 including the name on a vehicles registration, with outside entities like Church Security,
20 violates generally accepted police practices. J. DeLopez, 2273-75. It is also illegal. J.
21 Harris, 4859-61.
d. The CCMO Aided Church Securitys Harassment of Non-FLDS

Members
22
23
150.
24
25
The CCMO ignored and sometimes oversaw Church Securitys harassment
of non-FLDS Members. See infra 151-152.
26
151.
As detailed below, the CCMO did not follow up on reports of Church
27 Security committing a hit-and-run that injured a non-FLDS teenager. See infra 25428 261.
46
152.
As detailed below, the CCMO oversaw Church Securitys theft of records of
2 Church-related crimes from Willie Jessop. See infra 226-245.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7) CCMO Officers and Other City Officials Communicated with and

Financially Supported FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs While He was a
Federal Fugitive
153.
The CCMO, and other City officials, followed the Church directive to
frustrate the search for Warren Jeffs while he was a federal fugitive, and actually aided his
evasion by pledging their continued allegiance to him, knowing about and using an
elaborate secret courier network to provide him money, and communicating with him to
the level of providing him confidential law-enforcement information about the search for
him. See infra 154-169.
11
12
13
14
15
16
154.
In June of 2005, Warren Jeffs was indicted in Mohave County, Arizona for
sexual conduct with a minor and conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor. R.
Foster, 584-85. He became a federal fugitive on June 27, 2005, and in May 2006, was put
on the FBIs Ten Most Wanted. Id. at 585; H. Barlow, 2059.
155.
The FBI informed officials in Hildale and Colorado City, including CCMO
17 officers, that Warren Jeffs was a fugitive. R. Foster, 586-87.

18
156.
After Warren Jeffs became a fugitive, Lyle Jeffs told the community, during
19 a service in the Meeting House, that FLDS members were to protect the Prophet and, if
20 necessary, lay [their] very lives on the line for him. D. Barlow, 260-61. CCMO
21 officers were present when such instructions were given. Id. at 261.
22
23
24
25
26
157.
While Warren Jeffs was a fugitive, instruction was also provided in FLDS
Church meetings that people in the public eye, including CCMO officers, should be more
careful with their interactions with members of the outside community who were trying to
catch Warren Jeffs, including not responding to outside investigators questions. S.
Bateman, 2316-17.
27
28
47
158.
When Warren Jeffs was a fugitive, the Church established a secret courier
2 network to transport letters and packages to Church leaders and to Warren Jeffs. D.
3 Barlow, 261-62; W. Jessop, 743. The network was specifically established to obviate the
4 need to use the U.S. Mail to communicate with then-fugitive Warren Jeffs. D. Barlow,
5 262. Packages, letters, and money were collected from Church members and then brought
6 to the Bishops office where they were sorted, labeled, and color coded so that the
7 recipients names would not be apparent. D. Barlow, 266, 412-13; W. Jessop, 744-45; C.
8 Jeffs, 995-96.
9
159.
FLDS members were well aware that money being collected by the Church
10 was to support then-fugitive Warren Jeffs. C. Jeffs, 996; T. Jeffs, 1311-12.

11
160.
CCMO Officers Helaman Barlow, Jonathan Roundy, Sam Johnson, Fred
12
Barlow, and Curtis Cooke were among those who contributed money to the Church during
13
this period, at least a portion of which was used to support Warren Jeffs when he was a
14
fugitive. D. Barlow, 264; C. Jeffs, 999 (testifying about donations received from CCMO
15
Officers Helaman Barlow and Curtis Cooke); see also J. Darger, 4646 (now-CCMO
16
Chief, admitting to faithfully paying his tithing when he was a member of the Church).
17
161.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Leroy Timpson, Lindsey Barlow, Rich Allred, Guy Allred, Brian Jessop,
and J.D. Roundy all served as FLDS couriers when Warren Jeffs was a fugitive. D.
Barlow, 262; H. Barlow, 2062; T. Jeffs, 1316-14 (identifying Lindsey Barlow as a trusted
security member who received money for Warren Jeffs). Those couriers were used to
collect money from Church members when Warren Jeffs was a fugitive. D. Barlow 26364. That money was under the direction of the first presidency [i.e., Warren Jeffs]. Id.
at 264.
162.
The CCMO was aware of the secret courier network and used that network
26 to reach Church officials. H. Barlow, 2061; W. Jessop, 745. Then-CCMO Chief Fred
27 Barlow, Officers Jonathan Roundy and Helaman Barlow, and current Sergeant Sam
28
48
1 Johnson, sent packages to then-federal fugitive Warren Jeffs through the courier network.
2 D. Barlow, 264.
3
163.
In October of 2005, Warren Jeffss brother, Seth Jeffs, was arrested during a
4 traffic stop outside Pueblo, Colorado. R. Foster, 589-91. Seth Jeffs was serving as an
5 FLDS courier at the time he was stopped. Id. at 598-99; D. Barlow, 262; see also Ex. 37
6 (identifying Seth Jeffs as a trusted courier). When officers searched his vehicle, they
7 discovered cellular phones, credit cards, prepaid credit cards, cash, and hundreds of letters
8 addressed to Warren Jeffs, or Prophet Jeffs. R. Foster, 596-97.
9
164.
One of the letters to then-fugitive Warren Jeffs recovered from Seth Jeffss
10
vehicle was from the CCMO Chief at the time, Fred Barlow. R. Foster, 602, 612; see also
11
Ex. 34. In his letter, Chief Barlow requested direction on law-enforcement matters from a
12
federal fugitive. See Ex. 34; see also G. Meyer, 4717 (Defendants expert, testifying that
13
letter from CCMO Chief to fugitive Warren Jeffs was completely out of line). Another
14
letter seized was from CCMO Officer Mica Barlow. R. Foster, 609, 612; see also Ex. 35.
15
Another letter was from Richard Allred, the Mayor of Colorado City at the time, who
16
wrote to the fugitive to discuss City business. R. Foster, 611-12; see also Ex. 33. And
17
another letter seized was from Joseph Allred, City Clerk at the time and the current Mayor
18
of Colorado City. R. Foster, 619, 625; see also Ex. 39. In that letter, Joseph Allred told
19
Warren Jeffs that he wanted his work as a government official to be an extension of the
20
Priesthood. Ex. 39.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
165.
When Warren Jeffs was a fugitive, the Church also established a secret
telephone communications network to allow Church members, including the CCMO, to

communicate with Jeffs while minimizing the risk that outside law enforcement could
locate him. W. Jessop, 735-36, 738-43 (describing the cellular phone network that Church
Security established to communicate with fugitive Warren Jeffs and noting that the
CCMO Chief had access to the network); T. Jeffs, 1320-22 (describing the various cell
phones that Bishop Lyle Jeffs used when hiding from law enforcement to communicate
49
1 with Warren Jeffs and the community; recalling that CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy used
2 this network to contact Lyle Jeffs); R. Foster, 596-97 (describing cellular phones found
3 during stop of Seth Jeffs).
4
166.
Because they believed that law enforcement could monitor the local phone
5 tower, Church leaders specifically instructed FLDS members, including CCMO officers,
6 to drive to a certain location before trying to call Warren Jeffs. W. Jessop, 737-38.
7
167.
The CCMO did not assist outside agencies in locating Warren Jeffs while he
was a fugitive and in fact did things to hinder outside law enforcements investigation,
9
including reporting to the Church what outside law-enforcement officers were doing and
10
where they were looking and slow walking outside law enforcement by giving Church
11
members the opportunity to disappear or get their affairs in order before law enforcement
12
approached them. H. Barlow, 2060-61. Cooperating with outside law enforcement to

13
locate Warren Jeffs was believed to be tantamount to attacking their own religion, as all
14
CCMO officers were members of the FLDS Church. Id. at 2063.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
168.
Former CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow used the secret courier network to
send Warren Jeffs audio recordings Chief Barlow occasionally made with outside law
enforcement (FBI and others), without those outside law-enforcement officers knowledge
or consent. These recordings were made and transmitted to Warren Jeffs with the intent to
protect the Church and keep it informed of outside law enforcements operations. H.
Barlow, 2062; see, e.g., Ex. 109 at 2 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, Mar. 14, 2006, noting that
Jeffs received a secret recording made by Chief Barlow of a meeting with Schleicher
County, Texas, Sheriff Doran); see also Ex. 104 (Dictation of Warren Jeffs, May 20,
2005, stating that Chief Barlow sent a letter reporting to Jeffs on the activities of Sheriff
Doran).
169.
To protect themselves while Warren Jeffs was a fugitive, and limit the
27 appearance of the City governments ties to Warren Jeffs, the Cities took steps that
28 permitted them to destroy City records, including police logs and misdemeanor reports
50
1 and citations. The Cities also switched from giving employees City-owned cell phones to
2 giving employees stipends to purchase their own cell phones in order to limit the reach of
3 public records requests. H. Barlow, 2063-64; R. Foster, 642-44; see Ex. 39 (Joseph Allred
4 Letter to Warren Jeffs, discussing Cities decision to provide employees a Cell Phone
5 Allowance).
6
7
8
9
10
11
8) The Cities Engaged in Religiously Biased Hiring of Three CCMO Officers

in 2014 to Keep the CCMO Staffed with FLDS Loyalists
170.
The Cities hired three new officers in 2014, two of whom were United Order
members and came from Church Security, because those three applicants were loyal to the
FLDS Church. See infra 171-185.
171.
Daniel Roy Barlow, Daniel Musser, and Jacob Barlow, Jr. were hired by the
12 CCMO as officers. H. Barlow, 2041.

13
172.
The U.S. Department of Justice had initiated the instant lawsuit prior to the
14 CCMOs hiring of these three officers and the CCMO was being investigated by POST at
15 the time. H. Barlow, 2042, 2046.
16
173.
Because of the scrutiny from outside agencies at the time, the Cities
17
employed a different hiring process for these three officers than they had used in previous
18
hiring cycles, including additional notice and a formal hiring process with a three-person
19
review board, questionnaires, and an interview process. H. Barlow, 2041-42 (recalling

20
that in previous cycles the CCMO would submit a list and the Church would approve
21
officers to go to the police academy), 2046-47, 2173; see Ex. 294. At the time of this
22
hiring cycle then-CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow was not controlled by the Church
23
anymore and he helped to implement these new measures in the hopes that they would
24
lead to the CCMO hiring officers who were also not Church controlled. H. Barlow, 2046.
25
26
27
28
174.
However, the other two members of the hiring review committee were Town
Manager David Darger and Mayor Joseph Allred, who were included so that they could
effectively cancel out the vote of Chief Barlow (who they knew to be no longer loyal to
51
1 the Church) and ensure the hiring of candidates the Church favored. H. Barlow, 2046-47,
2 2173 (David Darger and the mayor were scoring high for the candidates the Church
3 wanted in); see also D. Darger, 3979-80.
4
175.
The employment notice specifically provided that new officers had to have a
5 high school diploma or GED equivalent. Ex. 294 at 1; H. Barlow, 2048.

6
176.
Jacob Barlow, Jr., one of the three hires, did not meet the minimum
qualifications at the time he was hired because he did not yet have a GED. Ex. 294 at 4;
8
H. Barlow, 2048-49.
9
10
11
12
13
177.
The phone number listed for Jacob Barlow, Jr. on his application is a phone
number from San Angelo, Texas, where the FLDS Churchs YFZ Ranch is located. Ex.
294 at 4; H. Barlow, 2049.
178.
Jacob Barlow, Jr.s employment application stated that he previously
14 worked for Paragon Contractors Corp. and Jack Daniels Construction, Inc., two
15 companies controlled by the FLDS Church. Ex. 294 at 5; id. at 7 (including a letter of
16 recommendation from Paragon Contractors); H. Barlow, 2049-50.
17
179.
The phone number listed for Jacob Barlow, Jr. on his February 2014
18 employment application matches a phone number listed under his Church name, Jacob L.
19 Jessop, Jr., on a February 2014 Church Security roster, showing that he was a member of
20 Church Security at the time he applied to be a CCMO Officer. See H. Barlow, 2050-51.
21 Compare Ex. 45 at 1, with Ex. 294 at 4. Cf. D. Darger, 3986-87 (acknowledging that his
22 and Jacob Barlow, Jr.s names and phone numbers appear on the same Church Security
23 roster, as does Joseph Allreds, but refusing to confirm that they served on Church
24 Security at the same time or on the same crew).
25
180.
Daniel Musser, another of the three hires, also did not meet the minimum
26
qualifications for an applicant because he did not have a GED at the time he applied. Ex.
27
294 at 17; H. Barlow, 2051; D. Musser, 4241.

28
52
181.
Daniel Mussers employment application also listed his previous
2 employment at FLDS-affiliated businesses Jack Daniels Construction, Inc., Paragon

3 Contractors, and Western Precision. See Ex. 294 at 18; id. at 20 (including a letter of
4 recommendation from Jack Daniels Construction, Inc.); H. Barlow, 2049-50 (stating that
5 Jack Daniels Construction and Paragon Contractors are known FLDS-affiliated
6 companies); see also D. Musser, 4241-42 (testifying that Paragon Contractors was run by
7 Hildale City Councilmember R. Brian Jessop and was under investigation by the U.S.
8 Department of Labor while he, Musser, worked there); T. Jeffs, 1346-47 (stating that
9 Western Precision, now NewEra Manufacturing, is an FLDS company owned by
10 Wendell Nielsen and former FLDS Bishop John Wayman and involved in making illegal
11 silencers).
12
182.
With respect to Daniel Roy Barlow, the third of the three hires, the phone
13 number associated with him in the CCMOs records at the time he applied in February
14 2014 also matches the phone number listed under his Church name, Daniel Roy Allred, on
15 a February 2014 Church Security roster, showing that he too was a member of Church
16 Security at the time he applied. H. Barlow, 2052-53. Compare Ex. 45 at 1, with Ex. 294
17 at 38.
18
183.
Daniel Roy Barlow and Jacob Barlow, Jr. also attended United Order,
19
member-only meetings. V. Barlow, 2353.

20
21
22
23
24
25
184.
Thus, two of these three officers, Daniel Roy Barlow and Jacob Barlow, Jr.,
went directly from Church Security to the CCMO and the third moved from Warren
Jeffss security force at the YFZ Ranch in Texas, an even higher level position, to the
CCMO. H. Barlow, 2053-54.
185.
The Cities hired all three of these men as officers because they were loyal to
26 the FLDS Church. H. Barlow, 2054.

27
28
53
9) CCMOs Pattern of Discriminatory Policing in Favor of FLDS Members

and Against Non-FLDS Members
186.
The CCMOs pattern or practice of discriminatory policing in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause is further evidence that the actions of the CCMO have no
4
secular purpose, foster an excessive government entanglement with religion, fuse

5
governmental and religious functions, and have the primary effect of endorsing,
6
advancing, and coercing residents to support, the FLDS Church. See infra 187-452.
7
8
9
10
C. Defendants Discriminatory Pattern or Practice of Violating the

Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause
1) Legal Standard
187.
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits law enforcement from selectively
11 enforcing the law based on religion. To violate the Equal Protection Clause, Defendants,
12 through their CCMO, must have acted, or failed to act, with an intent or purpose to
13 discriminate against a person based on religion. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
14 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998). In other words, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits
15 Defendants, through their CCMO, from treating non-FLDS individuals and FLDS
16 individuals differently when it comes to enforcing the law.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
188.
Discriminatory intent requires that religion was a motivating factor for the
action or inaction. Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979) (holding that
proving discriminatory intent requires evidence that defendant acted at least in part
because of the adverse effects of its actions upon an identifiable group); Vill. of
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265-68 (1977); see also Pac.
Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) (to
prove discrimination under FHA, plaintiff may simply produce direct or circumstantial
evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the
defendant ).
26
27
28
189.
A finding that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor can be
established through circumstantial and direct evidence of intent. Vill. of Arlington
54
1 Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-68. To assess whether Defendants, through the CCMO, were
2 motivated by religion, the Court may consider, among other things, whether there is a
3 clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than discriminatory ones; the historical
4 background of the CCMOs actions; the sequence of events leading up [to] the
5 [CCMOs actions]; departures from the normal procedur[es]; contemporary
6 statements; and substantive departures, or whether the CCMO adopted unreasonable
7 policies or took unreasonable actions. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266-68; Pac. Shores
8 Properties, LLC, 730 F.3d at 1158 (adopting Arlington Heights factors); Final Jury
9 Instruction No. 35, ECF No. 913-1. These factors are not exhaustive; and the Court may
10 consider any direct or circumstantial evidence that indicates that CCMO action was taken
11 with the intent to discriminate on the basis of religion. Id.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2) The Historical Background of an Established Religion behind the CCMOs

Discriminatory Actions
190.
The following evidence of the CCMOs discriminatory policing actions in
favor of FLDS adherents, and against non-FLDS individuals, should be viewed in light of
the CCMOs pattern or practice of violating the Establishment Clause detailed above, see
supra 64-186, as well as the FLDS Churchs religious teachings and practices,
including those related to the primacy of Church law, the pressure the Church puts on
adherents to follow Church dictates, and the Churchs position and instructions related to
the state takeover of the UEP Trust, see supra 20-58.
3) The CCMOs Failure to Investigate, and Affirmative Support of, Crimes
Committed by FLDS Members
22
191.
Police officers have a duty to report and investigate crimes of which they are
23
aware. G. Meyer, 4743-44.

