Disgraced Utah Judge Is Exposed For Being A Monster At His Sentencing Hearing

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Mr. Christensen served as a Justice Court judge for 29 years. He's intimately familiar with the law. He is extremely intelligent. For the Code of Judicial Ethics, judges are to be beyond reproach, both on the bench and off. Judges are not above the law. And judges are not to do anything to damage the integrity and reputation of the judiciary. Despite that, Mr. Christensen chose on multiple occasions to engage in behavior that was both wildly appropriate and, in these situations, illegal. Now, as I review some of these, I want to make it clear Mr. Christensen is not being punished for anything other than the crimes to which he has pled guilty. But these facts go to specifically the question of whether Mr. Christensen is a risk to the community and whether he is amenable to rehabilitation. [00:01:07] Speaker 2: And I know many watching this channel won't be surprised to hear that a sitting judge happens to be a PDF file. It really would explain the incredibly low sentences in the state of Utah for crimes of this nature. And yes, we have covered hundreds of parole hearing out of the state of Utah. And we have always wondered why is it that the worst of the worst kept getting away with slap on the wrist sentence after slap on the wrist sentence. And we've all wondered, are the judges in cahoots? Well, certainly this one was. And do you know how he got caught? He got caught because the fire chief in his town, Ned Brady Hanson, was caught being a PDF file as well. And this judge was the sitting judge in his case. And he let him out on a shocking no bond case. Well, the fire chief couldn't help himself. So he got caught in another sting operation doing the same crime. And that made the FBI say, this is odd. Let's look into the judge. Sure enough, the judge turned out to be a PDF file as well. But not just that. He's actually alleged to have had a relationship of his nature with the fire chief. And they would fantasize together about their PDF file fantasies. You can't make this up. Now, the fire chief is still going through the court system. He's still innocent according to the laws and so on, allegedly. But, you know, we shouldn't get overboard over here. But the judge, the judge decided to plead guilty. And we are about to watch this sentencing hearing for this very judge. So we are going to hear from his defense attorney. There's going to be the, you know, the rainbows and the butterflies and the just, just, he's actually going to ask. He's going to ask for time served. He's going to say, sends, sends my holy judge home without any prison time. Now, the prosecutor, they're going to argue for a little bit more. Now, I will leave timestamps because this hearing is lengthy. And I also need to tell you that the recording channel where we got this from. They, the news agency, KSL, that recorded this hearing. So thank you for recording it. And I hope you don't copyright strike me. But they blurred out things when it got too sensitive. So it's not me censoring it. They censored it. Now, I might do some of my own censoring as well. But they went through some big blotches of the hearing that they completely cut through. So, I mean, you know, just keep that in mind. But anyways, with that, let's jump in. [00:04:03] Speaker 3: Your Honor, good morning, if it pleases the court. We appreciate the opportunity today to address the sentencing recommendations from my client, Kevin Christensen. As you are well aware, Your Honor, this case has been generating immense public interest all across this state. And actually, there are numerous articles around the country regarding Mr. Christensen. And I'm adequately aware that this courtroom today is filled with individuals who either support my client or despise my client. And I'd like to address first the pre-sentence report itself. As you are well aware, the sentencing matrix used by adult probation and parole and created by the Utah State Sentencing Commission through their work with the Utah State Legislature. Have placed Mr. Christensen in the category entitled Jail as a Condition of Probation. As Your Honor, I'm also sure is very well, the Utah State Sentencing Guidelines is structured. To help judicial decision-making eliminate unwarranted sentence disparities and incorporate evidence-based criminal justice philosophies. The sentencing matrixes are designed to align the punishment with public safety while preserving the sentencing authority of judges and the Board of Pardons and Parole. The sentencing guidelines as constituted in Form 9 attached to the pre-sentence report is the sex and kidnap offense matrix. This was devised by the Utah State Sentencing Commission in conjunction with the legislature by legislating the appropriate sentence for specific crimes. The Utah Sentencing Commission establishes these guidelines under Utah Code Section 63M-7-404.3 with three primary goals, each of which I want to address today. The first is risk management by imposing a sanction appropriate to the crime, the risk presented by the individual, and the overall threat to public safety. The second guideline from the sentencing commission is risk reduction. Reducing recidivism by utilizing evidence-based practices that target an individual's risk and rehabilitation needs. And finally, restitution. While restitution isn't being sought here, it is part of the guidelines that the State Sentencing Commission puts forward to ensure repayment of any damages to any victim. And the impact on the community. The legislature and the sentencing commission have determined that the appropriate punishment this court ought to consider, albeit not binding on the court, as the court is well aware, is to consider Mr. Christensen for a sentence somewhere in the range of between 0 to 120 days. The charges to which Kevin pled guilty to are not minimum mandatory prison commitment charges. Our state legislature and in turn, the state sentencing commission have provided guidance to the courts on what an appropriate sentence given all things considered would be. I am very well aware of the position of the state regarding the matter. And before I address the concerns raised in the state's filing memorandum filed late last week, I would like the court to keep in mind that as I go through this, that despite all the allegations brought initially against Mr. Christensen. And those brought up in news filings, media outlets and social media, the truth of the matter is that during the 15 months that Kevin has been in custody. And despite every electronic device being taken from his home and searched thoroughly by the FBI, not a single item of was found, no pictures, no videos, nothing. Not only that, there was never found any individual who could actually be determined to be a or an ICAC agent acting as a who Kevin was chatting with. I will let the court know that the FBI even went to South Carolina to speak with an alleged victim in the case. That turned out to be someone who indicated that it wasn't her. And so the FBI ceased its investigation with regard to having any children on the other end of these chats. I think it's also important for the court to consider that when this case was initially brought through the investigation of joint task force and the FBI, my client's phone number was found on another perpetrator's phone. And at that point, they being the state believed the Mr. Christiansen was guilty of far more than what he was actually pled to. Including whether he. What Mr. Christiansen is guilty of is what he pled to. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:10:35] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:10:36] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:10:49] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:10:50] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:11:03] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:11:04] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:11:38] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:11:39] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:12:18] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:12:20] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:12:44] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:12:45] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. [00:12:46] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:12:50] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:02] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:04] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:06] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:07] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being guilty of being the case. [00:13:14] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:15] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:25] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:27] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:35] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:36] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:55] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:13:56] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:18] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:20] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:29] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:30] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:38] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:39] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:53] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:14:54] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:02] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:03] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:12] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:13] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:16] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:25] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:37] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:15:38] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. [00:16:26] Speaker ?: He was guilty of being the case. [00:16:27] Speaker 3: He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. He was guilty of being the case. begin counseling while in jail through suncrest i believe i sent your honor over a a letter from suncrest on the counseling that has been going because this is not just a request for release into the community and go about live your life there are really serious ramifications for being on probation with a p p and being on the sex offender list and having to abide by the sex i'm sorry the group a sex offender conditions all of the terms and conditions outlined in the pre-sentence report all of the requirements that dr hawkes sees fit to complete give rise to a meeting of the second factor that the state has presented as a reason for prison i counter that prison does nothing more at this point than be a punitive nature because these are third degree felonies because of the amount of time served the real likelihood is if a prison commitment is given i don't think he'll be down long enough given his lack of criminal history and age to complete any of the sex offender treatment that the prison has to option offer we have that ability availability for him to begin immediately and as your honor knows and working in specialty courts engagement and treatment is immediately is absolutely the best course one can take to avoid recidivism and while normally working in drug courts and dui courts i see that there's also the addictive qualities of the nature of the offenses that kevin committed he recognizes that he needs help he recognizes that he can't do it on his own and as such your honor the punishment provided or requested by the state delays even that additional treatment there's a waiting list at the prison to get into these treatment programs and they're typically for individuals who are down on the minimum mandatory 10 15 25 to life sentence these are zero to fives with 15 months already under his belt the likelihood is they won't keep them long enough to be able to even start the program that programming now is available to him today the third factor that the court is asked to consider is whether the sentence imposed affords adequate deterrence of criminal conduct again the state believes that the only option for this court to afford adequate deterrence of this behavior and again i disagree is for kevin to serve prison kevin sat in solitary confinement since his arrest for 459 days prison is not going to provide any further opportunity for deterrence sitting alone with your thoughts for 459 days recognizing that a life you've built is destroyed that family members no longer wish to be a part of your life that your career and your standing in the community is gone there is nothing more than someone can do to spend 459 days in solitary thinking about what he has done that would they give any more opportunity for deterrence and sitting at the prison for a couple more months before he's released on parole at this point the additional time is strictly punitive ap and p laid out specific conditions for probation those conditions adequately provide additional deterrence we have treatment we have a group a sex offender conditions we have the sex offender registry probation as your honor knows is not a right but a privilege and i've spoken to kevin about that and i've also spoken to him about my reluctance at times to ask for zero tolerance probation because i believe as an officer of the law of the court when i appear and ask for zero tolerance if someone screws up i can't come back and ask and just say just kidding give him another chance but this probation should be a zero tolerance probation these offenses are serious but they're not the type that need to send someone to prison he needs an opportunity for probation and i recognize the counter with that would be what he'll get parole but again any additional time spent in custody at this point is so far beyond what our legislature and our sentencing guidelines have presented to the court for guidance that it is just strictly punitive at this point your honors had the opportunity to read through the evaluation uh submitted the court and the sun cows sun crest council both dr hawkes and the counselor for sun crest indicate the treatments necessary for kevin and he needs to get in it and engage earnestly as soon as possible this type of treatment will afford adequate deterrence of additional criminal conduct the mere fact alone that someone commits the crimes that kevin pled to is not an automatic prison sentence the sentence recommendation by app is appropriate and meets this third factor's requirement the state is in essence essentially asking this court to go against the legislature and the sentencing commission's intent for crimes of this nature and order the prisons the only appropriate sentence for these type of offenses the state is asking the court to quote send a message these types offenses will not be tolerated in utah what the state is asking the court to do is become an activist judge on the bench which the legislature has railed against so in the last couple of months and make a determination that your honor will send everyone convicted of these offenses to prison but the fact of the matter is the legislature has said this type of offense for what he pled to given where he falls on the matrix should be 120 days top end not a prison commitment so by the state asking the court to send a message it's asking the court to disregard what our elected officials have put into place as a guideline the charges that kevin pled to are already a crime the court doesn't need to send a mad message the message is already loud and clear in our code the state also insinuates the fact that kevin was employed as a justice court judge that he should go to prison because of that because he should have quote known better your honor i think it's a fair statement to say that everyone should know better than to engage in this he should know better than to commit in this type of conduct it doesn't matter if you are a sitting justice court judge if you work in law enforcement if you are an uber driver if you work on the building next door that they're building everyone regardless of their position in life should know better than to commit to commit these crimes and to hold kevin to a higher standard because of what his position in the community was is frankly unfair yes he should have known better we all know that but because of his position as a judge your honor should not take that into consideration with regard to the sentencing the state legislature the sentencing commission there's nowhere on this matrix it says let's give him additional points because of what his job was there is absolutely no evidence that any of these chats that kevin engaged in were done while he was sitting on the bench what kevin did he did as a private citizen he didn't use his position as a judge to do any of this and while that makes great media content the fact and the truth of the matter is these were done outside of hours court hours he didn't sit on the bench and chat with anyone a person's social status should not be given additional weight or lack of weight to a seriousness of a crime i am not downplaying the seriousness of this crime at all i have stood before every judge in this building with similar like cases with individuals who have been unemployed who have had great jobs who have been mediocre jobs that have had hundreds if not thousands of images of child who have put on hands-on with children and every single time the apmp comes back none of that is put in there we look at criminal history we look at the matrix we look at what the sentencing commission guidelines in entail the state wants to make this out to be a minimum mandatory prison commitment and it's simply not while your honor has the right to send an individual including my client to prison it's not mandatory that you do that the severe limitations that will be placed upon kevin during probation the requirements of counseling and treatment will protect from any future harm and that is the fourth factor that the court is asked to consider is whether the sentence your honor imposes will protect the public from any future offenses by the individual now to be frank this is a trickier one because as your honor knows and you've probably seen this in your career you see the same people come through your courtroom they'll be on probation they'll do well for a time and then they'll screw up again and they come back repeat business is a real thing unfortunately i'm not i'm sure the court is not naive enough to recognize that nothing is foolproof while you're on probation that includes parole as well but what will really help is an individual beginning the healing and treatment process to recognize the underlying problems that exist to give them a treatment to fix those before an individual picks back up a phone or a computer and logs onto these sites and starts chatting again treatment really is the only way to protect the public from any future harm for these type of offenses and that is set up that's ready to go it could begin tomorrow if the court follows apnp's recommendation dr hoggs and apnp don't consider kevin on the high risk to reoffend and they recommend immediate participation in this treatment there's also going to be additional conditions placed upon him to protect the public by the public during the probationary time period he's not going to have the availability internet to access the internet i'm sorry he is going to be under apnp's thumb with regard to any communication at all with anyone including children the group a sex offender conditions they don't stop when probation ends they they continue the harsh reality of this case is that walt kevin's offenses are grotesque they don't require a lifetime of incarceration eventually regardless of what your honor sentences to today he's going