@GaryO:One other thing...Why did you bring up Shurtleff's
religious beliefs in your first comment? You claim that he claims to be "an
innocent Christian". I then re-read the article and can't find any
mention of Shurtleff's personal religious convictions or beliefs. Are you
making assumptions in order to make personal criticisms of a known conservative?
Based off of many of your past ultra-liberal and biased comments and criticisms
of conservatives in other articles... almost to the point of being ridiculous,
stretching the truth a bit to level an accusation in this case wouldn't be
surprising. Your earlier comment attack of Mark Shurtleff almost
seemed to be hate-speech... or at least a personal attack as a minimum. As
such, I'm quite surprised that first comment of yours to this article was
@ GaryO:Being in Virginia, what is your interest and stake in Utah
politics? And what qualifies you to make assessments and criticisms of
Utah's justice system? There doesn't seem to be anything that you
won't try to get involved in... no matter how distant you actually are from
the subject at hand... literally and figuratively. I know of no one
in Utah who cares at all about the day to day doings of Virginia state politics.
Nor do I know of any Utahans who peruse Virginia online newspapers in order to
throw in their two-bits worth. You seem to be an anomaly.
It seems pretty evident why the prior AG before the 2012 election wanted so much
that the recent AG was elected and went public again with his support the end of
October 2012. He wanted an AG that would actively pursue his trail and put the
investigations of both of them in disarray. Mr. Swallow resigns but that
doesn't mean he was let off the hook. How many years will this go on with
3 top elected officials doing anything directly as leaders in their party or
state government. Even Illinois acts on its elected officials, over and over
when those officials deny to the end their involvement. RICO is not Uncle Rico
in Napoleon Dynamite, it is sort of an AG's type of tool that can be
subverted with loss of evidence.
This is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Mr. Shurtleff,
KSAMPOW:Yes, it would be inappropriate and unwise for a potential
defendant to make comments about his case in the media. The problem here is that
both Mr Shurtleff and Mr. Swallow have refused, on many occasions, to cooperate
with the legally appointed investigators. That is exactly the place they should
be presenting their case.....if they have one.
Mr. Shurtleff, who use to be the top state legal officer in Utah, has made two
mistakes. He has taken his case of dealing with felons into the public realm
prior to trial. Second, Shurtleff apparently tells prosecutor Troy Rawlings that
he has more Twitter followers! This reinforces the image of Shurtleff seeing his
former elected position and present image as being a matter of political and
financial power. Certainly the prosecutors will now renew their efforts to
define this case as criminal right and wrong and the even-handed sanctity of
democracy in Utah. Somehow Mr. Shurtleff lost his vision of who and what he was
an agent of during his time "serving" the people of Utah.
Shurtleff intervened personally in Jenson's case leading to a plea
agreement that the judge called a "sweetheart deal" and refused to
accept. While all this is taking place, and not long before another case was
filed against Jenson, Shurtleff (along with Swallow) accepts luxury vacation
gifts from Jenson. And he claims he has acted neither illegally nor
unethically.In fact, his conduct is both illegal and unethical.
Utah's Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act states at Section 67-16-5
that "It is an offense for a public officer or public employee to knowingly
receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit ... a gift of substantial value ... if
the public officer or public employee recently has been, is now, or in the near
future may be involved in any governmental action directly affecting the donor
..."Violation of the law is a second degree felony, punishable
by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.It seems to me the
law is pretty clear. And Shurtleff's claim that "I will win" if
prosecuted is more bravado than reality.
Objectified:As anyone knows a defendant (even one who is totally innocent)
is unwise to make his case in the media when legal action is pending. The
article is based on innuendo and Shurtleff deserves his day in court.Gary
O.:"Utah's criminal justice system" will get to the bottom of
this. As has clearly been demonstrated, John Swallow acted unethically and
criminally. He will suffer the appropriate consequences. That does not mean
his predecessor and mentor did so. Indeed Shurtleff has not ever been accused
of wrongdoing separate from John Swallow's misdeeds - this may very well be
a political smear and unjustified "guilt by association."