24
25
26
27
28
192.
As detailed below, CCMO officers ignore this duty when the crimes involve
FLDS leaders or members; instead the CCMO officers support their FLDS leader in his
running from the law, facilitate hiding and destroying evidence in incidents involving
death and other serious bodily injury, and ignore FLDS-directed crimes such as food-
55
1 stamp fraud, poaching, illegal weapons, illegal drug distribution, thefts, interfering with
2 child-custody arrangements, and underage marriages. See infra 193-261. To benefit
3 the Church, the CCMO also fails properly to investigate its own officers misconduct and
4 criminal conduct through internal affairs investigations. See infra 262, 394-407.
a. Supporting Federal Fugitive Warren Jeffs
5
6
193.
As detailed above, the CCMO and other City officials followed the Church
7 directive to frustrate the search for Warren Jeffs while he was a federal fugitive, and
8 actually aided his evasion by pledging their continued allegiance to him, knowing about
9 and using an elaborate, secret courier network to provide him money, and communicating
10 with him to the level of providing him confidential law-enforcement information about the
11 search for him. See supra 153-169.
12
13
b. Ignoring Underage Marriages

194.
The CCMO knowingly ignored illegal underage marriages of FLDS
14 members, including marriages of FLDS leaders, high ranking City officials, and even
15 former CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy. See infra 195-203.
16
195.
After Warren Jeffs came to power, FLDS leaders, including Warren Jeffs,
17
began taking underage, plural wives. D. Barlow, 204; see also Ex. 80 (Dictation of
18
Warren Jeffs on January 11, 2004, stating, There are no underage Priesthood
19
marriages.).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
196.
Church members and City officials were made aware, through sermons in
the Meeting House and a meeting with the Attorneys General for Utah and Arizona, that
outside law-enforcement agencies were beginning to investigate underage, plural
marriages. D. Barlow, 204-10. Sam Barlow, a Church member and law-enforcement
officer, delivered a sermon in the Meeting House in 2002 in which he announced, [I]n
priesthood theres no such thing as underage marriage. Id. at 205-06. City officials and
CCMO officers were present for that sermon. Id. at 206-07. Then-Mayor of Hildale,
David Zitting, was on the LSJ Meeting House stage for Sam Barlows sermon. Id.
56
197.
The FLDS community was aware that state authorities intended to prosecute
2 individuals for illegal, underage marriages. D. Barlow, 209-10, 215-24. When it became
3 apparent that the Mayor of Colorado City, Dan Barlow, intended to meet with the Utah
4 and Arizona Attorneys General to discuss the issue of underage marriage, Warren Jeffs
5 threatened to excommunicate Mayor Barlow. Id. at 218-22. Because of that threat,
6 Mayor Barlow chose not to attend a town hall meeting with the Attorneys General. Id.
7
198.
From 2004 to 2006, it became common knowledge in the community when
8 an FLDS man took an underage wife. D. Barlow, 253; T. Jeffs, 1314 (If theres a man
9 sitting in the audience sitting next to a female that he never, ever sat with before, that was
10 common knowledge that it wasthey were married.).
11
199.
One of those plural, underage marriages known in the community was
12
between then-Town Clerk Joseph Allred and a 15-year old girl named Julia Williams. D.
13
Barlow, 254; T. Jeffs, 1314; J.N. Williams, 1832 (confirming the marriage of 15-year old
14
Julia Williams, his daughter, to Joseph Allred); see also Exs. 39 & 76. Joseph Allred held
15
himself out publicly, including at Saturday work project meetings, as being married to Ms.
16
Williams. D. Barlow, 254. CCMO officers attended those meetings. Id. at 257; T. Jeffs,
17
1314-15 (confirming that CCMO officers were in meetings where there was evidence of
18
underage marriages); see also J. Allred, 2799-804 (refusing to answer, on Fifth

19
Amendment grounds, questions regarding his marriage to Ms. Williams, holding himself
20
out in the community as being married to Ms. Williams, and engaging in conduct that
21
could have been considered statutory rape).

22
23
24
25
200.
Another plural, underage marriage known in the community was between
Lyle Jeffs and a 16-year old girl. T. Jeffs, 1314; see also N. Hanna, 1098-99; Ex. 80.
201.
Then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy also married an underage girl. W.
26 Jessop, 797. Former CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow was aware of prior CCMO Chief
27 Roundys marriage to an underage girl. H. Barlow, 2057-58.
28
57
202.
No internal affairs investigation was conducted into Mr. Roundys conduct,
2 nor was any information about the marriage turned over to outside law enforcement. H.
3 Barlow, 2057-58; J. DeLopez, 2265-66.
4
203.
Upon learning of allegations of underage marriage, generally accepted
5 police practices dictate that the CCMO should have initiated an Internal Affairs
6 investigation, to the extent the allegations involved a member of the department, initiated
7 a criminal investigation, and potentially reported the allegations to the Department of
8 Children and Family Services. J. DeLopez, 2265-66.
9
10
11
12
c. Ignoring Distribution of Prescription Drugs and Narcotics

204.
The CCMO put the United Order above their duty to the law by knowingly
ignoring the criminal distribution by the FLDS Bishops Storehouse of narcotics and
other prescription drugs. See infra 205-208.
13
14
15
16
17
205.
Prescription drugs and narcotics were dispensed out of the Bishops
Storehouse. T. Rohbock, 1942-43, 1982; H. Barlow, 2108-09; D. Barlow, 300-01; Exs.

292, 53, 60.
206.
The Storehouse was not a licensed pharmacy and did not have a licensed
18 pharmacist. D. Barlow, 300-01.

19
207.
United Order members were told, during United Order orientation meetings,
20 that they were to deliver their excess prescription medications to the Storehouse. D.
21 Barlow, 298-99; T. Rohbock, 1942-43. Lyle Jeffs specifically directed the Storehouse to
22 collect leftover prescription drugs from United Order members, combine them at the
23 Storehouse into general bottles, and then dispense them back to members of the
24 community. D. Barlow, 298-99; T. Jeffs, 1338-39. The United Order Stewardship Form
25 had a place for members to document what painkillers and prescription medications they
26 provided to the Storehouse. See Ex. 292; R.B. Jessop, 2496-97 (City Councilmember,
27 refusing to answer, on Fifth Amendment grounds, questions regarding whether he filled
28 out a United Order Stewardship Form).
58
208.
CCMO officers attended United Order orientation meetings and were aware
2 that the FLDS Church was distributing prescription medication and painkillers from the
3 Storehouse without a license. D. Barlow, 300-01; T. Jeffs, 1339-40 (CCMO Chief Jerry
4 Darger attended United Order meeting where the handling of prescription drugs was
5 discussed); see also T. Rohbock, 1944-45 (Joseph Allred and City Councilmember
6 Kimball Barlow were aware that prescription drugs were being collected by the
7 Storehouse).
d. Ignoring Widespread Food-Stamp Fraud
8
9
209.
As members of the United Order, CCMO officers were aware that FLDS
10 leaders directed members to commit food-stamp fraud; the CCMO did nothing to
11 investigate or stop the criminal fraud. See infra 210-211.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
210.
Church leaders directed and participated in a conspiracy to defraud the
federal government with respect to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP). D. Barlow, 301-02. Among other things, United Order members were
instructed to use all of their SNAP benefits at specific locations which would then deliver
food purchased with those benefits not to the holder of the SNAP entitlement, but to the
Bishops Storehouse. Id. at 301-05; see also C. Jeffs, 1003 (explaining, If you had access
to food stamps, you went to the person that was in charge of the storehouse and he would
give you a list of items that was needed and you took your food stamp card and you would
go and purchase those items and bring them back to the storehouse.).
21
211.
22
23
24
Order members on how to engage in fraud with respect to SNAP benefits. D. Barlow,
301-05; see also supra 68 (all CCMO were members of the United Order).
e. Ignoring Illegal Poaching
25
212.
26
27
28
CCMO officers were present when Lyle Jeffs gave instructions to United
The CCMO also was aware that the FLDS Church was involved in the
illegal poaching of wild game and did nothing to investigate or stop it. See infra 213214.
59
213.
The FLDS Church organized the illegal poaching and butchering of wild
2 game for distribution through the Storehouse. D. Barlow, 305-07; T. Jeffs, 1340.
3
214.
CCMO Officer Sam Johnson was present and participating in the butchering
4 of game when another Storehouse worker admitted that the wild game being butchered at
5 the Storehouse had been obtained illegally. D. Barlow, 305-07. Cf. S. Johnson, 4337
6 (admitting he has butchered meat for the Bishops Storehouse).
7
8
9
10
f. Ignoring Illegal Manufacture of Unregistered Gun Silencers

215.
The CCMO was also aware that individuals affiliated with the FLDS Church
were illegally manufacturing and using unregistered firearm suppressors and did nothing
to investigate or stop it; instead, the CCMO Chief participated. See infra 216-217.
11
12
13
14
15
216.
Thomas Jeffs, Bishop Lyle Jeffss son, was involved, through the use of an
FLDS-controlled business, in the manufacture and use of illegal, unregistered firearm

noise suppressors. T. Jeffs, 1346-47.
217.
The CCMO was aware that Thomas Jeffs had manufactured and possessed
16 these suppressors and took no action against him. T. Jeffs, 1347-49. Then-CCMO Chief
17 Jonathan Roundy helped Church Security develop subsonic ammunition for use with the
18 unregistered suppressors. Id.
g. Bias for the FLDS Church During Child Custody Disputes
19
20
218.
The CCMO has failed to properly handle, and exhibits bias for the FLDS
21 Church in connection with custody disputes. See infra 219-220.

22
219.
For example, in April 2015, when the FLDS Bishops wife, Charlene Jeffs,
23 left the Church and attempted to obtain custody of her minor children, CCMO Officer
24 Curtis Cooke was at the hearing, in uniform. Officer Cooke admitted to Ms. Jeffs that he
25 was sent by the Church to witness the proceeding. C. Jeffs, 1015 (noting that this was not
26 unusual in FLDS Church practice because everything like this needs to have a witness).
27
28
60
220.
Officer Cooke told Ms. Jeffs that the way she was going about getting
2 custody of her children was illegal because she had asked the WCSO for help protecting
3 her children instead of asking the CCMO for help. Id. at 1015-16. Officer Cooke,
4 however, acknowledged that if the CCMO had had prior knowledge of Ms. Jeffss intent
5 to seek legal custody, then the FLDS Church would have moved the children to a house of
6 hiding. Id.
h. Other Examples of Favorable Treatment of FLDS Members
7
8
221.
Then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy refused to arrest the then-Bishop Lyle
9 Jeffss son, Thomas Jeffs, despite an outstanding warrant in his name. T. Jeffs, 1334-36.
10
11
12
13
222.
On another occasion, now-CCMO Chief Jerry Darger pulled over Thomas
Jeffs for driving 80 mph in a 35 mph-zone. T. Jeffs, 1336-37. After Mr. Jeffs told Officer
Darger that he was the Bishops son, Officer Darger let Mr. Jeffs go without even a
citation. Id.
14
15
16
17
18
223.
pull them over and release them without issuing tickets. Whereas rebellious teenagers,
who were not in the favor of the Church, would get stiffer penalties, including getting
ticketed and getting their vehicles impounded. S. Bateman, 2317-20.
i. Ignoring Church Hacking of Individuals Email Account
19
20
21
22
23
When other FLDS teenagers committed traffic violations, the CCMO would
224.
While he was a CCMO Officer, Helaman Barlow was aware that FLDS
Bishop Lyle Jeffs ordered the successful, illegal hacking of Arnold Richters email
account. H. Barlow, 2105-06.
225.
The CCMO did not open any investigation into Lyle Jeffs ordering the
24 illegal hacking. H. Barlow, 2106.

25
26
27
28
61
j. Facilitating Church Security Burglary of Records of Church Crimes

at R&W, and Attempt to Prevent Subsequent Recovery of those
Records)
1
2
3
226.
The CCMO allowed Church Security to steal records of FLDS Church
4 activity from outcast, former FLDS member Willie Jessop at his R&W business in 2010.
5 Subsequently, in 2013, the CCMO made concerted attempts to prevent Mr. Jessop from
6 recovering these records. The CCMO also refused to provide police protection to Mr.
7 Jessop, which allowed the FLDS Church to steal the records a second time. See infra
8 227-245.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
227.
In approximately the fall of 2010, Willie Jessop had a falling out with the
First Presidency of the FLDS Church and with Bishop Lyle Jeffs, because Mr. Jessop
uncovered evidence that Warren Jeffs raped an underage girl. In his role as Church
Spokesman, Mr. Jessop was in a position to participate in many meetings with lawenforcement officials with the State of Texas. W. Jessop, 808-10. During one of those
meetings, Texas officials played for, and provided Mr. Jessop a copy of, an audio
recording of Warren Jeffs raping an underage girl. Id. at 809-10. After hearing the
recording, Mr. Jessop asked the FLDS First Presidency to allow him to interview certain
underage girls. Id. at 810-11. That interview took place in an orchard at an FLDS house
of hiding located outside New Braunfels, Texas. Id. at 811-12. Prior to that interview,
Mr. Jessop had staunchly defended Warren Jeffs and FLDS leadership and believed that
the allegations and evidence against Warren Jeffs had been manufactured as part of a
government conspiracy to target the FLDS faith. Id. at 807-08. Following the interview
in the orchard, however, Mr. Jessop concluded that Warren Jeffs had raped a 12-year old
girl. He demanded that FLDS leadership tell the FLDS faithful the truth about Warren
Jeffs. Id. at 813-14. He specifically asked Lyle Jeffs to tell the people the truth and
played the audio recording of the rape to Lyle Jeffs. Id. Mr. Jessop also started telling
certain FLDS members what he now knew to be true about the Prophet Warren Jeffs; he
played the audio recording of the rape to them, as well as an audio of Warren Jeffss
28
62
1 confession, as evidence for his belief. Id. at 814-15. Mr. Jessop stored that evidence at
2 his offices at R&W Excavation. Id. at 816-17.
3
228.
In an effort to silence Willie Jessop, and to stop him from continuing to try
4 to tell FLDS members the truth about Warren Jeffss crimes, FLDS leaders ordered the
5 burglary of R&W Excavation and tried to take Mr. Jessops family away from him. W.
6 Jessop, 817-20; see also, T. Rohbock, 1963 (admitting to taking things from R&W
7 without Willie Jessops permission). One evening in early 2011, Mr. Jessop received a tip
8 that Church Security was on its way to raid his offices at R&W. W. Jessop, 817. He
9 drove to the building and watched as Church Security, under the protection of the CCMO,
10 broke into and burglarized R&W Excavation. Id. at 817-18. To recover any
11 compromising recordings of Warren Jeffs that had been in Mr. Jessops possession,
12 Church Security stripped any electronic devices from the premises. Id. at 822-23; T.
13 Rohbock, 1964-66 (describing a clandestine nighttime operation to remove hard drives
14 and other things from R&W). Bishop Lyle Jeffs then tried to negotiate for Mr. Jessops
15 silence by offering to return the stolen items. W. Jessop, 823-24. When Mr. Jessop
16 refused to accept Lyle Jeffss offer and remain silent about Warren Jeffs, Lyle Jeffs
17 declared Mr. Jessop an apostate and ordered all the employees of R&W to walk off the
18 job. Id. at 824-26.
19
229.
Not only were CCMO officers involved in the R&W burglary, but City
20
officials were also involved. Town Manager David Darger personally removed property
21
from R&W Excavation without Willie Jessops permission. T. Rohbock, 1989-90. Town
22
Councilmember Kimball Barlow also personally removed property from R&W

23
Excavation without Willie Jessops permission. Id. at 1990.

24
25
26
27
28
230.
The CCMO was also subsequently involved in trying to prevent Mr. Jessop
from recovering the materials stolen from his R&W business. One night in February
2013, Mr. Jessop received a phone call in the middle of the night from Sam Steed, a
former R&W employee. W. Jessop, 829-30. Steed told Mr. Jessop that he needed help, as
63
1 he had records that had been stolen from R&W and as Lyle Jeffss First and Second
2 Counselors, Richard Barlow and Terrence Barlow, were trying to break down the door to
3 the office at another business, Eco Alliance, where Mr. Steed was hiding himself and the
4 stolen records. See id. at 829-31; J.N. Williams, 1827 (confirming that Richard Barlow
5 and Terrence Barlow were counselors to Lyle Jeffs).
6
231.
Willie Jessop drove down to Eco Alliances offices. W. Jessop, 831. When
7 he got there, Bishops Counselor Richard Barlow barred the door to the building. Id. at
8 831-32. Sam Steed, however, opened a window and started handing Mr. Jessop garbage
9 cans full of computer drives and files and Willie Jessop put them in his vehicle and Sam
10 Steed jumped out of the first-floor window. Id. at 832-34.
11
232.
Willie Jessop and Sam Steed then drove the vehicle with the recovered
12
property to a home located on Johnson Avenue in Colorado City, where the Church had
13
been hiding the rest of the files stolen from R&W in a safe; Sam Steed had gotten word
14
that the Church was breaking into that house to get the files stored there. W. Jessop, 83315
35. Bishops Counselors Richard Barlow and Terrence Barlow followed them. Id. at 83416
36.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
233.
Willie Jessop, suspecting that the CCMO would soon also be involved,
called the Mohave County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) for help. W. Jessop, 836-37.
Shortly after Willie Jessop called the MCSO, CCMO officers started to arrive at the
Johnson Avenue property. Id. at 839-40. Current CCMO Chief Jerry Darger, then-Chief
Helaman Barlow, Sergeant Sam Johnson, and Officers Hyrum Roundy and Curtis Cooke
all eventually came to the Johnson Avenue scene. Id. at 849-50; S. Johnson, 4358-59,
4363-64.
234.
During the incident at Johnson Avenue, the CCMO officers wanted to arrest
26 Willie Jessop. H. Barlow, 2115; W. Jessop, 849-51 (describing how CCMO officers got
27 into a yelling match with the MCSO deputies over the issue of the CCMO trying to
28 arrest Willie Jessop); see also S. Johnson, 4365 (testifying that a couple of the officers
64
1 wanted to arrest him); J. Darger, 4674 (testifying that he wanted to arrest Willie Jessop
2 and Sam Steed). The MCSO deputies were able to prevent the CCMO from arresting Mr.
3 Jessop that night and were also eventually able to enter the Johnson Avenue home, after
4 obtaining a search warrant, where they located guns, ammunition, keys, and computer
5 hard drives that belonged to Willie Jessop. W. Jessop, 852-54; H. Barlow, 2115
6 (explaining that the MCSO deputies intervened to stop the CCMO from arresting Willie
7 Jessop); see also Ex. 170.
8
235.
After Willie Jessop recovered the materials from both Eco Alliance and
9 Johnson Avenue that had been stolen from him by Church Security two years before, the
10 FLDS Church, with the assistance of the CCMO, stole the property from Mr. Jessop again.
11 W. Jessop, 863-64. The items that the MCSO took from the Johnson Avenue home were
12 loaded into three of Mr. Jessops vehicles. Id. at 855-56. Mr. Jessop then parked one of
13 those vehicles at R&W Excavation (Mr. Jessops business), unloading and securing some
14 of the boxes of recovered property there, and parked another of the vehicles at his home in
15 Hildale. Id. at 856-61 (also explaining that he let Sam Steed take the third vehicle); see
16 also Exs. 166, 180, 184.
17
236.
Fearing that the Church would try to steal the recovered property again,
18
Willie Jessop asked the CCMO to secure the vehicles, which still contained the recovered
19
property, and which were now parked at his house and at his business in Hildale. H.
20
Barlow, 2115-16; W. Jessop, 861-63. However, the CCMO told Mr. Jessop that it could
21
not secure the vehicles because the CCMO was not the law-enforcement entity
22
investigating the case and that he would need to call the WCSO (WCSO, as opposed to
23
MCSO, because the vehicles were parked in Hildale). H. Barlow, 2115-16; W. Jessop,
24
863; S. Johnson, 4542-43. Mr. Jessop, therefore, called the WCSO to ask for its help. W.
25
Jessop, 863.
26
27
28
237.
Before Washington County deputies could arrive at Willie Jessops home,
however, the vehicle parked there, and the property it still contained, was stolen. W.
65
1 Jessop, 863-64. The CCMO was aware from police radio traffic that WCSO deputies
2 were coming to secure the vehicles and their contents. H. Barlow, 2116.
3
238.
When the WCSO deputies arrived at Willie Jessops home, CCMO Officer
4 Curtis Cooke also showed up. W. Jessop, 864-65. Officer Cooke claimed to have witness
5 statements in his possession that established that the ownership of the items in the stolen
6 rental car was contested. Id.
7
239.
Officer Cooke should not have been working on the case to try to obtain
witness statements and get the vehicles because the CCMO was not the investigating
9
entity. H. Barlow, 2116. Cf. supra 236 (CCMO would not agree to secure the vehicles
10
holding the stolen property because the CCMO was not the law-enforcement entity
11
investigating the case).

