There is a lot of ground to cover in this post. We will begin with a timeline of known events, filings and letters issued during the last few weeks. Some of these events have already been covered or mentioned here. Also, we will note which ones have been reported by Rccatalyst.com.
In summary, five defendants from the Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) were indicted in January of this year on several charges including felony assault and second degree kidnapping stemming from events on January 27, 2013. The five defendants include Brooke M. Covington, Justin B. Covington, Sarah Covington Anderson, Robert Lewis Walker, Jr. and Adam Bartley. Tomblin, Farmer & Morris (TFM) started out as counsel for the five. After hearing a Motion to Disqualify TFM on August 3rd, Judge Marvin Pope issued an ORDER of Disqualification of TFM and their associates for representing any of the five. Adam Bartley and Robert Lewis Walker, Jr. have since secured counsel. Bartley’s attorney is Robert Denton and Robert Walker’s attorney is Matthew Cabe. Both attorneys practice in Morganton. TFM filed a Motion to Reconsider the Disqualification and took on Angela Beeker to argue for them. August 27th, Judge Pope issued an ORDER denying the Motion to Reconsider Disqualification.
9/11/15- Letter from Assistant District Attorney Garland Byers to Attorney Denton (not placed in court file until 9/18) (Rccatalyst.com 9/26) Byers explains the State’s position with Bartley’s bond and offered plea. Byers points out that Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF) holds the security (land) for the bond and for any reason or no reason have the option to withdraw their security. This could land Bartley in jail until other means or considerations for a bond are made. The power that WOFF has in holding the bonds of all five defendants is a matter of concern or Byers and he is seeking a way of “eliminating this situation.” In this letter, Byers admits concerning the plea, he is “keeping the offer open and disregarding your client’s premature rejection…” This is not a surprise in my eyes.
9/14/15- Attorney Beeker files Motion to Withdraw from counsel and Motion to Continue – Motion to Withdraw has not been heard because of the Stay issued 9/17, therefore Beeker remains as counsel for Brooke, Justin and Sarah- in the eyes of Superior Court. (Rccatalyst.com 9/15)
9/15/15- Josh Farmer files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (157 pages) – this was mentioned in previous post. Second filing by Mr. Farmer included a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay. (19 pages) We will review the main points of the first filing in this post.
Writ of Certiorari
Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay.
9/17/15 – John H. Connell, Clerk of the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a stay of further trial proceedings until the Court ruled on the two documents filed by Josh Farmer. (Rccatalyst.com 9/21)
9/17/15—Attorney Denton sends letter to Garland Byers saying the letter of 9/11 sent to wrong fax number and he found it in the file. (Rccatalyst.com 9/26)
9/18/15 – Attorney Denton’s Motion to Continue All Motions is received into court records about 2:48PM. We covered this Motion in the previous post.
9/18/15—Letter dated 9/18/15 from Byers to Denton is placed in court about 4:31PM. (Rccatalyst.com reported 9/26/15) Byers states there is no motion by the State to join the cases of the five defendants. He points out the letter from September 11th was not placed in the court file until 9/15 and because of Denton’s accusations covered in the previous post including “tomfoolery,” Byers will only correspond to Denton in writing.
9/21/15- Attorney Denton filed Addendum to Motion to Continue All Motions just as court begins. This filing was mentioned in court however, I do not have a clear copy. The results of this session – Judge Pope issued continuances for all five defendants until the NC Court of Appeals decides the issues before them. The Court of Appeals reconvenes in October.(Rccatalyst.com 9/21/15)
9/23/15 – NC Attorney General Roy Cooper filed the “State’s Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari” (10 pages) We will cover the main points in a future post.
So, as you can tell, these cases are very active for not even reaching the actual trial phase! The players are lining up for a myriad of moves and counter moves. To which we will review the move of Josh Farmer in filing the two Petitions on September 15th with the Court of Appeals.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari has an index. The index lists a Table of Authorities (Case for support of statements inside the petition) next, Facts, then the Reason Why the Writ Should Issue, Attachments, Verification and Certification of Service. Here, because of the length of this post, I will mention the most glaring omissions of Mr. Farmer and some concerns raised by language in this Writ.
First, no mention if made of the fact that each defendant has a common secured bond holder- Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). I doubt if Josh is ready to admit the complexities this FACT brings to each of the five, each for a slightly different reason. Allow me to expound a little. Adam Bartley does not attend WOFF any longer. Byers recognized this situation in the letter of September 11th as we mentioned. For Robert Lewis Walker, Jr.; the question remains why was he pushed aside so quickly? The answer, I believe, is not in what he knows, but in what he does not know. He has not been privy the inside secrets of life close to Jane Whaley. He has been pushed out of the WOFF boat and unless his bond is changed, he is required to be WOFF-loyal regardless of his choice of counsel. His counselor should recognize this fact and approach Byers for the same considerations offered Bartley on the bond issue.