to be back it's not a lifetime sentence he is going to be back in the community and unfortunately i believe that a prison commitment would only negate the availability of immediate treatment so in my estimation a prison commitment will actually not do anything to help protect the community other than keep him out of it for a few more months which he's been in out of it for 15 almost at this point it's simply i believe a fallacy to believe the prison is the only option to protect the community the state again i believe is destroying the facts of this case to make kevin's behavior seem even more egregious as i mentioned before kevin never committed these offenses while acting as a judge there's no evidence to that the state argues and they quote and i quote suggest the defendant was committing these crimes while acting as a judge well they can suggest all they want the facts are it didn't happen and while these statements are inflammatory i believe they should be disregarded by this court as mentioned the state argues the court should sentence kevin to prison because it's the only sentence that adequately adequately addresses the nature and circumstances of these offenses it reflects the seriousness of the offense deems further criminal conduct and prevents protects the community from the defendant again prison is not the only sentence that adequately addresses what the state's presented probation does the same thing treatment does the same thing all prison is really going to do is keep kevin out of the community for a little bit longer the state argues and i would like to counter that the history and characteristics of the defendant under 763201 bii weigh in favor of the court in prison and imposing a prison sentence kevin has no criminal history the characteristics of kevin and i've submitted documents to show this kevin was he was a pillar of his community pillar of his community had a very dark side there's no gain around that what occurred after his arrest uh was a catastrophe for the community up there kevin was man of the year at one point a very highly respected justice court judge but he had a dark secret one that as a judge who was he going to tell unfortunately i'm not aware of any bar program that he could call in and say hey i'm having some really horrific thoughts i'm acting on those three to three chats can i get some help there wasn't any of that so unfortunately he maintained this online persona outside of his position as the justice court judge to the point where the state believes he was committing these crimes while sitting on the bench which simply as i mentioned before isn't true kevin was a trusted community member he was beloved by his family and they trusted him and he threw in that the state says yet he committed crimes against children i think that goes a little too far for the actual charges here as i mentioned before there were no actual hands-on violations against any children and while being online talking about these horrific things what he would do what he would say what he would look at is horrific there's no showing that the other side there actually was a child there or even an icac individual pretending to be a child the state makes these chats out to be what they call conversations yeah i i agree with with that they were conversations but they were owned and i again i don't want to sound like i'm downplaying this but they were only conversations there was no acting on those conversations that's a good thing and we're thankful that that never happened that he had some amount of self-control never to touch a child that is why your honor the treatment is so necessary here is because for 99 of his life he was a pillar of the community but there's that one dark little area that needs to be fixed he'll never get back to what he was he he recognizes that he's going to be a pariah if he continues to reside up in box elder county because of the things he said and chatted about and what the state has put on the record and the media has picked up on and social media has gone haywire over but the fact of the matter is these were conversations only and despite having no criminal history there's no evidence that these chats went back years and years and years and years there is the time frame for which is presented in the plea itself and it's simply not true that the conduct goes back several years the state wants us to disregard the history of kevin prior to this time frame and what the good he did do and sent him to prison because of conversations. I disagree with that. I think what's presented to you in this pre-sentence report and what is presented to you through Rick Hawks' psychosexual evaluation are what need to be imposed in this case. In 76.3-201b3, I think that's a D. My handwriting is not the best, I apologize, is that the state, that's, I'm sorry, that statute is for the court to consider whether the sentence Your Honor imposes provides for rehabilitative needs. As I mentioned before, my understanding of speaking with individuals, including a couple of corporals who run the program is at the prison, the wait is so long that there are people just waiting and waiting and waiting to get into the program. And those with more serious offenses, they get priority because they're going to be there longer so they get the top of the list. And the time frame in which to complete it is not sufficient for someone with a zero to five. So while the state argues that he can engage in sex offender treatment while at the prison, he can also engage in it on probation and be able to get into it much quicker. The parole, the state also argues that if he's released on parole, that a parole agent will be better to equip and monitor the defendant's transition back in the community. I fail to see how a parole agent is any different than a probation agent. It's called adult probation and parole. It's the same agency, the same people have done both. A probation agent can do everything that a parole agent can do and make sure that the treatment is going, make sure that all conditions that the court imposes are followed to a T. As I mentioned, we are fine with a zero tolerance probation, which I've explained to my client that even if he is 15 minutes late for a meeting, that's a violation. You can go to prison for that. So while the argument is presented that, hey, a parole officer can make sure probation does the same thing, same agency, same officers. So again, the state is asking the court to deviate from the recommendation and saying that the sentencing matrix does not adequately represent this sort of case. I would be the first to admit that I've stood before numerous judges and asked the court to deviate from this if I don't like it, if I think it's too harsh. So I don't blame the state for saying that this should not be followed, but I disagree with them that this statement that the sentencing matrix doesn't adequately represent this sort of case, where I think the sentencing matrix absolutely represents this type of case. APMP is known to deviate upwards all the time on sex offensive cases. I've spoken to numerous agents. They tell me flat out, Ryan, we're going to deviate upwards on all of these. The problem we have here is you can't deviate upwards more than the 459 days you serve because that's more than a year, which probationary timeframes are precluded from being more than a year unless they're consecutive. I believe that given everything that the agent did in this case, who I've spoken with, and received the evaluation, he received the polygraph examination and the passing of that. He received letters from my client's wife and family. And he told me they spent a lot of time going through what the recommendation should be. And they believed, APMP believed, that what was pled to and what the sentence should be is accurately reflected in their recommendation. The matrix indicates as such. The matrix, again, I'm going to hammer it, was not devised by myself, by your honor, by the state attorney general's office. It was devised through the state legislature that we elect as elected officials, who then in turn helped direct the sentencing commission to create. It was created to help your honor have a fair and just system to sentence like offenses the same way. It's not a federal system where you have to follow it or they used to have to do that. It is a guideline only. But it is an appropriate recommendation in this case. Finally, the state argues that the pre-sentence report, you shouldn't rely on it in making a sentencing determination. The state states that the pre-sentence report relies on the lack of history of the sentencing matrix to make its recommendations. However, those issues have been addressed above. Furthermore, throughout the report, the defendant minimizes his actions and the minimization is never addressed in his report. I find that statement to be very easy to make. The state doesn't know my client. They only know what they read. They only know what they believe. For them to now come and say, hey, he's minimizing his actions. I'll be honest, I've always had kind of a harder time when prosecutors have got up and said, hey, the defendant isn't accepting responsibility for his actions. Well, unless I have my client plead to an Alford plea, they are pleading guilty because they did it. Both the statement in advance of guilty plea and your honor will ask the defendant, are you entering this plea of your own free will and choice? Did anyone force you to do it? Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? Those questions were asked of my client. He said yes. He's not minimizing it. He admitted to doing it. It's very, very, very easy for a prosecutor to get up and say, he's minimizing his actions because of that you should send him to prison. Your honor, he has three third degree felonies. He has a career and a life that was ruined. He's going to be on the sex offender registry for his entire life. He has to go through the group A sex offender conditions. He's not minimizing anything. He recognizes the severity of what he did and the severity of the consequences of what he did. And because the state thinks he minimizes it, they're asking you not to rely on this pre-sentence report. If that were the case, why would we ever even need one? You should just sentence immediately to prison on any felony offense. That's what I read from the state's pre-sentence memorandum here is because of the nature of the offense, because he was a judge, because these chats were horrific, he should go to prison. They take the power out of your hands completely, which isn't the intent. There are three separate branches of government for a reason. The court may have noticed, but on the back page, form 7, page 12, none of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances are checked. And while a lot of the mitigating circumstances aren't applicable because Kevin's been in custody for so long, I believe that a couple of them could be checked. The first is that he is engaged in community-based supervision and/or treatment consistent with validated risk and needs assessment. That risk and needs assessment is done through Rick Report. And the treatment, while not community-based at this point, has begun while he's been incarcerated. I couldn't imagine anything worse than sitting in solitary for the last 459 days doing nothing. But Kevin hasn't been doing nothing. He's been a model inmate. He's done everything that he can do while he's been in that isolation, including treatment. I've spoken with the deputies of the Davis County Jail about how he's doing. And they all, to a man, indicate that he is a model inmate, that he tries to help out where he can. It's very limited because of some safety concerns that he had. But he has provided a lot of good to people there. He buys books and then gives them to the library. After he's done reading them, he's engaged in his treatment. The second mitigating factor, I believe, that should have been checked, was that the individual's current living arrangement environment is stable and supportive of offense-specific interventions that do not enable continued criminal or unlawful conduct. Rudy Hernandez, who wrote the pre-sentence report and I had a conversation, where he had spoken to my client's wife indicating that she is supportive of him coming home, supportive of him on probation, and would help do any monitoring or supervision necessary. But he does have a stable and supportive environment. I think those two mitigating circumstances should have been checked on this box. And while it wouldn't have lowered where he fell in the matrix, I think they are something the court can consider why this pre-sentence report is appropriate. Finally, the state indicates that the desires and interests of any victim of this offense are what the court needs to consider. Their statement is simple. It reads, "Here the victims are two purported females, a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old, both victimized by defendant. The court should sentence defendant to prison in this case because the victims in this case are..." Well, first of all, the state got the first sentence right, "purported females." That's what the chat said. That's who they thought that they were, or at least who they presented themselves. But when investigations actually got into trying to find out who these individuals really were, dead ends, including a live 16-year-old who denied ever having any conversation with Kevin Christensen and knew nothing about it at all. So I really failed to see how these chats victimized two other individuals who were unknown to anyone. And this final statement, final sentence under this provision, and they're brief, "The court should sentence defendant to prison in this case because the victims in this case are..." That is very troubling. I think it should trouble everyone that the state is arguing that any victim in a case that's a bad individual should go to prison. And that's simply not the case. The legislature has provided us what the sentence should be, not just go to prison. They're taking away your authority to analyze a case, to review a case, to look at mitigating and aggravating factors. It is a blanket statement that just says that there's go to prison. And that's simply not the way our system works. Your Honor, for the past 15 months, I have been asked almost on a daily basis on any court I go into, "Hey, how's Kevin doing? Is he doing okay?" These are for members of the bar. And mostly I speak with defense counsel. I don't have anything against prosecutors, but most of my running group is defense. They all appeared before him. And many times we weren't happy with his outcome and what he would do. But they all, to everyone I've spoken with, asked about how he's doing. And then I get asked, "Well, why'd he do it?" And that's the question that I never have an answer for. Well, I don't know why. That's not my position to try to figure that out. My position is to try to protect his rights and try to come up with the best solution we can. He's admitted his faults. He's admitted his crimes. He wants to make amends. He's made provisions that he can begin the treatment. He can begin the healing process. And it's not going to be easy, I've told him. This is going to be a long, hard, arduous road. But he wants that opportunity, Your Honor. He wants the chance to provide, I don't want to say closure, but provide knowledge to those that he has harmed. That he's not going to ever do this again. And he's going to ask and reach out for help. Because that was one of the things that he and I spoke about. Is why don't you just talk to somebody? And he said to me, "Who could I speak to about this?" I'm a judge. I can't go just call the bar. I can't just go talk to my wife. It's embarrassing. It's bad. It's horrific. But judge, he's accepted responsibility for it. It's time to allow him the opportunity for probation. Any more time is strictly punitive. And it doesn't accomplish even what the state thinks prison will. It's not going to accomplish that. He won't be there long enough. You place him on zero tolerance probation. You give him the opportunity to show to Your Honor, to the court, to everyone here, that he can change. I believe anybody can change. I don't believe we'll ever see him back here again. I believe that he has changed. That sitting in jail, and it's very easy for somebody to come in and say, "Hey, I've been in jail. I've changed. I've found God. I can do it." The proof is going to be in the pudding. And if you keep him on a very, very short leash with a zero tolerance probation, you'll know very quickly whether or not he is amenable to the probationary period, or if he just is going to be a prison candidate. And unless the court has any further questions of me, I appreciate the court's time on listening to me this morning, but I will sit down at this point. [00:50:09] Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Vichel. Mr. Mehmet. [00:50:14] Speaker 5: Thank you, Judge. Judge, the court should sentence the defendant to prison today. And the court should sentence the defendant to prison because he uses the internet to children. Mr. Christensen spends his time telling other online how he would like children, how he prefers the age range of zero to 15, how he uses encrypted apps to build his collection. And then when he finds himself in conversations with an actual 16-year-old, he sends her a video of himself and begs her for additional images of her. When he finds himself in conversation with a 13-year-old, he sends her an image of it and asks if she likes it. He committed these crimes while being a judge, a member of the legal community entrusted with the task of enforcing her laws and sentencing others. The court should sentence the defendant to prison because his crimes are egregious sex crimes against the court should sentence the defendant. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:51:25] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:51:25] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:51:29] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:51:29] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:51:30] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:51:31] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:00] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:01] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:05] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:05] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:09] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:11] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:13] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:14] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:19] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:20] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:45] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:46] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:56] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:52:57] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the court should sentence the court should the court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:53:08] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:53:10] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:53:48] Speaker ?: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. [00:53:50] Speaker 5: The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. The court should sentence the defendant to prison. This is the context. Crimes do not happen outside of their context. These chats do not happen in a vacuum. These were not the only two chats that Mr. Christensen engaged in. The FBI did not catch Mr. Christensen his first time using social media to engage in these conversations. The crimes to which the defendant pled guilty occurred in a broader context of 13,000 lines of chat. It's that same context that Mr. Christensen found himself engaged with a 16-year-old or someone who stated they were 16. During those conversations, they sent the