12
13
14
15
16
240.
When the stolen car was later recovered, all the property inside that had
been recovered from Johnson Avenue was gone. W. Jessop, 866. The contents had been
unloaded at the FLDS LSJ Meeting House. Id. at 866-67.
241.
One week later, on March 2, 2013, in a meeting that was recorded by Texas
17 prison officials, Warren Jeffss brothers reported to Warren Jeffs that the Church records
18 had been recovered from Willie Jessop. See G. Wilbanks, 959-60; Ex. 221A.
19
242.
CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundys report on the Eco Alliance/Johnson
20 Avenue incident knowingly excluded reference to the fact that the two FLDS Church
21 Counselors, Richard and Terrence Barlow, were reported to have been on the scene,
22 making the CCMOs report inconsistent with the WCSO deputies reports. J. DeLopez,
23 2269; see also S. Johnson, 4538-39 (testifying that he, Sergeant Johnson, had told Officer
24 Roundy, the officer in charge of the scene, that he had information that two FLDS Church
25 Counselors were on scene so that Officer Roundy could follow up on that information).
26
243.
Following this incident, the CCMO also returned a witness statement to a
27
witness at the Johnson Avenue house without keeping a copy of it for the evidentiary file,
28
66
1 which is inappropriate according to generally accepted police practices. J. DeLopez,

2 2269-70; see also S. Johnson, 4539-40 (testifying that he was aware, after conversations
3 with Officer Cooke and Chief Helaman Barlow that witness statements had been
4 returned).
5
244.
Against the advice of the city prosecutor, the CCMO criminally cited Willie
6 Jessop and Sam Steed and attempted to bring misdemeanor theft charges against them;
7 eventually, however, when the CCMO was forced to file the charges with the Mohave
8 County Attorneys Office, the County Attorneys Office declined to prosecute those
9 charges, seeking additional information from the CCMO, including the statements of the
10 FLDS Church Counselors that the CCMO never obtained. J. DeLopez, 2271-72; S.
11 Johnson, 4547-52 (testifying that he was shocked that Officer Hyrum Roundy issued the
12 citations because a decision had been made on the scene not to cite Mr. Jessop or Mr.
13 Steed); Ex. 1262 (Letter of Caution to Officer Roundy; Chief Helaman Barlow writing,
14 Deputy Roundy may have been overanxious to file charges against persons with whom
15 he had previous confrontations. If this is true, Deputy Roundy was acting
16 inappropriately.); Ex. 300 (Mohave County Attorneys Office report declining charges
17 due to insufficient evidentiary basis with regard to Willie Jessop; seeking resubmittal on
18 Sam Steed if interviews and statements of FLDS Church Counselors are obtained); J.
19 Schoppmann, 4817-18 (explaining that Mohave County did not prosecute the case because
20 of lack of information in the police reports and explaining that the referral was sent back
21 to the CCMO with specific direction on what information I needed them to gather. And
22 like other cases, we never got that information back.).
23
245.
CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy never completed his report for the Eco
24
Alliance/Johnson Avenue incident after being directed by the Mohave County prosecutor
25
to get more information to justify the charges he was seeking, which is inappropriate
26
according to generally accepted police practices. J. DeLopez, 2270-71.

27
28
67
k. Facilitating Destruction of Evidence in Fatal Forklift Incident
1
2
246.
Following a fatal forklift crash in 2014, the CCMO ignored standard police
3 practices by allowing the Church-affiliated business Eco Alliance to destroy the forklift,
4 and consequently cover up evidence of the possibly criminal negligent death of a child, in
5 order to protect the Church-affiliated business. See infra 247-253.
6
247.
In March 2014, two young boys were involved in a fatal accident when they,
7 driving a forklift that belonged to Eco Alliance, lost control of the forklift and it rolled
8 over and crushed one of the boys. J. DeLopez, 2267; J. Darger, 4678.
9
10
11
248.
Eco Alliance is known in the community as one of the bishops
businesses. D. Barlow, 284-85. It is a storehouse operation that was begun with FLDS
seed money and is used to benefit the FLDS Church financially. D. Barlow, 285.
12
13
14
15
16
249.
In investigating, CCMO Officer Jerry Darger became aware that there was
damage to the forklifts steering mechanism, which could have been evidence of a crime
or civil liability. J. DeLopez, 2267-68; J. Darger, 4682.
250.
CCMO Officer Jerry Darger released the forklift back to Eco Alliance the
17 night of the death and did not tell Eco Alliance that it needed to preserve the forklift. J.
18 Darger, 4680.
19
251.
The CCMO did not handle the incident in accordance with generally
20 accepted police practices, as CCMO Officer Darger should have impounded the forklift
21 and kept it as evidence for future investigation instead of releasing it back to Eco Alliance.
22 J. DeLopez, 2268.
23
24
25
26
27
252.
Eco Alliance subsequently took the forklift to a scrap yard and had it
dismantled and destroyed, resulting in the inability to conduct any further investigation on
the vehicle or the cause of the accident. J. DeLopez, 2267-68. Cf. S. Johnson, 4557
(admitting that it seemed odd that Eco Alliance scrapped the forklift because it did not
seem very damaged).
28
68
253.
The Cities promoted Officer Darger to CCMO Chief approximately one year
2 later. J. Darger, 4570.
l. Failing to Investigate Hit-and-Run of Randy Jessop
3
4
254.
The CCMO failed to investigate, and even hid evidence regarding, the hit-
5 and-run of a non-FLDS teenager to protect the Church Security personnel who committed
6 the crime. See infra 255-261; see also infra 340-348 (discussing CCMO frustration
7 of same familys occupancy of Church Property).
8
9
10
11
255.
In September 2013 or 2014, Christopher Jessops son, Randy, was the
victim of a hit-and-run when he was riding his bicycle in front of the Warren Jeffss
compound near the familys home and a pickup truck came up behind him and hit his
bicycle. C. Jessop, 2539-41.
12
13
14
15
16
256.
The CCMO responded and Randy gave the CCMO a detailed description of
the truck. The CCMO left the home and came back twice with photos of trucks that did
not match the description Randy had given. C. Jessop, 2541-43.
257.
About an hour and a half after the CCMO arrived on scene, the Jessops
17 called the WCSO because Mr. Jessop felt as though the CCMO was not investigating
18 thoroughly. C. Jessop, 2541-42.
19
258.
The responding WCSO deputies took pictures of Randy, which the CCMO
20 had not done. C. Jessop, 2542.

21
22
23
24
25
26
259.
Within 15-20 minutes of WCSO responding, the truck matching the
description Randy had provided was located and brought back to the house, driven by a
Richard Barlow, who had a leadership role in Church Security. C. Jessop, 2543-45; see
also supra 226-245 (describing burglary of Church records from Willie Jessop, also
involving Richard Barlow). The truck was found at Streamline Automotive, which is
located only two to three blocks from the Jessops house and run by Colorado City
27
28
69
1 Councilmember Anthus Barlow and Hildale Mayor Philip Barlow. Id. at 2544; Philip
2 Barlow, 3031-32.
3
260.
Damage on the truck matched marks on Randys bicycle. Richard Barlow
4 denied driving the truck and the driver of the truck who hit Randy was never identified.
5 C. Jessop, 2545-46.
6
261.
CCMO officers were observed at the scene of the hit-and-run brushing away
the tracks on the side of the road with their shoes. C. Jessop, 2546.
8
m. Failing to Investigate the CCMOs Own Misconduct
9
10
11
12
13
14
262.
and criminal conduct committed on behalf of the Church, as well as inappropriately

protects these officers and their jobs, by failing to conduct internal affairs investigations.
See infra 394-407.
4) The CCMOs Efforts to Target, or Refuse to Provide Services to the NonFLDS UEP Trust and Non-FLDS Members
15
16
As detailed below, the CCMO also attempts to hide its officers misconduct
a. Bias in Handling Property Disputes, Generally

263.
For years, the CCMO has refused to provide unbiased police services to the
17 non-FLDS run UEP Trust; CCMO officers consistently carry out their religious opposition
18 to the reformed UEP by refusing to investigate crimes against the UEP, arresting and
19 harassing non-FLDS individuals for purportedly trespassing on property for which they
20 have Occupancy Agreements while summarily accepting FLDS members purported
21 occupancy claims, and otherwise assisting the FLDS Church in resisting the transfer of
22 possession of any UEP property to non-FLDS individuals. See infra 264-274; see also
23 supra 50-58 (providing background on state takeover of UEP Trust).
24
264.
FLDS religious dictates support the preservation of all UEP Trust land as
25
Church property, and FLDS loyalists continue to consider each piece of UEP property
26
to be Church property until all loyal FLDS members are removed from it. See Philip
27
Barlow, 3217-18 (Q. And its true, sir, that thats how you still view the land in that
28
70
1 town; that its Church land? A. Its Church controlled until its evicted off. Q. Isnt it
2 true, sir, that youre well aware that in 2006 the Trust was reformed, and it was put under
3 the control of a religiously neutral special fiduciary? A. Yes. Q. Yet you still consider it
4 Church controlled? A. The places where the Church lives on it or has use of it, yes.)
5 (emphasis added).
6
265.
Despite their goal of retaining possession of the land, FLDS members are
7 not paying their $100 per month Occupancy Fees and are thus being evicted off the land
8 for non-payment. I. Wyler, 467-68 (explaining, Judge Lindberg finally tired of not being
9 able to trade an income stream to pay for all [the Trusts] attorneys fees and everything to
10 protect this trust so she says anyone who is not willing to sign an occupancy agreement
11 and honor it and pay the hundred dollar a month fee she says I want you to put somebody
12 in that home who will. Consequently, we have now done probably over a hundred
13 evictions there.).
14
266.
Instead of going through legal channels to preserve their possession (i.e.,
15
signing Occupancy Agreements and paying Occupancy Fees), FLDS loyalists are resisting
16
non-FLDS individuals attempts to gain possession of unoccupied UEP property, and are
17
using the CCMO to help in that effort. See infra 267-388; see also supra 55
18
(describing Churchs opposition to imposition of Occupancy Agreements and Occupancy

19
Fees).
20
21
22
23
24
25
267.
As detailed above, CCMO officers and other City officials who oversee the
CCMO have voiced their personal opposition to the non-FLDS management of the UEP
Trust, and have themselves refused to stay current on Occupancy Agreements and
Occupancy Fees. See supra 73-79.
268.
The general advice the Colorado City Prosecutor claims to give the CCMO
26 in terms of the handling of property disputes is:

27
28
[If] there is a situation going on [where] we have person A saying I

have an occupancy agreement to this home and I have person B saying I
live in this home, generally Im asking the officers get some more
71
1
2
3
4
information and do you know the people living in the home, do you know
the person claiming the right with the occupancy agreement, do you know
how long the people have lived in this home? I mean, does it appear to be
lived in
And if Im able to determine that these people appear to have a
colorable claim to the same piece of property, my recommendation, my
advice, my instructions to the officers has always been at that point we have
a civil property dispute
K. Brendel, 3573-74. In such situations, the City Prosecutor advises that the CCMO
6
maintain the status quo until a judge issues an order respecting the right to the property.
7
Id. at 3575.
8
9
269.
However, it is the standard practice of the Church to try to block non-FLDS
10 individuals from taking possession of UEP homes. The Church installs an FLDS member
11 in a previously unoccupied property to attempt to establish occupancy and in order to stop
12 a non-FLDS Occupancy Agreement holder from being able to take possession without
13 going through a full-blown eviction. See P. Pipkin, 2457-59; see also id. at 2458-59 (We
14 tried to hinder everything we could with the Marshals Office, that whatever Bruce was
15 doing with the Trust we werent supposed to pay our taxes, we were supposed to hinder
16 whatever Bruce and the trustees decided to do with the Trust, whatever we could do to do
17 that. Lyle told us many times in meetings and the mayors and the city council is very
18 aware of this and its exactly what I personally seen happen and witnessed and personally
19 went and took apart UEP property, buildings and toilets and stuff on the property that Lyle
20 Jeffs told us to take off to vandalize and tear up the UEP property.); see also infra
21 340-348 (discussing false claim of occupancy asserted by FLDS-member Penny Barlow
22 after non-FLDS family, with Occupancy Agreement, attempted to take possession of the
23 home at issue; false claim was supported by the CCMO); infra 361-388 (discussing
24 false claim of occupancy asserted by FLDS-member Chad Johnson after non-FLDS
25 business, with UEP lease, attempted to take possession of the Zoo property; false claim
26 was supported by the CCMO).
27
28
72
270.
The CCMO facilitate those Church efforts by not investigating the veracity
2 of FLDS members purported claims of occupancy; rather, the CCMO generally supports
3 FLDS individuals claims to the property without any proof that the person is in fact
4 occupying the property. As Deputy Mohave County Attorney James Schoppmann
5 described:
6
7
8
9
10
[Y]es, theres a problem. There should be basic questions asked.

Who are you? How long have you been there? Who gave you permission
to be there? How did you get in? Questions like this. And all those
questions, as well as potentially, you know, other factors, weigh into
decisions as far as someones claim to be there.
And it is very different in Colorado City. Like I said, Ive worked
across the whole county, and its -- we never get that -- at least I would say
most of the time we never get that information from the Marshals Office,
what I would consider basic investigation of a criminal trespass.
11 J. Schoppmann, 4837; see also D. Cashin, 2918 (explaining that in his experience, if
12 someone moves onto a property (person B) to contest anothers claim to the property
13 (person A), the person with documented possessory rights (person A) normally need not
14 obtain an eviction order as that situation could be considered criminal trespassing by the
15 recent occupier (person B)).
16
271.
Additionally, the CCMO often does not maintain the status quo and
17
instead cites and refers for charges, arrests, or threatens to arrest non-FLDS Occupancy
18
Agreement holders (or lease or deed holders) for criminal trespass. See infra 275-388.
19
See also D. Darger, 4067-70 (describing how Colorado City pursued criminal charges
20
(which were later dismissed) against Bruce Wisan for facilitation of trespass on UEP
21
property, property owned by the Trust for which he is the Fiduciary); infra 435
22
(describing communications between City Prosecutor and Town Manager David Darger
23
regarding the decision to charge Bruce Wisan); J. Barlow, 1593-95 (testifying how then24
CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy told UEP leaseholders to vacate a property because they
25
were not Church members).

26
27
28
272.
In handling these residential property disputes, the CCMO also attempts to
bypass the neutral County Attorneys Offices by down-charging criminal trespasses
73
1 incidents as misdemeanors. Criminal trespass involving a suspect entering or remaining

2 unlawfully in a home is a Class 6 felony. J. Schoppmann, 4806-08. The County
3 Attorneys Office is the only agency generally authorized to handle felonies, and the
4 CCMO should be calling the County Attorneys with questions on felony trespass
5 incidents. Id. Lesser criminal trespass offenses, including those where the suspect is on a
6 property but not inside a residence, are misdemeanors and a city court has jurisdiction to
7 handle those offenses, assuming the offense occurred within the city limits. Id.; see also
8 N. Caplin, 3687 (former Hildale City Prosecutor, testifying regarding Utah: [The County
9 Attorney has] jurisdiction over trespasses to dwellings where people live. The Court I was
10 at did not have that jurisdiction.). Despite the fact that the Hildale and Colorado City
11 prosecutors do not have jurisdiction over incidents involving trespass within a dwelling,
12 the CCMO call the Hildale and Colorado City prosecutors for advice on such cases,
13 instead of calling the county prosecutors. Compare J. Schoppmann, 4809 (Deputy
14 Mohave County Attorney, testifying he has never had a CCMO officer call him for advice
15 on an arrest related to a felony trespass), with K. Brendel, 3577-82 (Colorado City
16 Prosecutor, describing involvement in arrest of Jerold Nathan Williams in a residence for
17 criminal trespass), and N. Caplin, 3688-89 (former Hildale City Prosecutor, explaining
18 that most common type of call he would receive calls from the CCMO about was
19 regarding property disputes regarding Occupancy Agreements). See, e.g., S. Johnson,
20 4518-19 (stating that during incident involving Jerold Nathan Williams allegedly
21 trespassing in a residence, CCMO called City Prosecutor instead of the Mohave County
22 Attorneys Office); see also J. Darger, 4685 (testifying that he has never called the on-call
23 phone for the Mohave County Attorneys Office); D. Musser, 4247 (referring to City
24 Prosecutor as my prosecutor).
25
273.
Police practice experts found that the CCMO has treated disputes regarding
26 UEP Trust Occupancy Agreements in a disparate way based on religion, informing non27 FLDS residents that they would have to go to court and get eviction orders to enforce
28
74
1 Occupancy Agreements even when the property is unoccupied, other times telling non2 FLDS individuals attempting to enforce Occupancy Agreements that they would have to
3 leave the property or face criminal trespassing charges, and generally not investigating
4 FLDS individuals claims to contested property. See J. DeLopez, 2250-51; J. Harris,
5 4850-51 (explaining that CCMO has not treated comparable property dispute situations
6 consistently); see infra 275-388.
7
274.
The UEP Trust has also reported many property crimes against the UEP
8 Trust to the CCMO. The CCMO has not made any arrests in connection with the UEPs
9 reports of crimes committed against the Trust. I. Wyler, 486-87; see also infra 281.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
b. Allowing Constant Harassment of UEP Worker Isaac Wyler, and

