Message ID: 275622
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2005-06-22 15:39:00
Subject: Mooney/Merkey

Between last December and last week, Merkey put up
another short-lived "I'm stark raving
mad" site called, which related
to the federal case Oklevueha Earthwalks
Native American Church, James "Flaming
Eagle" Mooney, and Linda Mooney vs.
Bryson et al., 2:05-cv-00383-DAK (yes,
the "K" is for Kimball -- try to keep
up, heimdal)

Mooney apparently espouses
peyote-for-the-people, regardless of
race. This position, as well as Mooney
himself, was also endorsed in that 2001
LKML post that was apparently written by

> Let anyone in New York know who is our
> friend on this list that the Utah
> Native American Church has sent James
> Mooney to New York City to conduct
> ceremonies for the victims and their
> families. ... I am sending him
> enough peyote to trip out half the
> city. ... All are welcome and their
> families. The laws in New York allow
> non-Indians to use peyote for
> religious purposes of any race, unlike
> Utah.

The Oklevueha complaint is surprisingly
non-insane-sounding. It's written by an
attorney (Randall Marshall, Utah Bar
#5508) and it tells a story something
like this:

1. Mooney's organization was busted for
distributing peyote to people who are
not members of a federally-recognized
Indian tribe.

2. Mooney got the Utah Supreme Court to
exonerate him in July 2004.

3. Now Mooney wants the authorities to
compensate him for all the trouble.

The authorities he's suing are Utah
County and four county employees. The
narrative describes the actions of those
people in the apparently failed
prosecution of Mooney.

The weird thing is that Merkey is also
named as a defendant, with no
explanation. The only mention of him I
can find in the whole complaint is this:

> 32. Defendants James Pritchard, Terri
> Holland, and Jeff Murkey are
> individuals who, conspired with and
> acted in concert with the other named
> Defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of
> their constitutionally protected
> rights and, in doing so, not only
> acted as individuals but also under
> color of state law or authority.

Merkey holds no office of authority, so
this doesn't make much sense.

That complaint was filed almost two
months ago, but, so far (or, as of
Monday when I checked the docket),
Mooney has not filed proof of service
upon *any* of the defendants. Perhaps
Pritchard and Holland are
difficult-to-track-down vagrants, but
how hard can it be to find Utah County?
One defendant responded anyway: Merkey,
the defendant that doesn't appear to
have anything to do with case. Go

Many paragraphs of Merkey's complaint
against Perens et al. appear to have
been cribbed from Mooney's complaint
*against* Merkey (including the last
paragraph and, perhaps, the April filing
date that followed it).

I'm almost left wondering if Mooney and
Merkey are dissociated personalities of
the same physical person. Just to be
safe, I recommend that they both be
placed in "a file of people to be

Message ID: 275677
Posted By: stats_for_all
Posted On: 2005-06-22 17:43:00
Subject: Re: Mooney/Merkey

The Utah Daily Herald make clear that a federal indictment of James Mooney is being sought.

Jeff Merkey appears to be a key witness in this case. He claims to have traveled with the federal authorities on Monday's raid of the Mooney homestead.

Merkey's current tom-foolery can only deminish his credibility as a witness for the prosecution in a Mooney trial.

The federal agents must not be amused. Does their indictment depend on the testimony of a raving lunatic?

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "al_petrofsky", "stats_for_all" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2005 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.