defendant a picture and there was some conversation about whether or not that happened. These investigations can be difficult, Judge, because not all of the social media companies send the FBI or law enforcement the same information. We don't always get the images embedded within the text conversation. Sometimes we get text and then we read the chats to understand what's happening in them. But in this particular case, in this evaluation, on page seven of that evaluation, Mr. Christensen states, "The images I got charged with were just of them. I was convicted of enticing of them. There were three charges, one enticing them and the other two were dealing material harmful to them. I sent a picture and I'm proposing myself, whoever sent me the they said they were. And so while based on the context and the conversation that Mr. Christensen was having with a 16-year-old, the state knew that an image had been received because Mr. Christensen in those chats continually says, quote, I can't stop looking at your but we have the added benefit of knowing that he received those images because he said so in the situation. In that same chat message, he sends a video of himself and the two of them discuss that video at length. It's not, not important that the defendant committed those crimes while as a sitting justice court judge in Box Elder County. Now, I don't know, and I have never claimed that the defendant committed those crimes while sitting on the bench wearing the robe. My problem with that is that I don't stop being a prosecutor after 5:00 p.m. And your honor does not stop being a judge when the robe is not on. And Mr. Christensen was a judge while committing these crimes. A prison sentence is the only sentence that adequately takes into account the crimes and the circumstances of the defendant's crimes. And the court needs to decide today whether or not the sentence of the court imposes reflects the seriousness of those crimes. That is a consideration for the court, whether or not the court's sentence today adequately reflects the seriousness of the crimes and the circumstances in which they happened. One of the primary things that the court should consider is the deterrent effect of the sentence that is imposed. Mr. Bichelle is right. I am asking this court to consider what message the court's sentence sends. I am not the only one asking the court to do that. So is the state legislature and the sentencing statute. This is when the court considers the important aspect of criminal deterrence. In other words, judge, what does it say to the people of Utah if this court sentences this defendant to jail or probation? What does it say to the people of Utah and would-be criminals when the court sentences this defendant to prison? The court should send the message that these sorts of crimes will not be tolerated because the children of Utah are protected from defendants like Kevin Christensen. The court is one of, if not the most important consideration from the court today is public safety and the risk that the defendant poses to the community. This court is tasked now with keeping the community safe. The court is in a position to keep the children of Utah safe from the defendant. The defendant's online actions have real-world consequences. I hear this often as a prosecutor for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Well, there were no hands-on offenses. We don't have any evidence that Mr. Christensen ever, ever touched a child. That is to ignore the real-world effect that Mr. Christensen's actions have. The children on the other side of those chats were by Kevin Christensen. The eight-year-old girl from church whose images are now in the hands of who knows where, were victimized by Kevin Christensen. To simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, there were no hands-on offenses here." Well, of course not. He's not -- he didn't plead guilty to a rape of a child with a 25-year mandatory minimum. That fact has already been taken into consideration by the fact that he pled guilty to the third-degree felonies to which he pled. More importantly, Judge, the defendant's online actions show that he is a risk to children everywhere. Because, as we've already discussed, his actions in those chats and outside of them show that he is a risk to the children that he encounters online. Everywhere this defendant goes, he is looking at children in a way. He is looking at children in a way that he's being treated as a victim. He's looking at children in a way that he's been treated as a victim. He is looking at children in a way that he's been treated as a victim. He is looking at children in a way that he has been treated as a victim. He is looking at children in a way that he's been treated as a victim. [01:00:28] Speaker ?: He is looking at children in a way that he's been treated as a victim. He is looking at children in a way that he's been treated as a victim. [01:00:30] Speaker 5: So then we get to a consideration about where the defendant should get his treatment. Because, as Mr. Bichelle correctly points out, the sentence that the state is asking the court to impose is a zero to five prison sentence. Mr. Christensen is not up for a life sentence in this case. But there's a difference between whether or not the court sentences Mr. Christensen to prison, where he can receive sex offender treatment, or if the court simply releases the defendant now, prior to any treatment being completed. The court needs to decide whether or not Mr. Christensen is someone that the court is willing to risk releasing back into the community, prior to any sex offender treatment being completed. Now there's a question as to whether or not the defendant would be in custody long enough for him to do treatment. But that is not a question for the court today. That's a question for the board. And if the parole board wants to make the mistake of releasing Kevin Christensen prior to him completing his sex offender treatment, then that is up to the parole board. The court should not make that mistake. The court should not release the defendant before he has completed any sex offender treatment. Probation is simply inadequate in this case. A PMP and, and, and defense is asking the court to give the defendant credit for the time served, which is significant. He has served a long time. And place him on probation immediately. That puts him back in the community. Back into the fan into the hands of the family who love and support him. The family who has written in his defense. And the individuals who no doubt have been distraught. I can't imagine what this family has gone through since Mr. Christensen's arrest. But the people that he would be going back to are the ones who have written this court in support of him. In justification of him. The court will be relying on a PMP's occasional check-ins. And the family members who desperately want Mr. Christensen out of custody. To monitor him. That's not even mentioning the fact that these crimes happened while he was in that same position. Mr. Christensen committed these crimes while in the community. Committed these crimes while at home. Committed these crimes around his wife. And that's why probation is inadequate. The other reason that probation is inadequate is that the defendant was a judge before this. He sentenced people to jail and probation. He has in-depth knowledge of how this system works. And we've seen evidence of his level of sophistication. The defendant is in a unique position to me to manipulate this system to complete probation without making any meaningful changes. Some evidence of this is the fact that he had a new phone he received or that he purchased just before the FBI showed up at his house. There was no evidence of privacy on his devices, despite the fact that he talked about possessing in the chats and admitted to receiving them on this evaluation. He knows how to use encrypted apps to avoid detection. One of the reasons that probation is inadequate here is because the defendant is sophisticated beyond a normal defendant. The things that I've discussed so far are the things that the court under Utah law must consider above any interest of the defendant. The court must consider. The court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, whether or not the sentence imposed would adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, have a sufficient deterrent effect, and protect the public from future harms of the defendant. And the court must weigh those things above any interest of the defendant. Well, let's talk about some of the things that may appear to work in the defendant's favor here. The defense counsel correctly points out that the defendant has no criminal history. That's not uncommon in these types of offenses. It is very common for the first time that the FBI or the ICAC task force arrives at someone's home, that is the first time they've been arrested. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. [01:05:29] Speaker ?: These crimes are difficult to detect. [01:05:30] Speaker 5: These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. [01:05:36] Speaker ?: These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. [01:05:38] Speaker 5: These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. [01:05:41] Speaker ?: These crimes are difficult to detect. [01:05:42] Speaker 5: These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. These crimes are difficult to detect. They are difficult to detect. community the community wherein he committed these offenses mr bichelle pointed out that he was found to be man of the year he was a pillar of the community with a small dark secret well that small dark secret includes children online that's the small dark secret that mr christensen kept from everyone while winning the man of the year award he was trusted by the legal community to uphold our laws and enforce them mr christensen has violated the trust of so many different aspects of the community in which he lived now there was a question well what could he have done there's no there's no bar number that you call if you're having fantasies about children well there are phone numbers that you can call mr christensen could have seen his tendencies years ago and engaged himself in treatment it's true that there's no bar number for that but there are plenty of phone numbers we have a valuation here the defendant could have called dr hawks before engaging in enticement the defendant could have done a lot of things before arriving here today i do take some issue with the idea in a lot of these cases and it's true here this is whether or not there's any criminal history is technically that is true mr christensen has no prior convictions um in his pre-sentence report however he describes or at least the author of the pre-sentence report describes that during the past five years mr christensen's usage deteriorated to the point where he was using and mr christensen himself states that he viewed approximately 150 files of uh that began approximately two years ago we have some incredibly disturbing chat conversations between mr uh between mr christensen and other online where he discusses um into the pancake batter of his teenage daughter and so yes it's true judge the defendant sits here today with no prior convictions but it is not to say that there's not any history of this sort of behavior there is on the most extreme end these sorts of acts beginning when his daughter was a young teenager and there is on the most favorable end for mr christensen his own words that he started looking at approximately 150 images of two years ago so i don't think the fact that he has no criminal history quote unquote is as dispositive as the defendant would like it to be it simply indicates that he's good at hiding these crimes over at least the last two years maybe five maybe even more a lot of time has been spent talking about the precinct report evaluation so let's talk about those some more because the state has significant issues with these the first issue is that mr christensen's timeline [01:09:26] Speaker 6: really doesn't line up was it five years ago or was it two years ago that he started looking at [01:09:34] Speaker 5: and in the same paragraph where he states that he has viewed approximately 150 files beginning [01:09:41] Speaker 6: approximately two years ago he also denies having any issue with seeking your viewing both of those statements cannot be true we know which one is [01:09:54] Speaker 5: because in online chats with an online user named who's that perv the defendant describes the way that he would use encrypted apps to quote unquote build his collection his collection of children aged zero to 15 because he quote loves young and he would build that collection so that he would have images with which he could quote trade and perv so we know that when he denies issues of seeking he's not being truthful additionally concerning in the pre-sentence report the author reports that the defendant acknowledged his actions were inappropriate but believed that the online year old females were adults playing the role of children well that can't possibly be true because as defense counsel stated the defendant stood here and pled guilty to believing that there was a 13 year old and a 16 year old to commit the crime of enticement of the defendant must at least believe that the person with whom he's engaged in those chats is in order for him to be guilty of these crimes he must believe that he's talking to a 13 year old and a 16 year old yet when interviewed by apmp in the preparation of this report he continues to deny that he holds to the story that he thought they were adults they cannot have been adults if the defendant is truly guilty of these crimes the defendant continues to minimize and try to skirt responsibility for the crimes that he committed by holding to the same story that he believed that they were adults the third concerning part about the precinct report is as part of his own statement the defendant says quote i was arrested on march 6 2025 and have been in jail ever since i have learned so much during this time the state is concerned about what it is that it took incarceration for mr christensen to learn and if it indeed took incarceration for mr christensen to learn to not engage and send images of his the 13 year old girls on the internet and if it took incarceration for mr christensen to learn to not do these things then it seems that further incarceration is the right answer because that's what it took for mr christensen to learn not to commit these crimes those are the reasons why the state has trouble with the precinct report and does not believe that a pmp can adequately supervise mr christensen because in his report he admits to talk to viewing and denies it he pled guilty to these crimes but then continues to insist that he was only talking to adults and it took him being incarcerated to learn that not he should not do these things a pmp doesn't seem to have to have recognized any of that they simply said well the matrix says jail is an initial condition of probation they do not seem to recognize the various inconsistencies and untruthful statements the problems with this i may be even worse because starting on page 10 or the very bottom of page nine i suppose the author of the the psychosocial evaluation states quote his profile is broadly consistent with adult males with adult male sex offender norms with no statement to re-offend he made no statements suggesting he was re-offend well at least the defendant made no statements that he would re-offend the author then goes on to say on page 11 that quote mr christensen i'm not sure how that can possibly be true judge because earlier on in the pre-sentence report the defendant acknowledged having a dog lick his parts a couple of times in the in this evaluation he states that he was during the chats sometimes with the chats in the same evaluation he says on the one hand i didn't think about kids but on the other hand he states i chatted about touching their it happened for maybe a year and a handful of times discussing [01:14:43] Speaker 6: sex including kids [01:14:50] Speaker 5: in the same evaluation the author reports that quote mr christensen admitted to having while having thoughts about female children then four pages later the author of this evaluation states that mr christensen has a suggestion that he is unlikely to have or deviant arousal the court is being asked to rely on a report that on the one hand states that mr christensen to thoughts of female children while having no arousal so while it is true that based on the pre-sentence report evaluation it would make sense to put the the defendant on probation but this evaluation contradicts itself and the pre-sentence report does not take into account any of the inconsistencies and untruthful statements of the defendant that's why the court should not rely on them and instead should rely on the factors that the court is is required to consider above any interest of the defendant when making his sentence today judge during his his opening defense picked apart a lot of the factors that i pointed to in my my primary issue with that is for example in the last factor he states to the court that the state is asking the court to sentence the defendant to prison because the victims were children that is true along with the other 10 factors that all weigh in favor of a prison sentence in this case i am not asking the court to sentence the defendant to more than is statutorily allowed this court is allowed to sentence the defendant to prison for third degree felonies that will run from zero to five years at the prison where the where the prison and the parole board will decide when he is released in this case in the case of the defendant that the defendant is in favor of an upward deviation and all four of the factors that the court is required to consider above any of the considerations about rehabilitation or the history and characteristics of the defendant all weigh in favor of an upward deviation the court should sentence the defendant to prison today because he engages with children online because everywhere he goes based on his own words and actions he sees children in his way and he's a risk to the children in our community and the children on the internet [01:17:35] Speaker 4: does the court have any questions for me today i don't thank you mr man thank you very much judge mr peschel is there anything else you want to say before i hear from your client [01:17:45] Speaker 3: just briefly if i'd like your honor please your honor a lot has been made today with regard to the nature of the chats that were brought about by my client and when he's online and who he presents his online persona to be well the state provides the court with some of the chats where he talks about a collection the fact of the matter is there is no showing that there is any collection the unfortunate reality with our society today is anyone can go online and be whoever they want to be kevin can go online online and say that he has a collection not actually ever meaning it the proof is they never found anything the state wants you to think about he got a new phone two weeks before he was arrested that phone was taken every other phone he had was taken every electronic device was taken from his home including xboxes i think there was an alexa that was even taken and there was no collection of the state and the state wants it to make out that kevin is a a highly skilled individual with regards to the internet and how to hide things truthfully the fbi is probably the best at that they have their own departments that are able to go through every device and find anything encrypted or unencrypted there was nothing and i repeat nothing found in any device and all of us in this court were smart enough to know that if you even try to delete something it can't be found deleting doesn't mean to delete it can still be found so while kevin may have said horrific things and talked about having collections of things that's his online