Arresting Him in 2015
Constant, Unaddressed Harassment
275.
The CCMO regularly allows the harassment of Isaac Wyler by refusing to
provide police services to Mr. Wyler because he is an apostate working for the non-FLDS
run UEP Trust. See infra 276-281.
276.
Isaac Wyler is a former FLDS member who now works for the UEP Trust.
17 I. Wyler, 432, 456 (describing his position as the field man for the UEP). Among other
18 things, the UEP tasked Isaac Wyler with identifying vacant UEP homes so that families
19 could be moved into them. Id. at 468.
20
277.
On one occasion, and after he became known as an apostate, Isaac Wyler
21 and other non-FLDS members were denied service at a local sandwich shop. I. Wyler,
22 484-85. When Mr. Wyler asked why he was being refused service, the store employee
23 told him, [Y]ou know why. Id. at 485. The proprietor then called the CCMO and
24 Officer Sam Johnson responded. Id. Rather than telling the proprietor that it is illegal to
25 discriminate in a public accommodation on the basis of religion, Officer Johnson
26 threatened to arrest Mr. Wyler for trespassing. Id. at 485-86.
27
28
75
278.
Isaac Wyler was frequently harassed and intimidated after he began working
2 for the UEP. I. Wyler, 479. His horses have been let out of their enclosures; his water
3 lines have been cut; his fences have been cut; dead or mutilated animals have been left on
4 his property; his vehicles have been vandalized, hit with rocks or had sugar put in the gas
5 tank. Id. at 479-81. In one month, he had 28 flat tires. Id. at 481.
6
279.
On one occasion in 2007, Isaac Wylers fence was cut and a horse was let
7 loose. I. Wyler, 504-06. After the horse went missing, Mr. Wyler called the CCMO to try
8 to find it. Id. at 506. He called the CCMO repeatedly the following day. Id. Each time
9 he called, the CCMO told Mr. Wyler that they had not seen the horse. Id. On the third
10 day, Mr. Wyler called the CCMO again and was told that the horse had been in impound
11 for three days and that Mr. Wyler owed the CCMO $60, or $20 per day for three days
12 worth of boarding the horse. Id. at 506. The CCMO then ticketed Mr. Wyler for having
13 an animal at large. Id. at 507; see Ex. 24.
14
280.
Isaac Wyler has reported many of crimes against him from 2004 to 2016 to
15
the CCMO. I. Wyler, 482. The CCMO has not made a single arrest in connection with
16
those crimes. Id. at 482-83.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
281.
As noted above, Isaac Wyler has also reported property crimes against the
UEP Trust to the CCMO. I. Wyler, 486-87. The CCMO has not made any arrests in
connection with Mr. Wylers reports of crimes committed against the UEP. Id. at 487.
December 2015 Arrest
282.
In December 2015, shortly before Isaac Wyler was to testify at this trial, the
CCMO falsely arrested him for trespassing while he was attempting to complete an
eviction on an abandoned UEP home and jailing him for two hours, including questioning
him without Miranda warnings. See infra 283-288.
283.
On December 23, 2015, Isaac Wyler was arrested for allegedly trespassing
27 at a home located at 760 North Hildale Street and detained for two hours. I. Wyler, 49528 503. Mr. Wyler was at the property to serve a writ of restitution giving the UEP Trust
76
1 possession of the home. Id. at 496. Mr. Wyler was accompanied by a locksmith. Id. at
2 495. He intended to determine if the property had been abandoned, and if it had been, to
3 change the locks so that the property could be preserved and a new family moved in. See
4 id. at 496. If Mr. Wyler learned that the property was occupied, then he intended to call
5 the Sheriffs office so that it could enforce the writ of restitution by forcibly removing any
6 occupants. See id.
7
284.
It was appropriate for Mr. Wyler to serve the writ of restitution if the
8 property was vacant, but a sheriff or constable would have been required to execute the
9 writ (i.e., forcibly remove the occupant), if there was an occupant who was refusing to
10 comply voluntarily. See J. Darger, 4610-11 (explaining knowledge of procedure based on
11 statements of court personnel, City Prosecutor, and UEP Trust attorney).
12
285.
When Mr. Wyler arrived at 760 North Hildale Street, a woman drove up to
13
the property and told him, she got everything out of the house and its empty. I. Wyler,
14
497-98. Before Mr. Wyler could take possession of the home for the UEP, however,
15
CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy arrived. Id. at 498-99. After Officer Roundy arrived, a
16
second woman appeared at the property and claimed to live in the home. Id. at 499.
17
When Wyler attempted to determine what claim the second woman had to the property
18
and attempted to serve her with the writ of restitution, Officer Roundy arrested Mr. Wyler.
19
Id. at 500-01.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
286.
After Officer Roundy arrested Mr. Wyler, he also arrested the videographer
who was accompanying Mr. Wyler. I. Wyler, 502. Officer Roundy then transported them
to the CCMO station where he questioned Mr. Wyler for an hour. Id. at 503. Officer
Roundy never read Mr. Wyler his Miranda rights. Id. at 503. Instead, Officer Roundy
told Mr. Wyler that he had better answer his questions. Id.
287.
No trespass charges were ever filed against Isaac Wyler. I. Wyler, 504.
27
28
77
288.
Officer Hyrum Roundy, who did not testify at trial, was the only CCMO
2 officer on scene. J. Darger, 4672-73.
c. Arresting Excommunicated Former Bishop William E. Jessop
3
4
289.
CCMO officers also unreasonably arrested former FLDS Bishop William E.
5 Jessop9 for trespassing to help enforce his excommunication by the Church, and CCMO
6 Officer Curtis Cooke, the primary arresting officer, and other CCMO officers were angry
7 with and distrustful of then-Sergeant Helaman Barlow for blocking Officer Cookes
8 attempt to hold William E. Jessop in jail, until FLDS Bishop Lyle Jeffs directed that it was
9 okay. See infra 290-297.
10
11
12
290.
William E. Jessop was at one time a bishop of the FLDS Church and was
subsequently excommunicated from the Church. H. Barlow, 2110. William E. Jessop

then developed his own religious following. Id.
13
291.
14
15
16
Following William E. Jessops excommunication, which was known to the
community, CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke arrested William E. Jessop for trespassing in a
home where his wife lived. H. Barlow, 2110-11.
292.
17
William E. Jessop was in his wifes home at the time at her invitation. H.
18 Barlow, 2110. Another occupant of the home, Allen Jeffs, who is a brother of FLDS
19 leaders Warren and Lyle Jeffs, was requesting that William E. Jessop leave the house. S.
20 Johnson, 4413, 4513.
21
293.
Some officers of the CCMO determined that if [William E. Jessop is] not
22 going to leave, then he needed to be arrested for the trespassing. See S. Johnson, 4413.
23 As then-CCMO Sergeant, Helaman Barlow ultimately decided that William E. Jessop
24 would be cited and released for criminal trespass and not arrested. H. Barlow, 2111-12.
25
26
27
William E. Jessop is not the same person as Willie Jessop, the former FLDS
28 Spokesman and Church Security Leader.
78
1 Officer Cooke and Officer Hyrum Roundy were not happy about the decision to cite and
2 release William E. Jessop; they wanted him booked into the jail. Id.
3
294.
Mr. Jessop should not have been arrested for trespass because he had
4 permission from an occupant of the home to be there. If, however, the CCMO felt
5 justified in arresting Mr. Jessop, then, because this incident was allegedly an incident of
6 trespass in a residence, it should have been referred to the Mohave County Attorneys
7 Office. See supra 272. Instead, the CCMO on scene called Colorado City Prosecutor
8 Ken Brendel for advice. S. Johnson, 4514-15.
9
295.
After the arrest and release, then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy
10
approached then-Sergeant Helaman Barlow and told him that he thought Sergeant Barlow
11
was losing his testimony of Warren Jeffs and the Church. H. Barlow, 2112.
12
13
14
15
16
17
296.
Following this conversation with Chief Roundy, Sergeant Barlow met with
FLDS Bishop Lyle Jeffs, who stated that he, Lyle, trusted Sergeant Barlow and instructed
him to tell Town Manager David Darger and Chief Roundy to call him so he could convey
to them that Sergeant Barlow had the Bishops trust. H. Barlow, 2113.
297.
Following this conversation with Lyle Jeffs, wherein the Bishop indicated
18 he would convey his trust of Sergeant Barlow to the Town Manager and CCMO Chief,
19 Sergeant Barlows relationship with the other deputies improved and Officer Cooke told
20 Sergeant Barlow that he could trust Sergeant Barlow now that Sergeant Barlow had
21 received Bishop Lyle Jeffss blessing. H. Barlow, 2113-14.
22
23
d. Failing to Provide Services to Richard Holm, and Arresting Him in

2015
Holm Sunday School Incidents
24
298.
The CCMO discriminated against Richard Holm multiple times since he has
25
been out of favor with the FLDS Church, including obstructing his attempts to access and
26
regain possession of a property to which he had an Occupancy Agreement, in so doing

27
28
79
1 reinforcing the FLDS occupiers position and refusing to cooperate with or follow the
2 legal advice of the Washington County Attorney. See infra 299-307.
3
299.
At one point in late 2004, after he had been excommunicated, Richard Holm
4 attempted to visit his children at the Holm School, their private school in Hildale. R.
5 Holm, 1751-52. When Richard Holm arrived at the school, the FLDS caretaker of his
6 family told him to leave. Id. at 1752-53. Then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy
7 responded. Id. Despite being informed that Richard Holm had court permission to visit
8 his children in the school setting, Chief Roundy ordered Richard Holm to leave under
9 threat of being arrested for trespassing. Id. at 1753-54.
10
300.
In 2005, Richard Holm obtained an Occupancy Agreement for the Holm
11
School property. R. Holm, 1754. Although he held the Occupancy Agreement for the
12
property, he entered into a separate agreement with his FLDS brother, Tom Holm,
13
allowing Tom to continue to operate a school at the property. Id. at1754-56.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
301.
In approximately 2010, Tom Holm was also excommunicated from the
FLDS Church. R. Holm, 1755. After Tom Holm was excommunicated, FLDS members
changed the locks on the Holm School and excluded both Tom Holm, the occupant of the
property up to that point, and Richard Holm, the UEP Occupancy Agreement holder, from
the property. Id. at 1756-57.
302.
After being initially locked out, Tom and Richard Holm regained possession
21 of the property. R. Holm, 1757. They then agreed to allow certain FLDS members to
22 enter the property for the purpose of removing personal effects. Id. at 1757-58. Rather
23 than adhering to the agreement and only removing personal effects, FLDS members
24 reoccupied the Holm School property and began altering it without the permission of (1)
25 the prior occupant, Tom Holm, (2) the Occupancy Agreement holder, Richard Holm, or
26 (3) the UEP Trust; they changed the locks, dug fence posts, and began putting up a fence
27 around the property. Id. at 1758-59.
28
80
303.
When the FLDS members excluded them from their property and began
2 altering the property, Richard and Tom Holm called the CCMO. R. Holm, 1759-60.
3 Richard Holm specifically asked the CCMO, including Officer Hyrum Roundy, to charge
4 the FLDS occupants of the property with trespassing. Id. at 1760-61. The CCMO refused
5 to make a trespass arrest and refused to stop the FLDS occupants from altering the
6 property. Id.; see also S. Johnson, 4532-33 (stating that the CCMO did not cite the
7 occupiers for destruction of property or failure to obey orders).
8
304.
After the lack of help from the CCMO, in December 2011, the WCSO
9 responded to the incident. D. Cashin, 2894-900, 2918. The WCSO received a written
10 directive from the Washington County Attorney, the senior law-enforcement official in the
11 County, that the individuals occupying the building were committing criminal trespass and
12 that the WCSO was to ask the occupiers to leave and arrest them if they refused to leave.
13 Id. at 2894-95.
14
305.
The CCMO did not want to follow, and were resistant to, the Washington
15
County Attorneys directive to get the FLDS members off the property. WCSO Deputy
16
Cashin informed CCMO Officer Jerry Darger, who came to the scene, of the directive and
17
Officer Darger was resistant to complying. D. Cashin, 2897-98; J. Darger, 4668-69

18
(admitting did not want to follow the advice of the Washington County Attorney). CCMO
19
Officer Hyrum Roundy was also on scene and he stated that he did not feel comfortable,
20
that he felt like the WCSO was violating the occupiers rights, and he wanted to know if
21
he could leave the scene; with the WCSOs permission, Officer Roundy left the scene. D.
22
Cashin, 2899-900. CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke was also on scene but he did not assist
23
the WCSO. Id. at 2918.

24
25
26
27
306.
Richard Holm and Tom Holm were able to gain access to their property, the
Holm School, only after the Washington County Sheriff and the Washington County
Attorney became personally involved and came to the property. R. Holm, 1761-63.
28
81
307.
In February 2012, following the Holm School incident, Judge Lindberg,
2 (who at the time presided over litigation concerning the UEP Trust), issued a Preliminary
3 Injunction and General Order stating, with respect to the actions of the CCMO:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18. It is essential that this and all other occupancy agreements

negotiated by the Fiduciary be strictly enforced as any other order of the
Court.
19. Allowing the trespassers to continue to enter, possess, or block
access to the premises subject to Occupancy Agreement is directly contrary
to law and will cause Mr. Holm to suffer irreparable harm.
23. This Court is deeply distressed to hear about the lack of law
enforcement and protection of Trust assets offered by Hildale City and,
in related matters, Colorado City, Arizona.
24. It is in the public interest that peace and order and respect for
the rule of law be maintained in those communities; that orders of this court
be recognized and enforced by appropriate law enforcement officers.
25. If those law enforcement officers do not recognize the orders of
this Court, including the actions of the Fiduciary taken pursuant to the
authority this Court has vested in him, as binding on them, then it may very
well be appropriate to have further action taken in the appropriate setting
against these law enforcement officers, who are sworn to uphold the law.
26. The Fiduciary continues to exercise full authority to act on
behalf of the Trust under the direction of this Court. Law enforcement
agents will be expected to enforce fully all occupancy agreements and other
actions taken by the Fiduciary related to his management of the Trust.
17 Ex. 3147 at 6-7 (emphasis added); see also S. Johnson, 4471 (agreeing that the CCMO are
18 the law enforcement officers referenced in the order).
19
2015 Arrest by CCMO
20
308.
As recently as July 29, 2015, the CCMO discriminated against Richard
21 Holm again by falsely arresting him for felony theft, receiving stolen property, and
22 trespassing when prior tenants left vehicles on his property. See infra 309-315.
23
309.
Richard Holm owns real property to the northwest of Hildale. R. Holm,
24 1763-64. He acquired the property, which contains a warehouse, an unfinished home, and
25 a shop, at auction in approximately the summer of 2014. R. Holm, 1764, 1771.
26
310.
At one point, an individual parked a travel trailer on Richard Holms
27
property without his permission. R. Holm, 1767-69. With the permission and assistance
28
82
1 of the WCSO, Richard Holm towed the trailer off his property and put it in a storage shed.
2 Id. The owner of the travel trailer claimed it a few hours later. Id. at 1769-70.
3
311.
A week after Richard Holm towed the travel trailer from his property,
4 another vehicle appeared on his property without his permission. R. Holm, 1769-70.
5 Richard Holm towed the second trailer as he had the first. Id. at 1770. This time,
6 however, the CCMO became involved. Id. CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy called
7 Richard Holm and asked to meet him at the property. Id. at 1771. Richard Holm made
8 clear that he had towed the trailer and did so without any intent to permanently deprive its
9 owner of possession. Id.
10
312.
Richard Holm met Officer Hyrum Roundy at Mr. Holms property and made
11
clear that he would return the trailer he had towed to whoever proved ownership. R.
12
Holm, 1774. Officer Roundy then arrested Richard Holm and booked him into jail on
13
charges of felony theft, receiving stolen property, and trespassing. Id. at 1774-76. Officer
14
Roundy charged Richard Holm with trespass despite knowing that Richard Holm had the
15
deed to the property where he was arrested. Id. at 1775; see also S. Johnson, 4534-35
16
(stating there was no dispute that Holm owned the property).

17
313.
18
19
Officer Hyrum Roundy is the same CCMO officer who left the scene during
the incident at the Holm School. See supra 305.
20
314.
The CCMOs false arrest of Richard Holm occurred on July 29, 2015, just
21 six months before the trial was scheduled in this case. The CCMO also arrested Richard
22 Holm knowing that he had been identified as a witness for the United States. R. Holm,
23 1763.
24
315.
The Washington County Attorney declined to file any criminal charges
25 against Richard Holm. R. Holm, 1777.