Hey GD - So you think people are out to get poor, poor Mark Shurtlef, huh?"They rely on the word of a criminal entirely."Not
entirely, yes there's Jensen's testimony and then there is the
surreptitious recording that speaks volumes.It looks to me like
we're dealing with the word of two criminals at least . . a convicted
criminal and an unconvicted criminal.You seem to be under the
impression that a man cannot be a criminal unless he's convicted. The
crimes he commits are immaterial.If you're a Shurtleff fan, you
shouldn't sweat it. It's not likely he'll ever go to prison or
even be convicted.Utah's CRIMINAL so-called "justice"
system will see to that.
You're going to Jail Mark! And you deserve it!
I would like to see the investigators go through the same process. I doubt few
would come out smelling like a rose. This has been a joke from the beginning.
They rely on the word of a criminal entirely. I like Shurtleff and Swallow. I
feel bad for both of them. It seems like a vendetta against the two of them.
They are going to find something wrong even if it takes millions of state
dollars to find something wrong. It is time to stop.
Considering that it was Shurtluf employed and groomed his failed successor -
tall tails indeed. I hope our new Attorney General and Special Council, can
get to the bottom of all this "tallness" and get justice.
I guess Shurtleff and Swallow are hoping people believe the headlines, that
it's all just a "tall tale." The problem is, the facts are not in
any sort of "tale" at all. It's a fact, all else discarded for the
moment, that Shurtleff and Swallow both went to Jensen's very expensive
resort retreat at Jensen's expense, when Shurtleff's office was
pointing the finger at Jensen for criminal activity and Shurtleff knew it. I
hope these two spend a long time behind bars. Utah deserves better. No ethical
lawyer would ever, ever create such a conflict of interest, especially not one
supposedly representing the people of an entire state.
Yes... they are based on SHURTLEFF'S tall tales. And Swallow's.
I would like nothing more than to see both of these these people prosecuted.
Definitely Swallow more than Shurtleff .the truth is they are both guilty and by
destroying the necessary data have made it difficult for this to occur. I
applaud any effort by the current Atty. Gen. to find evidence against both of
them and try to put them in prison for as long as possible. After all, this is
what they made a point of doing to everyone else who breaks the law.
The lack of Shurtleff's side of the story in the report is wholly the
result of Shurtleff's decision not to share his side...it's silly (and
disengeneuous) for him to complain that the report is one sided.Also, painting Jensen as an unreliable jailhouse snitch is more than a bit
ironic...he's in jail only over the objection of Shurtleff who signed off
on a settlement where he'd get no jail time. And if Shurleff was so
convinced that Jensen is a schemeing low-life, it really makes you wonder why he
thought it was ok to stay, as a guest of Jensen, at his posh digs in SoCal. Also high on the irony scale is Shurtleff trying to take some credit for
the report's conclusion that Jensen's prosecution wasn't
prejudiced by Shurtleff's actions. It was only the Judge who rejected
the plea deal that kept Shurtleff from prejudicing the prosecution...it
certainly wasn't Shurtleff.
I think this state will look forward to Mr Shurtleff explaining this one.
It really wouldn't be "one-sided" if they hadn't destroyed
evidence proving their "guilt or innocence." Now the State has to spend
even more money to unscramble potential evidence to prosecute these unethical
I agree with Shurtleff 110% when he says this is all based on "tall
tales."Trouble is, it's Shurtleff and Swallow who are
telling the tall tales.
he took money from the pay day stores which pray on the poor keeping them in the
red forever. they are on every corner in some towns they charge more interest
than organized crime does. he did not care about the poor.
"I'm anxious for the day when I get to fully set the record
straight," Shurtleff said in this article.And yet both he and Swallow
turned down requests to be interviewed and tell their side of things for the
report and before it was released. Makes it seem Shurtleff isn't quite as
anxious as he's now saying.Whenever serious and potentially
viable allegations are made, it behooves the legal system to look into them.
That is exactly what Reyes did in this case. And to avoid any appearance of
potential bias or impropriety, he hired a university law professor and a former
judge to do the investigation. Seems pretty sensible. And now
because Shurtleff doesn't like all of its findings (after turning down a
chance for rebuttal before the release of the report), he's now making
accusations of "tall tales" and such. But having a previous
"fixer" (which hasn't been denied) for special A.G. access and
special considerations is very disturbing to me and others.Even
though I voted for Shurtleff multiple times, I have to admit that this
doesn't come across as very professional or help his case against alleged