persona and sadly you can say and be whoever you want online you can say horrific things you can be someone on facebook who says they'd like to put kevin christianson and a wood chipper i don't think that person would do it but it's sure easy to say it same applies here it's easy to say something about having something where in reality that you don't have it again and i probably will annoy the court with this but the fact that the state is asking you for one of the reason to send to prison because he was a judge i think is inappropriate yes he was a judge yes when he goes home at night he's a judge same with you the state goes home and they're a prosecutor i go home i'm a defense counsel but our positions in society don't necessarily make up who we are all the time i go home i like to put on t-shirts and shorts and go work in my garden that doesn't make me a farmer but i'm a citizen kevin's crimes were committed while as a citizen not as a judge and to hold them to a higher standard is just wholly inappropriate because of his position there is a deterrent with probation your honor i've gone over that in my opening i won't belabor the point but i do take a bit of umbrage to the statement is whatever your decision is what is it saying to the people of utah the message has already been sent to the people of utah it is a crime to commit these offenses if you were to give probation if you were to give parole if i'm sorry if you get prison and you put on parole that doesn't change the message is still there you can't do this you're not just saying to the people of the state of utah i'm a fan of this so i'm going to put you on probation no you're not saying i'm not a fan because you go to prison no the legislative body has said this is a crime that's already been said to the state i think more importantly what's been glossed over with this statement to the people of utah is kevin has sat in jail for this for 459 days well above what the legislature feels is necessary for this type of offense remember it's 120 days the same factors that the state is asking you to follow for a prison recommendation are written into the pre-sentence report itself and the sentencing commission and their matrixy guidelines all of those things are taken into account already i have many many clients who ask me why do i have to go do a pre-sentence report why can't the judge just send me today i don't want to wait 45 more days and i give them two options well we go forward today without the judge knowing anything about you and they'll just sentence you to the max we do a pre-sentence report so that the judge can get to know who you are to know about the crimes the person all of the factors that were presented to you in the state's sentencing memorandum are taken into account by ap p conducting their pre-sentence report and as i mentioned earlier normally on sex offenders they deviate upwards based on the exact same factors the state is asking you to consider for deviation upwards the truth of the matter is the state of utah through the legislative through the sentencing commission and ultimately through ap mp have taken this all into consideration and place kevin on the matrices that indicate zero to 120 days in probation there is much more i could say about this your honor but i think that given the information that you have the information that you have to know about the pre-sentence report evaluation the polygraph exam the letters in support my argument the state's argument probation is appropriate here a probation sentence is not thumbing the nose at the criminal justice system it's not saying that anyone in this courtroom supports kevin's decisions and what he did a probation sentence is following what the legislature and apmp has presented to you there is no difference between a probation and a parole officer the state makes it out that kevin should know the difference because he's sophisticated he'll be able to get around it justice court judges don't send us normally to ap and p they're all b's and c's they they can't they could run it concurrent with someone being on probation with ap and p to the district court but i think that's a red herring argument that he's sophisticated enough to know how to deviate around probation because he sent his people to probation i would i appeared before judge christianson many many many times in my career never once was he sent with any of my clients sentenced to ap and p for probation it was either court probation or a private probation company which neither of those are applicable here ap and p can supervise ap can get the treatment and make sure that it's going it's already set up i've got that set up for months he's already begun it in jail i wanted just to close briefly with the recommendations from dr hawkes and i believe this is on the summary that i submitted as well mr christians king seemed capable and willing to control his future behavior and to follow through with treatment while mr dr hawkes does say that the final decision is your honors and it's not the examiner's duty to determine the level of risk the following recommendations are to be might be considered by the court number one sex specific treatment number two i'm sorry let me back up that treatment should include co-occurring compulsive or problematic behaviors including use online activity and non-related behavior number two address depressive symptoms number three safety plan and risk management i think that's very important to consider because the state is arguing the prison is the only place where the community can be safe again i argue it's not the recommendations for treatment include risk management and safety planning it's there it's there for it's there for him to take advantage of your honor in closing mr christensen takes responsibility for his actions he knows what he did was wrong i'm not downplaying the nature of those chats they're very troubling i've lost a lot of time pondering the best way to present it without seeming like i condoned the activity obviously we don't condone it and it's sad for the girls that were talked about in such a way to them to trivialize them as objects for pleasure the data to myself it makes me sick to think someone would do that to my kids but online unfortunately it allows everyone to be either who they want to be who they think they ought to be or they who they are kevin christensen got online got lost uh believed in some of them that he was talking with other adults obviously that wouldn't ever know um and because of what he did he was willing to take responsibility and say yeah these could have been children and i am guilty of that he should be sentenced appropriately he should be sentenced to probation he should be given credit for the time that he has served he should be given the opportunity for a zero tolerance probation and if the court requires 90 60 120-day reviews we're fine with that as well to make sure he is compliant with any court order your honor imposes i think the recommendation is appropriate i'd ask the court to follow it and unless the court has further questions for me i'll submit thank you mr michelle mr christensen is [01:29:39] Speaker 4: there anything you want to say sir yes thank you your honor [01:29:54] Speaker 7: thankful for the opportunity to say a few words i've written them down because i'm nervous and i'm emotional today i've had a lot of time to reflect and think about the things i've done and the pain and the damage i've caused sorrow i feel is truly beyond words it's not me feeling sorry for myself it's feeling sorrow for those i've hurt and betrayed i'm so sorry for the hurt i've caused any victims or potential victims out there the chats i initiated and participated in were truly awful my heart is broken as i see how this has affected my family how it has broken their hearts i'll strive until my dying i'll strive until my dying day to make things right with them if they'll let me i'm sorry if i trade trust of the public and judiciary the day has not gone by where i haven't thought of what i've done and shed so many tears i stand before you ashamed and humbled but i also stand here with hope in my heart for the future as i confront my past i've changed a lot while in jail but i i recognize i still have a long way to go my mind and thoughts are clear and clean it somehow feels like my brain has been reset and is now ready to fully accept counseling and therapy my counseling is all set up and ready to go your honor i really messed up but i promise what i've done will never happen again i promise you i'm not a danger to society in any way i've also worked on the spiritual side of things and trying to make things right with god i'm lucky to have a good loving support system of family and friends waiting for me at home i'm grateful for them and recognize it's probably more than i deserve with their help i know i will succeed but words are cheap so i want to show through my actions on probation and in my daily life that i can constantly that i am constantly striving to be better i promise what i've done is not who i am i want to show you society and my family that i can make amends and do what's right i've never been more sincere about anything in my life but last of all blessed well i hope one day i can forgive myself that will be the most difficult of all thank you for your time and with that i'm ready for sentencing thank you mr christensen [01:33:26] Speaker 1: in preparing for today's sentencing i have reviewed a number of materials besides a lot of letters that were submitted on mr christensen's behalf i particularly found dr thompson's letter to be helpful and thoughtful i've looked at awards that mr christensen's received i've reviewed the pre-sentence report the letters from suncrest counseling and the evaluation let me begin by explaining that there are limits on a court's authority in a sentencing such as this the amended information that was filed in march of 2025 initially charged mr christensen with six second degree felonies and two third degree felonies