26
27
28
83
e. Arresting Excommunicated Jerold Nathan Williams at His Home
1
2
316.
In July 2012, after the Holm School incident and subsequent order regarding
3 the CCMOs distressful behavior, the CCMO physically arrested Jerold Nathan
4 Williams and charged him with criminal trespass at his home to facilitate Mr. Williamss
5 recent excommunication from the Church. See infra 317-339.
6
317.
Jerold Nathan Williams was a lifelong member of the FLDS Church, a
7 member of the United Order, and a member of the FLDS High Council until he was
8 excommunicated on July 2, 2012. J.N. Williams, 1825-27. His spiritual wife, Elizabeth
9 Wayman, was excommunicated six days later. E. Wayman, 1901.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
318.
Starting in approximately 1978, Mr. Williams began building a home in
Short Creek located at 265 North Homestead Street. J.N. Williams, 1842-43, 1853-54.
He moved into that home in approximately 1983, and with the exception of an 18-month
period when the Church asked him to move to a different property, that home remained
his primary residence. Id. at 1843; E. Wayman, 1903. Although he travelled for Church
assignments, Mr. Williams considered his Short Creek home to be his residence and his
family lived there in his absence. Id. at 1850-51.
17
18
19
20
21
22
319.
Mr. Williams was at his home at 265 North Homestead on July 2, 2012,
when he received the directive that he had been excommunicated. J.N. Williams, 182526, 1853-54. Mr. Williams informed his family members living in the home that he had
been excommunicated. Id. at 1853-54.
320.
After Mr. Williams was excommunicated, he decided to obtain, and did
23 obtain, an Occupancy Agreement for his home at 265 North Homestead. J.N. Williams,
24 1856; see also Ex. 291. He obtained the Occupancy Agreement because he was
25 concerned that now that he was excommunicated, the CCMO would harass him if he
26 returned to his home. Id. 1856.
27
321.
After his excommunication, Mr. Williams also decided to find out the truth
28 about inappropriate conduct of the Church leadership. J.N. Williams, 1856; E.
84
1 Wayman, 1908 (describing how Mr. Williams located Ms. Wayman in North Dakota after
2 her excommunication and told her the things Warren Jeffs was accused of and he had
3 actually done). He decided that he needed to tell his family, still living at 265 North
4 Homestead, the truth that he had learned about Church leaders. J.N. Williams, 1856-57;
5 E. Wayman, 1908-09.
6
322.
Mr. Williams and Ms. Wayman therefore went to the familys home on
7 North Homestead Street on the evening of July 19, 2012, just 17 days after he was
8 excommunicated, to try to talk to his family about Church leaders. J.N. Williams, 18499 50, 1856-57. Mr. Williams was not requesting that his family leave the home on the day
10 he was arrested. T. Rohbock, 1996.
11
323.
When Mr. Williams arrived at his home that evening, family members saw
12
him and locked him out. J.N. Williams, 1857; see also E. Wayman, 1909-11 (concluding
13
that Mr. Williamss family was running from him because he had been excommunicated).
14
He decided, therefore, to enter his home through an open basement window and then let
15
Ms. Wayman in through the front door. J.N. Williams, 1857-58.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
324.
Shortly after Mr. Williams and Ms. Wayman entered the home, CCMO
Officer Curtis Cooke responded to 265 North Homestead, but only after first beeping
Church Security member Tim Rohbock. See J.N. Williams, 1858; T. Rohbock, 1951. Mr.
Williams gave Officer Cooke a copy of his Occupancy Agreement and told Officer Cooke
that he had built the home, had lived there for years, and did not intend to leave. J.N.
Williams, at 1858; T. Rohbock, 1970-71; see also S. Johnson, 4420 (admitting that
CCMO Officers Sam Johnson and Curtis Cooke responded for the CCMO and were aware
that Mr. Williams had an Occupancy Agreement for the home).
325.
Officer Cooke demanded that Mr. Williams leave 265 North Homestead.
26 J.N. Williams, 1859-60; E. Wayman, 1912. Mr. Williams responded by asking Officer
27 Cooke for time to make a phone call; Mr. Williams wanted to have the MCSO also
28 respond to the home. J.N. Williams, 1859-60; see also E. Wayman, 1914; T. Rohbock,
85
1 1971. After Mr. Williams called the MCSO, he specifically asked CCMO Officer Cooke
2 to wait for the Sheriffs Office to respond before Officer Cooke arrested him. J.N.
3 Williams, 1860 (I asked him could we wait until the officer gets here when he started
4 threatening to arrest me.).
5
326.
When Mr. Williams asked Officer Cooke to wait for the Sheriffs Office to
6 respond, Officer Cooke became upset and agitated; he responded to the request to wait by
7 immediately arresting Mr. Williams for trespass. J.N. Williams, 1860-1861; see also E.
8 Wayman, 1912-13 (describing Officer Cooke as becoming agitated, sweating, and shaking
9 after he saw Mr. Williamss Occupancy Agreement); T. Rohbock, 1967 (I was there
10 when [Williams] was arrested.), 1972 (describing Officer Cooke as red-faced and
11 agitated).
12
327.
Because the CCMO arrested Mr. Williams on July 19, 2012, Mr. Williams
13
was unable to accomplish his goal of telling his family the truth about FLDS leadership.
14
J.N. Williams, 1897-98; E. Wayman, 1918.

15
16
17
18
19
328.
While Officer Cooke was arresting Mr. Williams, CCMO Sergeant Sam
Johnson was demanding that Ms. Wayman also leave the property. J.N. Williams, 1862;
E. Wayman, 1917.
329.
After he arrested Mr. Williams, Officer Cooke passed out witness statements
20 and told the witnesses what to put in the statements to make Mr. Williamss arrest stick.
21 T. Rohbock, 1972. At Officer Cookes direction and in an effort to show his loyalty to the
22 Church, Timothy Rohbock made a false witness statement. Id. at 1972-73.
23
330.
Mr. Williams was charged with criminal trespass. J.N. Williams, 1862-63;
24 see also K. Brendel, 3579-80. The charges were dismissed. J.N. Williams, 1863; K.
25 Brendel, 3580-81.
26
331.
A week after his arrest, Mr. Williams called the MCSO, which sent a deputy
27
to meet him at 265 North Homestead. J.N. Williams, 1865. The MCSO deputy informed
28
86
1 Mr. Williams that he had a right to be at the home, but that the MCSO could not stay at
2 the property full time to ensure that the CCMO did not arrest Mr. Williams again. Id.
3
332.
CCMO Sergeant Sam Johnson was aware, at the time of the arrest, that Mr.
4 Williams was involved in building the house and had lived in it. S. Johnson, 4519. The
5 CCMO report regarding this incident even lists Mr. Williamss last known address as the
6 very house where the CCMO arrested Mr. Williams for trespassing. Id. at 4519-20.
7
333.
The CCMO claimed, in support of its decision to arrest Mr. Williams, that
people in the home at 265 North Homestead, were scared of Mr. Williams. S. Johnson,
9
4420-21.
10
11
12
13
14
334.
Timothy Rohbock, who was present at the house for the entire time Officer
Cooke was there, has no recollection of an occupant stating that she was scared for her
life. T. Rohbock, 1999.
335.
Mr. Williams should not have been arrested for trespass. If, however, the
15 CCMO felt justified in arresting Mr. Williams, then, because this incident was allegedly
16 an incident of trespass in a residence, it should have been referred to the Mohave County
17 Attorneys Office. See supra 272. Instead, the CCMO on scene contacted City
18 Prosecutor Ken Brendel. S. Johnson, 4518-19.
19
336.
City Prosecutor Ken Brendel advised Officer Cooke that he should instruct
20 Mr. Williams to leave the property, that it was a civil property dispute, and that if Mr.
21 Williams (or the other party) came back with a court order, the CCMO would enforce it.
22 See Brendel, 3579. Officer Cooke did not provide the City Prosecutor with information
23 that Mr. Williams had physically threatened anyone in the home. K. Brendel, 3628-29.
24
337.
Officer Cooke elected to down-charge Mr. Williams with a Class 1
25
misdemeanor, the prosecution of which is within the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor.
26
Had Officer Cooke charged Mr. Williams for a felony, the Mohave County Attorneys
27
Office would have jurisdiction to prosecute. K. Brendel, 3631; see also J. Schoppmann,
28
87
1 4816 (Officer Cooke bypasse[d] the County Attorneys Office by citing it originally as a
2 misdemeanor instead of a felony); supra 272 (describing CCMO practice of down3 charging in order to avoid county review of charges).
4
338.
A Deputy Mohave County Attorney requested that the City Prosecutor
5 dismiss the case and send it to the County Attorneys Office for review. J. Schoppmann,
6 4816-17. The Mohave County Attorneys Office reviewed the case and found that there
7 was not an evidentiary basis to proceed, thus the charge was ultimately declined. J.
8 Schoppmann, 4816-17; see also K. Brendel, 3580-81, 3631-32.
9
339.
In a situation where there were individuals had fears of possible physical
10
harm, proper police practices dictate that the responding officer go to the scene, contact
11
the complainant, and investigate. J. Harris, 4851-52. Possible charges in such

12
circumstances could include assault, threats, or domestic violence. The CCMO, however,
13
did not bring any of those charges against Mr. Williams; instead, Mr. Williams was
14
charged with trespassing. See id. The CCMO did not have probable cause to arrest Mr.
15
Williams for trespassing. Id. at 4853.

16
f. Attempting to Block Christopher Jessop from Occupying Church

Property, and Failing to Investigate Vandalism
17
18
340.
In 2013, the CCMO also refused to honor non-FLDS Christopher Jessops
19 UEP Occupancy Agreement, ordered him to get off the Church property that a FLDS
20 woman illegally pretended to occupy, attempted to charge his family with criminal
21 trespass, and refused to investigate vandalism at the home after a court confirmed the
22 Jessops had a valid right to occupy it. See infra 341-348.
23
341.
Christopher Jessop left the FLDS Church and the Short Creek community
24
when he was 19 and returned to the community in 2012 after the UEP Trust was reformed.
25
C. Jessop, 2509-11.
26
27
28
342.
The Jessop family received an Occupancy Agreement from the UEP Trust
for a house located at 685 Field Avenue, Hildale, Utah. C. Jessop, 2511.
88
343.
Before signing the Occupancy Agreement, the Jessops visited the house in
2 or about October 2012 with the permission of the UEP Trust; it was unlocked and vacant.
3 C. Jessop, 2512-13. Penny Barlow, whose address at the time, as seen on the CCMO
4 report for this incident, was 785 Willow Street, called the CCMO to report somebody in
5 her old home. C. Jessop, 2512-14; Ex. 308 (referring to 685 Field Avenue).
6
344.
In February 2013, after the Jessops Occupancy Agreement for 685 Field
7 Avenue had been approved by the UEP Trust, the Jessops attempted to take possession of
8 the house. C. Jessop, 2515. They were unable to take possession in February 2013; when
9 they went to the house, they saw that the windows had been barred, the doors had been
10 locked, and the property owner, the UEP, did not have the keys. Id. at 2515-16. At that
11 time, the house still appeared to be vacant. Id. CCMO Officer Curtis Cooke arrived while
12 the Jessops were at the house attempting to take possession and stated that he did not
13 recognize the legitimacy of the Occupancy Agreement the Jessops showed him and that
14 Mr. Jessop needed to get off this Church property because it did not belong to him. C.
15 Jessop, 2517-18.
16
345.
The Jessops then posted notices to vacate at the house at 685 Field Avenue.
17
C. Jessop, 2518-19. Mr. Jessop observed Penny Barlow, who was an FLDS member at
18
the time, near the Field Avenue house when he was posting the notices to vacate. Id. Ms.
19
Barlow claimed to be living at the home at issue. Id. at 2519. Mr. Jessop called the
20
CCMO for assistance when he went to the house to post the last notice to vacate on April
21
6, 2013. Id. at 2520. CCMO Officers Cooke and Roundy arrived on scene and refused to
22
remove Ms. Barlow from the property or cite her for trespass, again saying that they did
23
not recognize the Occupancy Agreement that Mr. Jessop showed them. Id. at 2520-21;
24
Ex. 328. Following this incident, the CCMO referred the case for possible criminal
25
charges against the Jessops, which the Hildale City Prosecutor declined. C. Jessop, 2524;
26
N. Caplin, 3699-700 (declining charges because it was a civil controversy). The CCMO
27
referred the Jessops for trespassing, and refused to arrest Ms. Barlow for trespassing,
28
89
1 despite the fact that the address listed for Ms. Barlow in the CCMOs own police report
2 for this incident was 785 Willow Street, not the address of the home at issue. See C.
3 Jessop, 2525; Ex. 309.
4
346.
The Jessops then attempted to enforce their right to possess the home by
5 obtaining an order to evict Penny Barlow from the home because she was claiming to live
6 there. C. Jessop, 2526. Once they received the eviction order, the Jessops sent a copy to
7 the CCMO. Id. at 2527. The eviction order was served on Ms. Barlow at 685 Field
8 Avenue by a private investigator, Sam Brower, on June 26, 2013, in the presence of
9 CCMO Officer Cooke. Id. at 2527-28. The CCMO referred Christopher Jessop, his wife
10 Jesseca Jessop, Sam Brower, and Andrew Chatwin, who was present to witness the
11 service of process at the request of the Jessops, for criminal charges for trespass; Sam
12 Brower and Andrew Chatwin for criminal charges for obstruction of justice; and
13 Christopher and Jesseca Jessop for criminal charges for providing false information to a
14 law enforcement officer. Id. at 2529-31. Again, the CCMO did so despite the fact that the
15 address listed for Ms. Barlow in the CCMOs police report for this interaction was not the
16 Field Avenue home, but rather, this time, 280 Garden Avenue, Colorado City. Id. at 2532;
17 Ex. 1769; N. Caplin, 3704-05 (declining charges because [t]here was no probable
18 cause).
19
347.
In contrast to the way in which the CCMO handled FLDS member Penny
20
Barlow, previously, when a non-FLDS individual had broken into another home where the
21
Jessops were temporarily living in Colorado City and moved his belongings into the
22
basement, the CCMO responded and arrested the intruder without instructing Mr. Jessop
23
to obtain an eviction order. C. Jessop, 2532-34; S. Johnson, 4425-27.

24
25
26
27
28
348.
After they were finally able to move into their home in Hildale, the Jessops
truck was vandalized. C. Jessop, 2537. The Jessops called the CCMO to make a report.
Id. at 2538. The Jessops informed Officer Cooke, the responding officer, that their
neighbors, who were FLDS members, had a camera on their house that may have captured
90
1 the vandalism. Id. at 2538-39. Officer Cooke said that he could not invade the neighbors
2 privacy by asking to see the video. Id. at 2539. Mr. Jessop was never contacted again by
3 the CCMO about the incident and is not aware of follow-up by the CCMO. C. Jessop,
4 2539; see also G. Meyer, 4718 (Defendants expert, opining that CCMOs refusal to get
5 video evidence from the adjacent house in conducting criminal investigation is not best
6 practice).
g. Arresting Guy Timpson for Posting Eviction Notice
7
8
349.
The CCMO discriminated against then-non-FLDS member Guy Timpson by
9 unreasonably arresting him in 2014 for trespass on a UEP property for which he had
10 obtained an Occupancy Agreement while Mr. Timpson was in the process of posting an
11 eviction notice to remove the occupier, a brother of FLDS leaders. See infra 350-356.
12
13
14
350.
Guy Timpson was a loyal follower of Warren Jeffs and a member of Church
Security until the summer of 2011 when he left Warren Jeffss FLDS Church after
learning about Warren Jeffss criminal trial in Texas. G. Timpson, 1429-30.
15
16
17
18
351.
After he left Warren Jeffss FLDS Church, Mr. Timpson and his family
were shunned. G. Timpson, 1430.

352.
Mr. Timpson had obtained a UEP Occupancy Agreement for a home in
19 Short Creek. G. Timpson, 1430-31. The home was occupied by the family of Seth Jeffs,
20 brother to Warren and Lyle Jeffs. Id. at 1431. After obtaining the Occupancy Agreement,
21 on approximately February 22, 2014, Mr. Timpson went to the property to post a five-day
22 Notice to Vacate. Id. at 1431.
23
353.
After Mr. Timpson posted the property with the Notice to Vacate and his
24 Occupancy Agreement, he returned to take photographs of the posted documents. G.

25 Timpson, 1432.
26
27
354.
At that point, CCMO Sergeant Sam Johnson arrived and Mr. Timpson asked
Sergeant Johnson to look at the posted paperwork. G. Timpson, 1432-33. Cf. S. Johnson,
28
91
1 4510-11 (stating he does not remember if Timpson was only trying to make the CCMO
2 aware of where he was posting the notices).
3
355.
While Mr. Timpson was talking to Sergeant Johnson, CCMO Chief Jerry
4 Darger arrived. G. Timpson, 1432-33. Chief Darger refused to look at the paperwork that
5 Mr. Timpson had posted. Id. at 1433. Instead, Chief Darger seized Mr. Timpson and
6 forced his hand behind his back. Id. at 1433-34. Cf. S. Johnson, 4511 (testifying that
7 Officer Darger grabbed Timpsons arm and detained him).
8
356.
The City Prosecutors advice was to treat this as a civil dispute and await an
order from the judge. K. Brendel, 3582-84. The CCMO, however, charged Mr. Timpson
10
with criminal trespass. G. Timpson, 1434; K. Brendel, 3584; S. Johnson, 4511. Within
11
two weeks of Mr. Timpsons initial appearance, the City Prosecutor dismissed the
12
charges. G. Timpson, 1435; K. Brendel, 3585; S. Johnson, 4512.

13
h. Blocking Patrick Pipkin from His Home Because of FLDS Bishops

Directive
14
15
357.
CCMO officers blocked non-FLDS Patrick Pipkin from entering his home in
16 2005, even when he obtained an UEP Occupancy Agreement, because Church leaders had
17 directed Mr. Pipkin to leave the home and community. See infra 358-360.
18
358.
Patrick Pipkin, who had left the FLDS Church in 2005, went to a meeting
19
with representatives of the UEP Trust regarding the states takeover of the Trust in 2006.
20
Following that meeting, Lyle Jeffs told Mr. Pipkin that he could not stay in the house in
21
Colorado City where he had been living with his family any longer and asked him to leave
22
the community. P. Pipkin, 2411-13.