Now, Brooke Covington, Justin Covington and Sarah Covington; why do they need separate secured bond sources? Allow me to jump ahead to page nine of the Petition. Josh is again using State vs Yelton for his basis for argument. He draws the conclusion, “As with Yelton, it is unlikely that Petitioners- mother, son and daughter – would testify against each other.” Let’s break it down further. Brooke and her husband, Kent Covington are not the natural parents of Justin or Sarah. Neither did they actually adopt these two or their other sister, Rachel or brother, Patrick. Custody changed hands, names were changed- probably, but, no actual adoption could have or did take place. So, this detail does not coincide with the Yelton case. No natural birth ties, here. In this case, you can’t apply the old saying – “blood is thicker than water.” Brooke is not a blood relation to Justin or Sarah.
On the same page, in the previous paragraph, of the three Petitioners, – Understanding these risks, Petitioners have insisted on the joint representation and have expressly waived any resultant conflict in a knowing and intelligent manner “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”
Has their counselor, TFM or Beeker reviewed each of the over 1000+ pages of discovery? If not, how can the Petitioners know in an intelligent manner “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences” of joint representation? What part of the 1000+ pages will implicate one more than another of the three? Sarah faces an additional charge of “assault by inflicting injury by strangulation.” How could she reasonably assume that one of the other four will not under intense questioning by Byers, affirm that she was standing close enough to place her hands around Matthew’s throat? Where will the jury’s eyes go then? How far can Byers take the simple positioning in building his case against Sarah?
How will a joint counselor then proceed? How does he or she then decide who to cast as telling falsehoods? If Justin affirms the physical position of Sarah in relation to Matthew, and Byers has that position physically demonstrated in court; how does counsel representing the other two, Brooke and Sarah, affirm one defendant over the integrity/testimony of the other? Which one will the joint counsel then be forced to cast as unreliable? How will that choice be made? If TFM returns as counsel for the three, will they be required to lock in with Jane Whaley over steps to take in trial matters? In reality, Jane is THE Bondholder for everyone.
When Brooke’s role of leadership in both the church and family becomes revealed, how might that affect Justin and Sarah’s individual defenses? How does TFM defend Brooke at the cost of either Sarah or Justin?
And when the other corporate officers of WOFF watch this unfold in court, will they then apply pressure to one defendant in favor over another by sending word that if they continue telling “untruths”, their bond will be revoked and to jail they are sent? Do the WOFF records show Brooke as an officer of WOFF and is that an actual conflict to be addressed by revoking the bonds? If she is a corporate officer – how can Bartley and Walker avert the inherent disadvantage? Are there any of the TFM associates listed as a corporate officer to WOFF in any capacity? Can the State truly know the entirety of the hidden dynamics at play when four of the five defendants and all of TFM attend services at the secured bondholder?
Regardless of the declarations in court on August 27th, who doubts Josh Farmer’s role as counsel to the WOFF bondholder? How many cases are in public record showing his representation of WOFF or a Whaley?
Separate, individual, unrelated bonds, and separate attorneys for each defendant only makes sense to me. We continue.
Page 10 – Josh makes the point using Yelton- Petitioners, analogous to the defendants in Yelton, are in the best “position to know what facts might be developed at trial,” and they have concluded that their joint representation is advantageous.
Unless, each of the three have had the technical definitions of the charges explained to them, how can they relate that understanding to what they remember happening on January 27, 2013? How often have they been TOLD what happened? In WOFF, there are facts and there is Truth. Jane gives Truth to explain the facts. The Truth she gives remolds the facts. Ok, let me be clear. The five defendants have been told the Truth about the facts. Unless each of the five obtains Jane-free separate counsel in order for them to learn the technical definitions of the charges each will face AND the content of discovery which could affect their position in relation to the other four; then each is subject to Jane’s Truth. In my opinion, they will be at a distinct disadvantage pertaining to their individual interests when facing the jury. When Byers presents these legal/technical definitions of the charges to the jury, it will be free from Jane’s truth.
Also, on page ten, “In any event, any related concerns of the trial court were rendered null
when Mr. Bartley rejected the plea offer.”
Josh fails to mention the “rejection” was presented as valid without Attorney Denton’s signature. As mentioned above, Bartley’s plea is still an open subject with Byers. In the letter dated 9/11, Byers mentions he may file Motions to Revoke the bonds of the other four in order to solve the WOFF bond issue. I see this move as highly likely.
On page eleven, “Even if the trial court found that an actual conflict existed due to joint
representation, it failed to ground this conclusion in sufficient, competent evidence.”
Josh says this because he totally ignores the expert testimony of Attorney John Byrd on August 3rd. Byrd’s testimony WAS the evidence for the State.
Simply put, if TFM is allowed to return to counsel, how many WOFF members can they simultaneously represent while facing how many different charges from how many different events? If the Court of Appeals reverses Pope, where will the next line of prudence be drawn when considering joint representation of multiple defendants? Should we just accept Pope’s decision and move on with the process?
We will review the State’s Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari in a future post. As is most always the case, I find more questions than answers.
Season for Changes rolls on…
Follow this blog on Twitter- @religiouscults and Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/johnhuddleauthor
Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Jane told me and Josh confirmed it.
Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.
Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.
Guest posts reflect the opinions of the writers. Their opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of John Huddle or any other persons affiliated with this blog.
Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, for posts written by John Huddle, any information about WOFF is from his memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be.
Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 539.