23
24
25
26
27
28
359.
The next day, CCMO Officers Helaman Barlow, Jonathan Roundy, and
Preston Barlow prevented Mr. Pipkin from accessing his home, even to retrieve his
belongings. Mr. Pipkins family told the CCMO officers that FLDS Bishop Lyle Jeffs had
directed that Mr. Pipkin could no longer stay in the home and that he was no longer
welcome on UEP property. P. Pipkin, 2413-14. Later that day, Mr. Pipkin signed an
92
1 Occupancy Agreement with the UEP Trust for the home, which he showed to the CCMO
2 officers who were still at the home, and the officers continued to deny him access. Id. at
3 2414-15.
4
360.
Mr. Pipkin eventually was able to go back into the house; his family moved
5 out in the middle of the night. P. Pipkin, 2415; see also id. at 2516; Ex. 89 at 1 (Dictation
6 of Warren Jeffs stating, Also, Patrick Pipkin, an apostate young man, caused that his own
7 mother and her children would be evicted by signing an occupancy agreement.).
8
i. Arresting Patrick Pipkin and Andrew Chatwin Multiple Times at

the Zoo
9
10
361.
The CCMO unreasonably arrested non-FLDS members Patrick Pipkin and
11 Andrew Chatwin twice for trespassing after they had completed a commercial eviction for
12 the UEP property formerly used as a zoo; the CCMO unreasonably attempted to justify
13 these arrests with a non-present FLDS member who purportedly claimed he was residing
14 in a small horse tack shed on the property, despite the CCMO initially agreeing that
15 Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin had a right to the property, the Cities own utility and
16 building officials labeling the property as commercial, and the MCSOs helping with the
17 eviction and protesting against the CCMOs arrests. See infra 362-388.
18
362.
Prairie Farms, LLC, an entity with which Patrick Pipkin is associated,
19 obtained a commercial lease for the FMJ Zoo property on October 3, 2015, for agricultural
20 production, farming, and cattle ranching. Mr. Pipkin posted five-day notices to vacate, in
21 accordance with Arizona commercial property law, on the 12-acre property on October 7,
22 2015. P. Pipkin, 2416-19, 2465.
23
363.
Prior to, and after, the arrests at issue, the Cities utility and building
24
departments had considered the Zoo property to be non-residential. The Cities charged
25
Prairie Farms the higher, commercial property rate for the water connection at the Zoo. P.
26
Pipkin, 2449-50. The Cities building inspector, upon reviewing the plans for a tack shed
27
on the Zoo property, stated that it was permitted as a tool shed, not a residential building.
28
93
1 Id. at 2450-51; A. Barlow, 3382-83; see also J. Schoppmann, 4820-21 (explaining that
2 MCSO also considered the Zoo property to be commercial, which opinion was conveyed
3 to City Prosecutor Ken Brendel).
4
364.
Also prior to the arrests, the Mohave County Attorney wrote a letter to the
5 CCMO in the Fall of 2014 that put the CCMO on notice of landowners rights and
6 increased self-help remedies for non-residential property. The County Attorneys Office
7 re-sent that letter to the CCMO in September of 2015 because the UEP had begun
8 performing evictions on commercial properties (i.e., properties where people were not
9 residing) and were encountering problems with the CCMO. See J. Schoppmann, 4819-20;
10 see also D. Musser, 4246-27 (agreeing he had been advised that position of Mohave
11 County Attorneys Office was that residential eviction process is not applicable to
12 commercial property); S. Johnson, 4472-73 (same).
13
365.
On October 12, 2015, individuals moved a refrigerator and a dresser into the
14
Zoos tack shed in an attempt to make the shed appear that it was being used as a
15
residence prior to the completion of the commercial eviction, as is the FLDS custom given
16
the Churchs directive to obstruct the operation of the UEP Trust. P. Pipkin, 2457-59.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
366.
On October 13, 2015, Mr. Pipkin went to the Zoo property with MCSO
deputies to get their assistance taking possession of the property. P. Pipkin, 2419-20.
CCMO Officer Jacob Barlow, Jr. arrived at the Zoo, stated that it appeared that the
eviction had been effected properly after consulting with the MCSO, and left the scene.
Id. at 2422-23. When proceeding to take possession, Mr. Pipkin and the MCSO
encountered Verlin Young, who stated he was an FLDS member and eventually claimed
that a Chad Johnson was living in the tack shed on the property. Id. at 2421-23. Officer
Barlow returned to the scene, CCMO Chief Jerry Darger arrived shortly thereafter, and
Officer Barlow now stated that the property was a residence. Id. at 2423.
367.
At one point during this interaction, Mr. Pipkin walked toward Chief Darger
28 in a non-threatening manner and stopped, in order to hand him the UEP lease agreement
94
1 and the notice to vacate; Chief Darger then walked toward Mr. Pipkin and shoved Mr.
2 Pipkin back approximately three feet while he simultaneously stated, This is none of your
3 business, you need to get out of here. P. Pipkin, 2423-26; see also J. Darger, 4686
4 (admitting he told a MCSO deputy that there could have been a push).
5
368.
Soon afterwards, Chief Darger reached Chad Johnson on his phone and Mr.
6 Johnson, who said he was the caretaker for the property, asked if he could stay in the
7 tack shed with his daughters. With CCMO Officers Darger and Barlow as witnesses to
8 the agreement, Mr. Pipkin agreed to give Mr. Johnson and his daughters access to the tack
9 shed and despite believing it was unnecessary on the commercial property, Mr. Pipkin
10 planned to pursue a residential eviction of the tack shed. The CCMO then left and with
11 the help of the MCSO, Mr. Pipkin completed the commercial eviction of the rest of the
12 property. P. Pipkin, 2426-29.
13
369.
Approximately two hours after completing the commercial eviction with the
14
MCSOs approval and aid, Mr. Pipkin called the CCMO back to report the vandalism and
15
theft on the property that had occurred in the days leading up to the effectuation of the
16
eviction. P. Pipkin, 2429-30. Isaac Wyler, a representative of the UEP Trust, and Seth
17
Cooke, Andrew Chatwin, and Patrick Pipkin, representatives of the lessee, Prairie Farms
18
LLC, were at the Zoo property when CCMO Officer Daniel Roy Barlow arrived at the
19
property. Officer Barlow instructed Mr. Wyler to get off the property and that he was
20
trespassing and said that Mr. Pipkin was a guest on the property and was trespassing as
21
well. Id.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
370.
Mr. Pipkin showed CCMO Officer Barlow the lease agreement and
informed him about the agreement that had been reached earlier that day with the MCSO
and Chief Darger. P. Pipkin, 2430-31. Mr. Pipkin also called the MCSO back, and an
MCSO deputy explained to Officer Barlow that Prairie Farms had performed a
commercial eviction and that their presence on the property was proper. Id. at 2431-33.
During this interaction, purported occupant Chad Johnson is again reached by phone and
95
1 this time states that he is the caretaker of the entire Zoo property and the adjacent 40-acre
2 park; afterwards, Officer Barlow agrees to take Mr. Pipkins vandalism report. Id.
3
371.
While Officer Barlow is taking the vandalism report, Chief Darger returns
4 and states that legal counsel had told him it was residential property and that Mr. Johnson
5 had not been properly evicted. P. Pipkin, 2433-34. The MCSO deputies on scene relayed
6 to Chief Darger that they had confirmed with the Mohave County Attorneys Office that
7 the Zoo was a commercial property. UEP representative Mr. Wyler too stated the UEPs
8 position that the property was commercial. On speakerphone from an unknown location
9 off the property, Mr. Johnson informed Mr. Pipkin that he believed Mr. Pipkin was
10 trespassing and wanted Mr. Pipkin off the property immediately. At the time, Mr. Pipkin
11 was approximately a quarter mile and several fence lines away from the tack shed. Id. at
12 2433-35.
13
372.
Despite the previous agreement, and the MCSO and UEPs stating it was
14
commercial property, Chief Darger threatened to arrest Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin if
15
they did not leave the property and then ultimately did arrest both of them for trespassing
16
when they refused to leave. They were held until the next morning, when they appeared
17
before a judge and were released; neither the judge nor any law enforcement officer stated
18
that they were not allowed back on the property. P. Pipkin, 2435-38; see also J.
19
Schoppmann, 4825 (stating that the original agreement reached between the parties was
20
that Chad Johnson was going to be able to occupy the tack shed, but not the rest of the
21
Zoo property).
22
23
24
25
373.
Chief Darger did not investigate to determine if Chad Johnson was in fact
living in the tack shed. See P. Pipkin, 2434-36; J. Darger, 4688-89.

374.
Based on representations by the CCMO that there was an individual
26 claiming to live on the property, the Colorado City Prosecutors advice to the CCMO was
27 to advise the parties that this was a civil matter. K. Brendel, 3587-88. The City
28 Prosecutor did not instruct the CCMO to arrest Mr. Pipkin and was not aware of the arrest
96
1 on October 13th until the next day. Id. at 3619-20. He instructed the CCMO to preserve
2 the status quo. Id. at 3652.
3
375.
The circumstances make the CCMOs arrests unreasonable. Chief Darger
4 was aware, before he arrested Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin, that the Mohave County
5 Attorneys Office was of the opinion that a proper commercial eviction had been effected
6 and that there was no basis to arrest them. See J. Darger, 4634-36. The CCMO
7 disregarded Mohave Countys decision that Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin should not be
8 arrested after an agreement had been reached between them and the purported occupier of
9 the tack shed, in the presence of the CCMO and MCSO. See J. Schoppmann, 4818-19
10 ([I]t just wasnt justice. You cannot . . . have two different officers telling you two
11 different things, and then arrest somebody on that. Thats not justice.).
12
376.
Mr. Pipkin was on the Zoo property multiple times in the presence of
13
CCMO officers without incident during the four days after he was first arrested and
14
released; the CCMO gave him no indication that they thought he was trespassing. P.
15
Pipkin, 2438-42; S. Johnson, 4430.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
377.
The CCMO, however, changed course again days later and arrested Patrick
Pipkin and Andrew Chatwin again when a large group of people were vandalizing the
property. On October 17, 2015, Patrick Pipkin returned to the Zoo property with Seth
Cooke to find that the gates had been opened and 30-40 people were vandalizing the
property. Mr. Pipkin called the MCSO, after which (uncalled) CCMO Officer Curtis
Cooke arrived at the Zoo first within minutes. Mr. Pipkin requested that Officer Cooke
arrest the people on the property for trespass, which Officer Cooke would not do. P.
Pipkin, 2442-44 (Officer Cooke told Pipkin, If youre going to push it its going to get
serious.). MCSO deputies then arrived and instructed the trespassers to leave the
property after taking their names, birthdates, phone numbers, addresses, and vehicle
information. Officer Cooke did not help the MCSO with that process. Id. at 2445.
28
97
378.
Thereafter, CCMO Chief Darger and CCMO Officer Musser arrived.
2 Officer Musser stated to Mr. Pipkin that the whole town was residential property and that
3 there is no commercial property in the Cities except for the airport. Despite the fact that
4 Mr. Pipkin had not approached the tack shed, Chief Darger stated that he was there for
5 Chad Johnson and that Mr. Pipkin was trespassing. MCSO deputies told Chief Darger
6 that the Zoo was commercial property and that the Prairie Farms representatives had a
7 right to be there as lessees. Chief Darger and Officer Cooke threatened to arrest Mr.
8 Pipkin if he did not leave the property. Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin refused to leave and
9 the CCMO arrested them again. The CCMO put a transfer hold on them at the jail that
10 prevented them from bailing out without the assistance of the MCSO. P. Pipkin, 2445-49.
11
379.
As with the first arrests, Chad Johnson was not on the property on October
12 17th either. P. Pipkin, 2448; D. Musser, 4245. CCMO Officer Musser, who was acting as
13 the back-up officer on October 17th, did not look up Mr. Johnsons address in the CCMO
14 database and did not ask Mr. Johnson whose name the utilities were in before the CCMO
15 arrested Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin for trespass. D. Musser, 4248. Compared to Messrs.
16 Pipkin and Chatwin, the CCMO did not instruct Mr. Johnson that he would need to go to
17 court to get an eviction order to clear his claim to the property. Id. at 4249.
18
380.
As with the first arrests, the City Prosecutor did not instruct the CCMO to
19
arrest Mr. Pipkin or Mr. Chatwin on October 17th. K. Brendel, 3620-22.

20
21
22
23
381.
Chief Darger did not attempt to contact the Mohave County Attorneys
office in the days between the first arrests and the second arrests. J. Darger, 4687.
382.
Throughout the multi-day incident, the MCSOs position was that Mr.
24 Pipkin and Mr. Chatwin had the legal right to be on the Zoo property. See J.
25 Schoppmann, 4823-27.
26
27
28
98
383.
The trespassers caused approximately $50,000 in damage to the Zoo
2 property and the CCMO refused to complete a vandalism and theft report, requiring
3 MCSO to complete the report for Prairie Farms. P. Pipkin, 2451-52, 2461-62.
4
384.
As of the time of Mr. Pipkins testimony approximately three months later,
5 the Cities had not turned the water on at the Zoo despite that Prairie Farms had paid all
6 fees. P. Pipkin, 2451.
7
385.
As part of an investigation into the incident, the MCSO deputies interviewed
CCMO Chief Jerry Darger about the assault on Mr. Pipkin. See J. Darger 4686-87.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
386.
CCMO Officer Jacob Barlow, Jr., who responded on the first day, was
wearing a body camera that appeared to be on during the incident, yet he refused to turn
over the video to the MCSO, claiming that it was his own private camera and then
claiming that there was no video recorded. See J. Schoppmann, 4822-23 (describing
failure to turn over the video as completely unacceptable given public records
requirements).
387.
The Colorado City Prosecutor proceeded with an investigation based on the
17 citations and arrests of Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin and brought charges in October 2015.
18 K. Brendel, 3658-59. Counsel for Messrs. Chatwin and Pipkin requested interviews with
19 the CCMO officers involved; those interviews were scheduled, delayed and rescheduled,
20 and then never occurred because the charges were dropped. K. Brendel, 3659-61; D.
21 Musser, 4251-52.
22
388.
Colorado City dismissed the trespassing charges against Mr. Pipkin a week
23 before he testified at this trial. P. Pipkin, 2451-52; K. Brendel, 3559-62.

24
25
26
27
5) Systemic, Programmatic Departures from Policing Norms and Standard

Policies, Practices, and Procedures, and Other Circumstantial Evidence of
the CCMOs Intent to Discriminate on the Basis of Religion
389.
The CCMO facilitates its discrimination, and evidences its motivation to act
28 based on discriminatory reasons, by continuing to adhere to broad, systemic departures
99
1 from a normal police departmentthe CCMO are complacent in their high decertification
2 rate, purposefully fail to conduct internal affairs investigations that would uncover and
3 prevent discrimination, purposefully lack other accountability measures like training and
4 policies, employ substandard reporting practices that improperly promote altered police
5 reports and destruction of evidence, continue to use the Town Manager improperly to
6 oversee and influence law-enforcement services, proactively resist working with outside
7 law enforcement, and are complacent about the fact of outside law enforcement and
8 residents mistrust. See infra 390-452.
a. Non-Effect of High Decertification Rate
9
10
390.
The CCMO has continued operating in the same discriminatory way even
11 though POST agencies are constantly decertifying its officers. See infra 391-393.
12
13
391.
The CCMO has the highest decertification rate of any law-enforcement
agency in the State of Arizona. L. Mann, 1567-68.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
392.
Since 2003, seven CCMO officers have been decertified by Arizona POST
and others relinquished their certifications while under POST investigation. See L. Mann,
1566-67; Exs. 241 & 1785. Former CCMO Chief Sam Roundy was decertified after being
convicted of a felony. L. Mann, 1561-62. Former CCMO Chief Fred Barlow was
decertified for communicating with a federal fugitive and refusing to cooperate with an
investigation by the Arizona Attorney Generals Office. Id. at 1563-64. Former CCMO
Chief Jonathan Roundy surrendered his police certification in 2013 as part of a consent
agreement with POST while he was under criminal investigation by the Arizona
Department of Agriculture. See Ex. 1785 (noting, relinquishment of certification shall be
permanent and shall bar Respondent from work as a peace officer in Arizona); J.R.
Servis, 2179; H. Barlow, 2077-78, 2165-66. Former CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow also
relinquished his certification. See W. Jessop, 941-42. CCMO Officer Rodney Holm was
decertified after being convicted of a felony. L. Mann, 1559. CCMO Officer Vance
Barlow was decertified after being convicted of a felony. L. Mann, 1560-61. CCMO
100
1 Officer Mica Barlow was decertified after he refused to testify before a federal grand jury.
2 L. Mann, 1562-63. Former CCMO Officer Preston Barlow was decertified for refusing to
3 cooperate with an investigation by the Arizona Attorney Generals Office. L. Mann,
4 1563-64. Jesse Barlow, who had been hired by the CCMO and sponsored for the Utah
5 Police Academy, had his Utah police certification revoked by Utah POST in December
6 2010 for violating Utah law by willfully falsifying information to obtain his certification
7 and by refusing to respond, or failing to respond truthfully, to questions after having been
8 issued a warning issued based on Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). Ex. 1073;
9 H. Barlow, 2075-77, 2165. After Jesse Barlow could not be a CCMO officer after failing
10 his polygraph, Colorado City hired him to work at the Dispatch Center. D. Darger, 397611 78.
12
393.
The FLDS Church has little concern over its CCMO officers being
13 decertified. At one point, Lyle Jeffs boasted, [T]hey can continue to decertify our police,
14 and we will continue to send men back into the police academy to become officers to
15 prevent any of the out-of-town [law-enforcement agencies] to have to take their place. T.
16 Jeffs, 1310.
17
18
19
20
21
b. Failure to Conduct Internal Affairs Investigations

394.
The CCMO facilitates its discrimination, and evidences its motivation to act
based on discriminatory reasons, by attempting to hide its officers misconduct, and delays
findings of misconduct against, and removal of, its officers by failing to conduct internal
affairs investigations. See infra 395-407.
22
23
24
25
395.
The CCMOs internal affairs practices are deficient according to generally
accepted police practices. J. DeLopez, 2262-66.

396.
Contrary to the CCMOs practice, generally accepted police practice does
26 not allow a police department to rely only on POST to conduct investigations into officer
27 misconduct; the department should initiate their own internal affairs investigations
28 because POST is an administrative agency that deals with the certification and licensing of
101
1 an officer and POST does not investigate all elements of an offense from the perspective
2 of a police department. Internal affairs investigations into officers are more thorough and
3 may result in criminal charges being brought against the officer. J. DeLopez, 2263-64;
4 see also G. Meyer, 4743 (opining that police department should initiate internal affairs
5 investigation when an officer is decertified for committing a felony, or preferably before,
6 prior to the officers indictment); J. Harris, 4864-65 (explaining that, based on experience
7 as police chief, upon learning of POST investigation, would have initiated internal affairs
8 investigation to ensure that complained-of conduct did not occur or to take appropriate
9 action to ensure it did not happen again).
10
397.
The Cities are aware that a police department cannot continue to employ an
11 individual as a police officer if POST decertifies the officer. D. Darger, 3957-58.

12
398.
Despite this, the Cities continued to employ former CCMO Chief Fred
13
Barlow as Chief through 2007, even after his letter to then-fugitive Warren Jeffs,
14
recovered in 2005, was made public. Mr. Barlows employment was terminated only after
15
he was decertified by Arizona POST. Exs. 34 & 1154; H. Barlow, 2072-73; D. Darger,
16
3953-55. Between the time that Fred Barlow was decertified and when the Cities
17
terminated his employment, the Cities put him on leave but continued to pay him. D.
18
Darger, 3818. The CCMO did not conduct any internal affairs investigation into Fred
19
Barlow. H. Barlow, 2073; D. Darger, 3817. Colorado City even provided a $33,000 pay
20
out to Fred Barlow after he was found to have engaged in misconduct and after he was
21
decertified and terminated. See Ex. 1099 at 3; D. Darger 3962.

22
23
24
25
26
27
399.
The CCMO conducted no internal affairs investigation into Preston
Barlows decertification. D. Darger, 3819. Colorado City provided a $23,000 pay out to
Preston Barlow after he was found to have engaged in misconduct and after he was
decertified and terminated. See Ex. 1099 at 3; D. Darger 3962.
400.
The CCMO conducted no internal affairs investigation into Rodney Holm or
28 Vance Barlow, who were decertified for committing felonies. Philip Barlow, 3160-61.
102
401.
The CCMO conducted no internal affairs investigation into Mica Barlow
2 after he sent a letter to fugitive Warren Jeffs, and he too was only terminated by the Cities
3 after Arizona POST decertified him. See Ex. 35; H. Barlow 2074.
4
402.
The CCMO conducted no internal affairs investigation into Jerry Darger
5 following the fatal forklift incident. Philip Barlow, 3158-59; see also supra 246-253.
6
403.
The CCMO conducted no internal affairs investigation into Chief Jonathan
Roundy while he was under investigation by outside law enforcement for a felony. Philip
8
Barlow, 3160; D. Darger, 3965.

9
10
11
12
404.
The CCMO conducted no internal affairs investigations into CCMO
officers potentially improper use of license plate databases. J. DeLopez, 2265.

405.
While the entire CCMO was under investigation by Utah POST in 2007, the
13 Cities promoted from within, promoting Jonathan Roundy to Chief and Helaman Barlow
14 to Sergeant. Ex. 2171; Philip Barlow, 3162-63.
15
406.
While the entire CCMO was again under investigation by Utah POST in
16 2012 for police misconduct, trespassing, and false arrests, the Cities promoted from within
17 again, promoting Helaman Barlow to Chief and Sam Johnson to Sergeant. Ex. 2257;
18 Philip Barlow, 3166-67. While this investigation was going on, and after he had refused
19 to answer questions in depositions in this case based on his rights under the Fifth
20 Amendment, the Cities promoted Officer Curtis Cooke to be the head of the Dispatch
21 Center. Philip Barlow, 3169; D. Darger, 3970.
22
407.
The CCMO has never referred one of its officers to Arizona POST for
23
investigation. G. Meyer, 4742 (Defendants expert, confirming he knows of no such

24
referrals).
25
26
27
28
103
c. Lack of Training and Written Policies and Consequential Lack of

Accountability
1
2
408.
The CCMO facilitates discrimination, and evidences its motivation to act
based on discriminatory reasons, by failing to adopt standard, generally accepted training

4
and policies (including, for example, a written policy guiding how to handle the recurring
5
UEP occupancy disputes), which facilitates the misuse of discretion, a lack of

6
accountability, and favoritism in enforcing the law. See infra 409-413.

7
8
9
10
409.
Training of CCMO officers does not meet generally acceptable police
practices. J. DeLopez, 2244.

410.
The CCMO had no organized field training program until at least 2014.
11 Whereas in typical departments, new officers go through a field training program

12 anywhere from five to ten weeks after graduating from the police academy during which
13 time they receive regular evaluations and are overseen by a specially trained field training
14 officer; there was no such program for new CCMO officers before they begin working
15 independently as officers. J. DeLopez, 2245-48; see also J. Darger, 4653 (explaining that
16 the field training program he went through in 2009 was not standardized).
17
411.
Contrary to generally accepted police practices, CCMO officers do not
18 receive specialized training on UEP Trust Occupancy Agreements, an issue they

19 encounter on a regular basis, and the CCMO does not maintain a policy or any training
20 documents on UEP Trust Occupancy Agreements. J. DeLopez, 2248-50; see also J.
21 Harris, 4847, 4849 (explaining that policy and training are paramount and opining, in a
22 small community like that that was facing those type of continuous disputes over property,
23 that would warrant that the police department did have some type of [] policy and training
24 to explain to the officers how to handle those situations, so they wouldnt have to try to
25 get in touch with the prosecutor); G. Meyer, 4727-28 (opining that officers should get
26 training on how to handle controversial, recurring issues; agreeing that there is no policy
27 in the CCMO policy manual regarding handling Occupancy Agreement disputes; no
28
104
1 formal training on Occupancy Agreement disputes); S. Johnson, 4462-66 (stating that

2 there is no written policy or guidance on handling UEP occupancy disputes); J. Darger,
3 4654, 4666 (stating that he received no training on Occupancy Agreement disputes and
4 stating that CCMO/Cities did not provide CCMO officers instructions after Judge
5 Lindberg issued order criticizing CCMOs handling of Occupancy Agreements, see Ex.
6 3147); K. Brendel, 3594-95 (Colorado City prosecutor, stating that he has been referred a
7 couple dozen cases involving disputes over UEP property).
8
412.
The CCMO did not have language in its policy manual prohibiting
9 discrimination until 2007. G. Meyer, 4728.

10
413.
Without written policies and trainings on an issue, a police department risks
11
officers unintentionally or intentionally violating a policy, inconsistency in the application

12
of a policy, and officers showing favoritism or enforcing the policy in a disparate way. J.
13
DeLopez, 2250.
14
d. Untimely and Altered Police Records
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
414.
based on discriminatory reasons, by failing to follow generally accepted practice regarding

the completion of police reports (e.g., that they be completed at the end of the officers
shift and that subsequent information be provided in supplemental reports), which allows
more discretion and opportunity for the CCMO to write biased, untruthful reports; the
CCMO and the Town Manager consequently have altered and removed evidence from
police reports and dispatch call logs in response to outside investigations. See infra
415-431.
415.
The CCMO provides no training to officers on how to write a police report.
25 J. Darger, 4652-53.
26
416.
The CCMO did not meet generally accepted police practices with regard to
27 their case report writing practices, as the CCMO has altered law-enforcement records,
28 report writing is not standardized, and as CCMO officers do not complete case reports in a
105
1 timely manner. J. DeLopez, 2251-62; see also G. Meyer, 4740 (Defendants expert,
2 testifying that he does not know how many reports CCMO may have altered, what
3 information CCMO may have left out of reports, or in what situations they failed to make
4 reports); supra 169 (describing steps Cities took to allow for destruction of records and
5 limit reach of public records requests when Warren Jeffs was a fugitive).
6
Timing of Report Writing
417.
Generally accepted police practices dictate that officers complete
8 preliminary reports before the end of that shift and only in special circumstances, i.e., an
9 investigation requiring specialized expertise or knowledge to complete the report, would a
10 report be left open for, e.g., a week. J. DeLopez, 2252-54.
11
418.
As of 2014, the CCMO did not have a policy setting a timeframe for officers
12 to complete reports or for supervisors to review reports. J. DeLopez, 2254-55.

13
419.
As of 2014, the CCMO was about a year behind in reviewing officer call
14
logs to verify that reports had been completed, resulting in the former CCMO Chief not
15
knowing whether reports were in fact completed. Additionally, CCMO reports were
16
completed well after the subject incident. J. DeLopez, 2255-56.

17
420.
18
19
20
21
oversight that might identify deficiencies or improprieties and it allows officers to

collaborate and collude on a report or alter the documented facts of a report before
finalizing it. J. DeLopez, 2256-57.
Altering Police Reports and Dispatch Logs
22
421.
23
24
25
26
Non-timely completion of police reports inhibits immediate supervisory
The CCMO would regularly scrub police reports of references to Church
officials and leaders to avoid pulling the Church into a legal or criminal issue. H. Barlow,
2175.
422.
The CCMO edited documents, including police reports, before producing
27 them to the United States as part of this litigation. H. Barlow, 2092-93.

28
106
423.
Town Manager David Darger made changes to a CCMO police report
2 concerning an incident between CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundy and outspoken FLDS
3 critic Willie Jessop that was originally drafted by then-CCMO Chief Helaman Barlow
4 during the pendency of discovery in this litigation. Exs. 296 & 297; H. Barlow, 2093-98;
5 see also D. Darger, 3859.
6
424.
Town Manager David Dargers changes materially altered the report,
7 including reversing its meaning in several places. Exs. 296 (for example, changing [t]he
8 actions of Mr. Jessop did not appear to substantially disrupt the City Business to The
9 actions of Mr. Jessop did appear to disrupt the City Business; changing I found the
10 evidence showed there was a possible threatening or intimidation. I also found there was
11 not sufficient evidence to charge Mr. Jessop with an assault or with false reporting, or
12 with disorderly conduct to I found the evidence showed there was a possible threatening
13 or intimidation & false reporting. I also found there may not be sufficient evidence to
14 charge Mr. Jessop with an assault or with disorderly conduct.); Ex. 297; H. Barlow,
15 2093-98; J. DeLopez, 2259-60.
16
425.
According to proper law-enforcement procedure, it is inappropriate for a
17
civilian city manager to change an official law enforcement record. J. DeLopez, 2258-59;
18
H. Barlow, 2098; see also G. Meyer, 4744 (opining that it is inappropriate for a convicted
19
felon to be involved in editing police reports); see infra 433 (describing Dargers felony
20
conviction).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
426.
To hide evidence that then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy had unlawfully
ordered the killing of a non-FLDS residents horse, the Cities tampered with their dispatch
call logs to delete evidence of multiple calls that the resident, Lydia Stubbs, made to the
Cities in search of the horse. Compare Ex. 310 (Stubbss phone records), with Ex. 295
(dispatch call log). See J.R. Servis, 2193-200 (explaining that multiple calls from the
Stubbs are missing from the Cities dispatch call logs calls and no CCMO or departmental
reports exist for those calls); H. Barlow, 2087-92 (according to normal procedures, and as
107
1 seen by other entries in the call log, calls dialed to the number for the Cities listed in the
2 Stubbss phone records should have routed to the dispatch center, the dispatcher should
3 have created an entry for any complaints in the dispatch log, and the dispatcher should
4 have notified the on-duty CCMO officer to take action on the complaint). Accordingly,
5 the Arizona Department of Agriculture, which was investigating the unlawful killing of
6 the horse, expanded its investigation to include the allegations of tampering with evidence,
7 interfering with a criminal investigation, willful concealment, and fraudulent schemes.
8 J.R. Servis, 2224-25.
9
427.
When Warren Jeffs was a fugitive from the law, the Cities destroyed
10 documents including police logs, misdemeanor reports and citations, and switching from
11 City-owned cell phones to stipends for employees to purchase their own cell phones in
12 order to limit the reach of records requests. See supra 169.
13
428.
The CCMOs internal affairs policy categorizes falsifying reports as a less
14
serious offense, which does not comport with generally accepted police practices, gives
15
officers the impression that falsifying reports is not a serious offense, and may preclude a
16
supervisor from conducting an internal affairs investigation into a matter because the
17
offense is characterized as less serious. J. DeLopez, 2261-62.

18
Removing Witness Statements
19
429.
A complete case file should include any and all witness statements received
20
by the CCMO. H. Barlow, 2084-85.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
430.
The CCMO case file involving an incident on April 6, 2013, in which
Christopher Jessop and Penny Barlow were listed as complainants includes a witness
statement from only one witness Penny Barlow, an FLDS woman despite the fact that
Mr. Jessop, who is non-FLDS, and the other non-FLDS individuals involved in the
incident, also turned witness statements into the CCMO following this incident. Ex. 309;
C. Jessop, 2522-23.
28
108
431.
During the Eco Alliance/Johnson Avenue burglary incident involving Willie
2 Jessop, the CCMO returned a witness statement to a witness without keeping a copy of it
3 for the evidentiary file, which is inappropriate according to generally accepted police
4 practices. J. DeLopez, 2269-70; see also G. Meyer 4744 (confirming that it is
5 inappropriate for the CCMO to intentionally remove witness statements from a file).
e. Improper Involvement and Influence of Town Manager in CCMO

Operations
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
432.
based on discriminatory reasons, by improperly permitting Town Manager David Darger

to oversee the CCMO and law enforcement in the Cities, even after he pled guilty to two
felonies; specifically, David Darger has been involved inappropriately in CCMO
personnel decisions, altered police records, and improperly weighed in on charging
decisions. See infra 433-438.
433.
Colorado City Town Manager David Darger pled guilty to two felony
15 counts of solicitation of misuse of public money in 2013 based on a multi-count

16 indictment. D. Darger, 3770-71, 3937-39; J. Schoppmann, 4810-13. Mr. Darger refers to
17 the prosecution as a politically animated and motivated charge by the Mohave County
18 Attorneys Office and continues to deny his guilt. Id. at 3770, 3772 (No, I did not break
19 the law.). Following his plea, Colorado City put David Darger on administrative leave
20 with pay for 13 days. Id. at 3775-76; Ex. 1136 at 1-2. The Town Council then voted
21 unanimously to reinstate Mr. Darger with normal employment status at a meeting in which
22 Mayor Allred spoke in support of his reinstatement, claiming that the charges were a
23 grey area of the law. Ex. 1136 at 1-2.
24
434.
David Darger has oversight responsibility over all departments of Colorado
25 City, including the CCMO and the Dispatch Center. D. Darger, 3968.
26
435.
David Darger is the brother of CCMO Chief Jerry Darger, who was
27
appointed Chief in 2014 while David Darger was Town Manager. D. Darger, 3801-02; J.
28
109
1 Darger, 4649-50 (explaining that when Jerry Darger was hired as a CCMO officer, David
2 Darger, his brother, was a city employee, and Ron Darger, his father, was a city
3 councilmember).
4
436.
David Darger was inappropriately involved in the editing of police reports.
5 See supra 423-425; Exs. 296 & 297.

6
437.
David Darger is involved in the hiring and discipline of CCMO officers. D.
Darger, 3829. David Darger was involved in the hiring of Daniel Roy Barlow, Jacob
8
Barlow, Jr., and Daniel Musser in 2014. D. Darger, 3834; see generally Ex. 294.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
438.
decisions with Colorado City Prosecutor Ken Brendel. See D. Darger, 4066-69. Cf. J.
Schoppmann, 4813-14 (Deputy County Attorney, noting that he would [a]bsolutely not
consult with David Darger on charging decisions, that the involvement that David Darger
does have in charging decisions with Colorado City Prosecutor Ken Brendel is
alarming, and that it is completely inappropriate for city manager to have a say in
charging decisions). For example, Colorado City Prosecutor Ken Brendel, who has
provided contract prosecutorial services for Colorado City for ten years, stated in an email
to Town Manager David Darger with regard to potentially bringing trespass-related
charges against Bruce Wisan, I do not believe I would waste the ability to charge him in
this instance. D. Darger, 4067-68. Mr. Wisan was then charged with facilitation of
trespass, although the charges were later dismissed. Id. at 4069-70.
f. Pattern of Resistance to Outside Law Enforcement and
Complacency with Lack of Trust by Outside Law Enforcement and
Residents
22
23
24
David Darger also improperly discusses and influences criminal charging
439.
Unlike a normal police department, and evidencing its motivation to act
25 based on discriminatory reasons, the CCMO proactively resists helping outside law
26 enforcement in matters affecting the Churchs interests and is complacent with the lack of
27 trust of outside law enforcement and City residents. See infra 440-450; see also supra
28 32 (relaying FLDS teaching to answer nothing to outside law enforcement).
110
440.
Feeling like it was an attack on the FLDS religion, the CCMO did not
2 cooperate with Mohave Countys investigation of underage marriage in the communities

3 from the late 1990s through the early 2000s. H. Barlow, 2056-57.
4
441.
The CCMOs hindrance of outside law enforcements search for Warren
5 Jeffs while he was a fugitive negatively affected the CCMOs relationship with outside
6 law-enforcement agencies. H. Barlow, 2059-61; see also W. Barlow, 3758-59 (former
7 Communications Supervisor with Dispatch Center, testifying that working relationship
8 with the MCSO deteriorated around 2005).
9
442.
The WCSO did not include the CCMO in its preparations before executing a
10
search warrant on the Bishops Storehouse because the Sheriffs Office did not trust the
11
CCMO. H. Barlow, 2106-07.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
443.
While CCMO officers would assist the WCSO in serving warrants and
locating non-FLDS residents, CCMO officers were less willing to assist in locating an
FLDS resident. For example, the CCMO officers would pull up addresses of non-FLDS
members on their computers, but would not even search their computers for FLDS
members addresses before telling the WCSO that they had not seen the person or did not
know where he/she was living. D. Cashin, 2888-92.
444.
The CCMO, including current Chief Jerry Darger, did not assist the WCSO
20 in locating Bishop John Wayman to serve him with a protective order. The WCSO
21 witnessed another CCMO officer lie and delay the WCSO when the CCMO officer
22 informed the WCSO that he did not even know who John Wayman was. D. Cashin, 289223 93, 2919-20.
24
445.
As detailed above, the CCMO was resistant to the Washington County
25 Attorneys directive and WCSO efforts to remove FLDS members illegally occupying the
26 Holm School in December 2011, which resulted in Judge Lindberg issuing a preliminary
27 injunction documenting that she was deeply distressed to hear about the lack of law
28
111
1 enforcement and protection of Trust assets by the CCMO. Ex. 3147 at 6-7; see supra
2 298-307; D. Cashin, 2894-900, 2918.
3
446.
As the many examples above illustrate, the CCMO calls the Cities
4 misdemeanor prosecutors to sidestep the County Attorneys Offices. See, e.g., supra
5 316-339 (Jerold Nathan Williams arrest); supra 289-297 (William E. Jessop arrest);
6 supra 226-245 (Eco Alliance/Johnson Avenue incident); see also G. Meyer, 4738
7 (opining that CCMO Officer Hyrum Roundys conduct at the Eco Alliance/Johnson
8 Avenue incident, where Officer Roundy disregarded a MCSO deputys direction, was not
9 cooperative).
10
447.
During their arrests of Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin at the Zoo in October
11
2015, the CCMO disregarded Mohave Countys protest that the CCMO should not arrest
12
them. See supra 375; see also J. Schoppmann, 4818-19 (noting that CCMO arrested
13
Pipkin and Chatwin despite the fact that both CCMO and MCSO witnessed Pipkin and
14
Chatwin reach an agreement with the alleged occupier of the property).

15
16
17
18
19
448.
The Mohave County Attorneys Office, the chief law-enforcement entity for
the county, has informed the Colorado City Prosecutor that it does not trust the CCMO.
K. Brendel, 3634-35.
449.
The CCMO did not cooperate with the Arizona Department of Agricultures
20 investigation into the unlawful killing of a horse. J.R. Servis, 2191-93 (Chief Roundy
21 would not return investigators calls, CCMO would not provide name of the dispatcher on
22 duty, and CCMO would not provide records of then-CCMO Chief Roundys activities
23 related to the incident).
24
450.
Non-FLDS members of the community do not feel like they can rely on the
25 CCMO and frequently call the County Sheriffs Offices instead of the local CCMO. C.
26 Jessop, 2546-47, 2575; D. Cashin, 2907; J. Harris, 4865; see also supra 325 (describing
27 Jerold Nathan Williams calling the MCSO prior to his arrest by the CCMO).
28
112
g. Other Findings of Discrimination
1
2
451.
The jury found that Defendants had engaged in a pattern or practice of
3 conduct that violated the Fair Housing Act by: (1) making housing unavailable or denying
4 housing opportunities to individuals because of religion; (2) discriminating against non5 FLDS individuals in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling,
6 or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of religion;
7 and (3) coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with an individual in the exercise
8 or enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunities or the right to equal treatment in
9 the terms, conditions, privileges, and services in connection with housing, or on account
10 of that individual having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or
11 enjoyment of those rights. See Verdict at 7, 9, 11, ECF No. 932.
12
452.
These jury findings were based on evidence that the Cities used the CCMO
13 as part of their larger effort to use multiple municipal tools to make housing unavailable,
14 deny or discriminate in the provision of services to non-FLDS individuals, or intimidate or
15 retaliate against non-FLDS individuals.
16
D. Defendants Pattern or Practice of Violating the Fourth Amendment
17
1) Legal Standard
18
453.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by
19 the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or
20 vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest. Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 560 F.3d
21 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)).
22
454.
A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference
23 with an individuals possessory interests in that property. Slodal v. Cook Cty., Ill., 506
24 U.S. 56, 61 (citing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)) (no privacy
25 interest required to make a seizure unreasonable). The intentional killing of an animal in
26 violation of state law constitutes an unreasonable seizure of property. See, e.g., Fuller v.
27 Vines, 1997 WL 377162, 117 F.3d 1425, 1425 (9th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (killing dog
28
113
1 constitutes seizure). The reasonableness of a seizure depends on the circumstances of the

2 seizure, balanc[ing] the invasion of [the persons] possessory interests in their personal
3 belongings against the [governments] reasons for taking the property. See Lavan v.
4 City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that even if the seizure
5 of property would have been deemed reasonable had the City held it for return to its owner
6 instead of immediately destroying it, the Citys destruction of the property rendered the
7 seizure unreasonable); see also id. at 1029 (noting that seizure of abandoned property in
8 accordance with city ordinance remains subject to Fourth Amendments reasonableness
9 requirement).
10
455.
Arrests require probable cause of a crime, Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles,
11 308 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2002), while investigatory stops require reasonable suspicion
12 that criminal activity is afoot. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273-74. In determining the
13 reasonableness of the seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the officers subjective
14 motivation is irrelevant; the analysis focuses on whether the facts the officer knows
15 objectively provide the requisite probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Whren v. United
16 States, 517 U.S. 806, 812-14 (1996).
17
456.
Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts which, together
18
with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular
19
person detained is engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Michael R., 90 F.3d
20
340, 346 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). The suspicion requires a credible basis with a
21
sufficient indicia of reliability, Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270 (2000) (citation
22
omitted), and may only be justified by reference to factors that were present up to the time
23
the stop was made. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1129 n.11 (9th
24
Cir. 2000). A seizures reasonableness must be evaluated by looking at the totality of the
25
circumstances. United States v. Alvarez, 899 F.2d 833, 836 (9th Cir. 1990).
26
27
28
457.
Generally, an investigatory stop detention involves no more than a brief
stop, interrogation and, under proper circumstances, a brief check for weapons. United
114
1 States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). If the stop
2 proceeds beyond these limitations, an arrest occurs, which requires probable cause. Id.
3 Courts examine the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether an investigative
4 detention has ripened into an arrest focusing on the perspective of the person seized, rather
5 than the subjective beliefs of the law enforcement officers. Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid
6 Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Charley, 396
7 F.3d 1074, 1080 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question is thus
8 whether a reasonable innocent person in [the same] circumstances would not have felt free
9 to leave after brief questioning. Id.; see also United States v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d
10 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2009) ([I]t is well-established that intrusive measures may convert a
11 stop into an arrest if the measures would cause a reasonable person to feel that he or she
12 will not be free to leave after brief questioning.).
13
458.
The test for whether probable cause exists is whether at the moment of
14 arrest the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers and of
15 which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent
16 [person] in believing that the [arrestee] had committed or was committing an offense.
17 Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 471 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States
18 v. Jensen, 425 F.3d 698, 704 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted)). [I]in seeking to establish
19 probable cause, officers may not solely rely on the claim of a citizen witness, but must
20 independently investigate the basis of the witness knowledge or interview other
21 witnesses. United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731, 742 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
22 Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also
23 Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 767 (9th Cir. 2009) ([S]tatements from a witness,
24 without further investigation by the police, are insufficient to support probable cause.).
25
26
2) Unreasonable Seizure of Property by Euthanizing Horse

459.
The CCMO unreasonably seized property by euthanizing the horse of a non-
27 FLDS woman, when the CCMO in fact had knowledge, or could have obtained such
28
115
1 knowledge upon reasonable investigation, of the identity of the horses owner. The
2 circumstances of the incident make the CCMOs purported justification not credible,
3 especially given evidence that they altered police records to cover up their conduct. See
4 infra 460-469; supra 426.
5
460.
On June 22, 2010, the Arizona Department of Agriculture received a
6 complaint from Ms. Lydia Stubbs, a non-FLDS individual, that the CCMO had
7 impounded one of her horses and, despite her attempts to contact the CCMO on multiple
8 occasions to get the animal out of impound, the CCMO subsequently euthanized the horse
9 without Ms. Stubbss consent or knowledge. J.R. Servis, 2181.
10
461.
The horse was impounded on April 8, 2010, and euthanized on or about
11
May 7, 2010. J.R. Servis, 2184-85, 2189; Ex. 1788.

12
13
14
15
16
462.
Then-CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy authorized the euthanization of the
horse by the Cities animal control officer after the horse had been impounded by the
Cities for three weeks. J.R. Servis, 2183-84.
463.
The Stubbs family was known in the community, including by CCMO
17 officers, to be non-FLDS. H. Barlow, 2105.

18
464.
The Department of Agriculture proceeded to investigate whether the CCMO
19 unlawfully killed the horse. J.R. Servis, 2181.

20
465.
The Department of Agriculture investigator, Lieutenant Servis, found Chief
21
Roundys statements that the CCMO could not locate the horses owner to be non22
persuasive and did not credit Chief Roundys statement that he had actually tried to
23
locate the horses owner. There had been multiple recent incidents involving the Stubbss
24
livestock getting loose in town as a result of community members cutting down the
25
Stubbs fences and tearing down their gates. Additionally, the CCMO had impounded the
26
horse at issue on August 1, 2009, less than a year prior to the impoundment at issue. J.R.
27
Servis, 2185-88; Ex. 324A (brand inspection of the horse at issue from the 2009
28
116
1 impoundment noting unique identifiers on the horse and listing the horses owner); see
2 also S. Johnson, 4527 (testifying that Officers Curtis Cooke and Sam Johnson, and the
3 animal control officer, all suspected it was Lydia Stubbs horse at the time it was
4 impounded).
5
466.
The CCMO had never euthanized a horse before Chief Roundy ordered the
6 euthanization of the Stubbss horse and they have not euthanized a horse since. S.
7 Johnson, 4527-28 (testifying he was shocked when he learned that Stubbs horse had
8 been euthanized).
9
467.
City ordinances did not give the CCMO Chief the lawful right to kill the
10
horse. J.R. Servis, 2184, 2215-16; Ex. 1806 (Colorado City Code, Chapter 90: Animals).
11
Regardless, per Arizona law, only the owner, or a state veterinarian in certain instances, is
12
permitted to kill livestock. J.R. Servis, 2179-80. Under Arizona law, the CCMO is
13
required to turn over any livestock at large or whose owner cannot be located to the
14
Department of Agriculture so that the Department of Agriculture may dispose of the

15
livestock appropriately and retain any proceeds for the owners eventual collection. Id.at
16
2215-16. The CCMO was aware of this procedure, as seen by the fact that they had
17
followed this procedure previously, including with respect to the horse at issue in 2009.
18
Id. at 2223-24; see also Ex. 324A.

19
20
21
22
23
468.
The CCMO covered up evidence that Ms. Stubbs had called the CCMO
looking for the horse on multiple occasions, including by deleting calls from the dispatch
log and refusing to turn over documents to the investigator. See supra 426 & 449.
469.
Former CCMO Chief Jonathan Roundy is currently under criminal
24 investigation by the Arizona Department of Agriculture for unlawful killing of livestock, a

25 felony. J.R. Servis, 2178-79, 2190-91, 2201 (stating that horse was valued at $10,000 and
26 that probable cause exists that Chief Roundy committed unlawful killing of livestock).
27
28
117
3) Unreasonable Seizure of Persons and Arrests Without Probable Cause

a. Unreasonable Detention of Steve Bateman
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
470.
The CCMO unreasonably detained Steve Bateman because the Church
wanted to prevent Mr. Bateman (non-FLDS) from helping his girlfriend to leave the
community, and because Mr. Bateman was disobeying a Church directive to stay away
from his girlfriend and the community. The CCMO could not articulate any specific,
particularized facts justifying the detention and the evidence shows it was instead justified
by illegitimate, unreasonable concernsthat Mr. Bateman, an apostate, was violating
orders of the FLDS Church in returning to the community and visiting his girlfriend. See
infra 471-478.
471.
In 2005, Mr. Bateman, a teenager at the time, moved away from Short
12 Creek. Contrary to FLDS rules, he had been dating a girl in the community and continued
13 to sneak back to visit her after he moved away from the community. S. Bateman, 232314 24. He was eventually found out and received a call from his father, who was with the
15 FLDS Bishop at the time of the call, and who asked Mr. Bateman whether he was
16 planning to continue seeing his girlfriend. Id. Mr. Bateman told his father that he refused
17 to stop dating the girl. Id. at 2324. Following that call, Mr. Batemans status in the
18 community changed and he was no longer allowed at the home of his father, who was still
19 a member of the FLDS Church. See id. (Once you get to that point and youre told not to
20 come home, everything changes. Anybody you did know has completely cut you off
21 thats inside there.).
22
472.
Mr. Bateman had previously helped his girlfriend to escape the community
23 by driving her to Salt Lake City and contacting Child Protective Services; she was later
24 returned to her parents custody, however, and went back to Short Creek. S. Bateman,
25 2321-23.
26
27
28
118
473.
Mr. Bateman continued to sneak into Short Creek to visit his girlfriend. S.
2 Bateman, 2325. Every time he came into town, either the CCMO or Church Security was
3 parked on the main road coming into town and would follow him. Id.
4
474.
One night in July 2005, Mr. Bateman came to Short Creek to see his
5 girlfriend. He parked his vehicle in the parking lot of a school in the community and
6 walked to his girlfriends house. S. Bateman, 2325-26.
7
475.
Mr. Bateman returned to his car after visiting with his girlfriend. As he
arrived at his car, two CCMO vehicles pulled up to his car with their spotlights on and two
9
CCMO officers immediately got out. S. Bateman, 2329. The CCMO officers walked up
10
to Mr. Batemans car and shined their flashlights in the car. Id. at 2330. Mr. Bateman
11
asked the officers if there was a problem and they would not respond. Id. The only
12
information they gave Mr. Bateman was that his car was suspicious. Id. Mr. Bateman
13
again asked if he was doing anything wrong, and the officers did not respond. Id.
14
15
16
17
18
476.
The CCMO officers did not ask Mr. Bateman for his name or ask to see any
identification. They gave him no justification for the stop besides stating that his car
looked suspicious. S. Bateman, 2330.
477.
During this interaction, Mr. Bateman did not feel like he was free to leave.
19 S. Bateman, 2330-31 (Right when they pulled up, I mean, you got two officers coming in
20 lights and, you know, spotlights on you. You know, you seem like you were, you know,
21 doing something wrong. You couldnt go anywhere until it got figured out.).
22
478.
The CCMO never issued Mr. Bateman a ticket or any sort of citation. S.
23 Bateman, 2331.
24
25
26
27
b. Unreasonable Arrest of Isaac Wyler in December 2015

479.
As detailed above, the CCMO unreasonably arrested Isaac Wyler for
purportedly trespassing on UEP property in December 2015, shortly before Isaac Wyler
was to testify at this trial. See supra 282-288. The CCMO officer summarily accepted
28
119
1 the unverified occupancy claim of a woman (who arrived after Officer Roundy confronted
2 Mr. Wyler) and arrested and took Mr. Wyler (and his videographer) to jail for two hours
3 before Mr. Wyler could question the womans claim. No charges were filed. The
4 circumstances of the incident make the CCMO officers purported justification for Mr.
5 Wylers arrest not credible, and Mr. Wylers arrest was therefore unreasonable.
c. Unreasonable Arrests of Patrick Pipkin & Andrew Chatwin in

October 2015
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
480.
Patrick Pipkin and Andrew Chatwin twice for purportedly trespassing after they had
completed a commercial eviction for the UEP property formerly used as a zoo. See supra
361-388. The circumstances of the incidentssuch as the CCMO unreasonably
attempting to justify these arrests with a non-present FLDS member who purportedly
claimed he was residing in a small horse tack shed on the property, lack of investigation of
the non-present FLDS members claim, the CCMO changing their initial acknowledgment
that Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin had a right to the property, and the CCMO arresting them
despite the MCSOs helping with the eviction and protesting against the arrests by the
CCMOmake the CCMO officers purported justification supporting the arrests of
Messrs. Pipkin and Chatwin not credible, and their arrests were therefore unreasonable.
d. Unreasonable Arrest of Richard Holm in July 2015
19
20
As detailed above, the CCMO unreasonably arrested non-FLDS individuals
481.
As detailed above, the CCMO did not have a credible justification when it
21 falsely arrested Richard Holm in July 2015 for felony theft, receiving stolen property, and
22 trespassing, when individuals left vehicles on his property. See supra 308-315. Mr.
23 Holm made clear to the CCMO officer that he owned the land, that the vehicles had been
24 left on his property, and that he did not claim the vehicles were his and would return them
25 to whoever proved ownership. Despite this knowledge, the CCMO officer arrested Mr.
26 Holm on charges of felony theft, receiving stolen property, and trespassing on his own
27 property. The circumstances of the incident make the officers purported justification not
28 credible, and Mr. Holms arrest was therefore unreasonable.
120
e. Unreasonable Arrest of Guy Timpson in 2014
1
2
482.
3 unreasonably arrested Guy Timpson in 2014 for trespass when Mr. Timpson was in the
4 process of posting and documenting his posting of eviction notices on UEP property he
5 claimed a right to occupy. See supra 349-356. The CCMO forcibly arrested Mr.
6 Timpson without listening to Mr. Timpsons justifications and refused to look at the UEP
7 Trust paperwork that Mr. Timpson had posted. The circumstances of the incident make
8 the officers purported justification not credible, and Mr. Timpsons forcible arrest was
9 therefore unreasonable.
f. Unreasonable Arrest of Jerold Nathan Williams at his Home in 2012
10
11
483.
12 physically arrested Jerold Nathan Williams and charged him with criminal trespassing at
13 his home. See supra 316-339. The circumstances of the incidentsuch as the CCMO
14 becoming agitated and quickly arresting Mr. Williams before the MCSO could arrive, the
15 CCMO coaching witnesses on what to put in their statements, and the CCMO listing Mr.
16 Williamss last known address as the home where he was purportedly trespassingmake
17 the CCMO officers purported justification not credible. Mr. Williamss physical arrest
18 and removal was therefore unreasonable.
g. Unreasonable Arrest of William E. Jessop
19
20
484.
As detailed above, the CCMO unreasonably arrested former FLDS Bishop
21 William E. Jessop for trespassing at a home where his wife lived and had given him
22 permission to enter. See supra 289-297. The circumstances of the incident make the
23 CCMO officers purported justification for arresting Mr. Jessop not credible, and show
24 that the officers, at best, had a civil property dispute between his wifes property interest
25 in the home and the property interest of another occupant who objected to Mr. Jessops
26 presence. Mr. Jessops physical arrest and removal was therefore unreasonable.
27
28
121
Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December 2016,

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM
Chief
Special Litigation Section
2
3
4
SAMEENA SHINA MAJEED

Chief
Housing and Civil Enforcement Section
5
6
R. TAMAR HAGLER
CHRISTY E. LOPEZ
Deputy Chiefs
7
8
9
ERIC W. TREENE
Special Counsel
10
11
/s/ Emily M. Savner

SEAN R. KEVENEY
MATTHEW J. DONNELLY
EMILY M. SAVNER
SHARON I. BRETT
Attorneys
Phone:
(202) 353-4081
Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
122

Feds Closing Brief in FLDS Discrimination Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feds Closing Brief in FLDS Discrimination Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 28

Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar #1901958)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

Town of Colorado City, Arizona, et al.,

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 28

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS Church

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 28

II. RELIEF NECESSARY TO REMEDY DEFENDANTS PATTERN OR

The unprecedented nature of Defendants pattern or practice of violating multiple

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 28

(3) Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. This verdict confirmed

Defendants systemic violation of the Establishment Clause is unprecedented; no

7 of fact, was supported by voluminous evidence of the CCMOs intentional, deeply

This unprecedented control of a law enforcement agency by a church directly

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 28

previous interventions, is illustrated further by its discriminatory and unreasonable arrests,

2. Experts in Police Administration and in the CCMOs Law Enforcement

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 28

reportingshowed Defendants would effectively undermine a powerless monitor and

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 7 of 28

further delay in providing residents with constitutional policing.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 28

3. The Counties Can Provide Constitutional and Superior Police Services.

These County Sheriffs already have a plan for providing cross-jurisdictional

formalized a mutual-aid agreement regarding cross-jurisdictional policing. Schoppmann

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 28

Pulsipher Hrg Tr. 247-50 (describing service-related benefits of centralization of dispatch

23 providing services to the Cities, including options for cost-effective, non-duplicative

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 28

7 operations, and equipment costs).

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 11 of 28

Defendants police consultant. See id. (projecting costs of consultants plan to be

24 injunctive relief for Defendants longstanding, pattern and practice of constitutional

A transition to the Sheriffs providing policing services is the best means of

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 12 of 28

B. Specific and Comprehensive Injunctive Relief is Necessary to Remedy

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 13 of 28

As the religious motivations behind City officials actions show no signs of

2 diminishingas seen by their trial and post-trial admissions of continued adherence to

1. Ending Discrimination Against Non-FLDS Residents Requires Approval of

non-FLDS, legitimate occupancy-agreement-holder; and lessen the impact of other City

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 14 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 15 of 28

1 standard practice for cities to grandfather in already-developed land and not

2 retroactively apply a new subdivision ordinance. Id. at 414-15.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 16 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 17 of 28

homes to non-FLDS families.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 18 of 28

2. Policies and Procedures for Handling Building Permits Would Promote

Evidence established that the Cities building-permit form previously contained a

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 19 of 28

1 communicate with the Trust.

2 complicit in occupants modifying Trust property without permission, including in ways

of including a requirement that a non-owner applicant obtain the owners permission

26 Barlow Trial Tr. 1622-23.

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 20 of 28

building permits in a discriminatory manner and make future discrimination easier to

Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 1022 Filed 12/09/16 Page 21 of 28

3 customer presents the Cities with proof of a court-ordered eviction.

The Cities may have

customer after a period of time. See Barlow Hrg Tr. 26-27.

28 residents who refuse to cooperate with Trust).