if mr christensen had been convicted of all of those offenses and given the maximum sentence his prison time would potentially have been between six and thirty years the actual time an inmate serves in prison of course is up to the board of pardons as has been mentioned a few times today but in april of this year the charges were amended all of the second degree felonies were dropped the new information listed only three third degree felonies and those are the crimes to which mr christensen has pled guilty now the court doesn't get to know why the charges were amended there could be many reasons the decision of what charges to bring ultimately is up to the prosecution but with three third degree felonies the maximum a court could impose even if the court chooses to do prison time and run the sentences consecutive is zero to 15 years there are those in any crime who feel that the automatic sentence should be life in prison and i want everyone both in this courtroom and in the online world to be aware that's simply not an option under the law one of the first considerations the court has to consider in any sentencing is the pre-sentence report adult probation and parole recommends that mr christensen be released with credit for the 459 days that he has served and mr christian scoring and placement mathematically in the matrix is largely based on the fact that he has no criminal history there's nothing else with which he's been convicted but the matrix isn't the be all and end all when it comes to determination of an appropriate sentence it is not also the only in indication of legislative intent the legislature sets the punishments for the respective offenses and for third degree felonies the legislature suggests the appropriate punishment is between zero to five years in the utah state prison that is a flaw in the way that the matrix works in my mind and i think this report is also flawed in that the investigator considered neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances and made no reference to the admissions from this evaluation there are mitigating factors here as mr bichelle pointed out the stability of the home that is available to mr christensen is one of them but i disagree with mr bichelle that the prior position of authority in the community is not a significant aggravating factor that the court has to consider Mr. Christensen served as a Justice Court judge for 29 years. He's intimately familiar with the law. He is extremely intelligent. For the Code of Judicial Ethics, judges are to be beyond reproach, both on the bench and off. Judges are not above the law. And judges are not to do anything to damage the integrity and reputation of the judiciary. Despite that, Mr. Christensen chose on multiple occasions to engage in behavior that was both wildly appropriate and, in these situations, illegal. Now, as I review some of these, I want to make it clear Mr. Christensen is not being punished for anything other than the crimes to which he has pled guilty. But these facts go to specifically the question of whether Mr. Christensen is a risk to the community and whether he is amenable to rehabilitation. While chatting with the individual who claimed to be a 13-year-old girl, Mr. Christensen sent a video of himself in a separate chat with a user identifying as a 16-year-old female. Mr. Christensen received a picture of the individuals commented on the picture and asked for more. Mr. Christensen also sent this individual multiple pictures of his video of himself. Mr. Christensen himself has commented in online forums, "I love Young." When another individual described watching his six- and three-year-old grandchildren run around in there, Mr. Christensen commented, "OMG, that's hot." He admitted to having while having thoughts and feelings about female children along with males and females. He's had contact with a dog multiple occasions. [01:39:20] Speaker 6: Those photos are now who knows where in the online world being utilized by people everywhere. [01:39:27] Speaker 1: He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with children. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. He's had contact with people everywhere. Now, Mr. Christensen has explanations for all of this. No one has been able to prove that he was actually chatting with children. That's true. Chatting about sex isn't illegal. That's also true. And it's all just fantasy. Now, again, it's true that Mr. Christensen is not being convicted of any crimes other than these three third-degree felonies we're addressing today. But people generally don't fantasize about things they don't want to happen. They fantasize about things they hope and dream will happen, like winning the lottery or dating a supermodel. So, you know, I'm going to go back to the point. [01:40:20] Speaker ?: You know, I'm going to go back to the point. [01:40:20] Speaker 1: I'm going to go back to the point. I'm going to go back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. [01:40:32] Speaker ?: I'm going back to the point. [01:40:32] Speaker 1: I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. [01:40:34] Speaker ?: I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. [01:40:36] Speaker 1: I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. [01:40:47] Speaker ?: I'm going back to the point. [01:40:48] Speaker 1: I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. [01:42:08] Speaker ?: I'm going back to the point. [01:42:09] Speaker 1: I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. I'm going back to the point. And Dr. Hawks concluded that he was a below average risk with the safety measures that Dr. Hawks suggested. But that simply isn't a risk that I'm willing to take. Therapy just isn't going to be enough where even Dr. Hawks says that Mr. Christensen has not accepted full responsibility for his actions. Further, Mr. Christensen's actions have impugned the very integrity of the court system. Courts cannot function unless people can trust that they will be judged fairly and that the judges who decide their cases are not secretly child sex offenders. In addition to the sex offenses, Mr. Christensen ruled on the probable cause statement and detention status of the very individual with whom he had been having So many of these child related sex chats. Mr. Christensen made sure that individual got bail when he could easily and without explanation have recused from the case. This is a brazen violation of judicial ethics and says even more about Mr. Christians lack of the integrity that we should demand from our judges. I acknowledge the 459 days served by Mr. Christensen, and that is significant. That I am finding that any sentence other than prison will simply give the impression that Mr. Christensen was let off easy because he's part of some good old boys network and that his position as a former judge gives him some kind of immunity. Finally, the sentence issued by the court must have deterrent effect, not just on Mr. Christensen, but on others who would commit such offenses and put our children at risk. To that end, a prison sentence is appropriate. The circumstances simply do not justify a case of release with time served and get outpatient therapy. The next determination that has to be reached is whether the prison time on each charge should run concurrently or consecutively. And the court recognizes that the parties had agreed to recommend to the court that the sentence is run concurrently. The court is not going to follow that recommendation. There are four factors the court needs to consider under the statute. The first is the gravity and circumstances of the offenses. Considering the totality of the circumstances, there's only one point in Mr. Christensen's favor in this respect. To demonstrate that Mr. Christensen has little regard of any for the safety and wellbeing of the very children of the court. The next is the number of victims. Although the two participants in the chats for which Mr. Christensen was charged were not identified, it's reasonable to infer that at least the 16-year-old was actually a teenager rather than a man because a photo of her was sent when requested. [01:46:20] Speaker ?: The next is the number of victims. The next is the number of victims. [01:46:22] Speaker 1: The next is the history, character and rehabilitative needs of the defendant. Mr. Christensen has no criminal history. His public character is excellent. He was a respected member of the community, attended his LDS ward and held a position of trust as a judge. His true character, though, was revealed in the online chats that demonstrated a deviancy and interest in female children. Maintaining the public facade while living this secret life speaks volumes about Mr. Christensen's true character. As to his rehabilitative needs, he clearly needs treatment. We are not a society that throws people away when they commit a crime. The treatment is unlikely to be truly effective until Mr. Christensen can fully accept responsibility. And according to Dr. Hawkes, he isn't there yet. And as Mr. Mehmet pointed out, they do have excellent programs for sex offenders in prison. Based on the court's analysis as set forth, Mr. Christensen is hereby sentenced to three terms of zero to five years in the Utah State Correctional Facility to be served consecutively. The court notes for the record, Mr. Christensen has served 459 days in custody while the case has been pending. The Board of Pardons will consider that information when they decide whether Mr. Christensen will receive credit for the time he served. Mr. Christensen will now be remanded to the custody of the Weber County Sheriff, who will transport him to the Utah State Correctional Facility on the first available date. Thank you all for being here. We are adjourned. [01:48:08] Speaker 5: Thank you, Judge. [01:48:14] Speaker 2: Now, the judge did her job. She sentenced him to the maximum that the legislation would allow for. Zero to 15 years. Ironically, the exact same age range as to which he desires his victims. Zero to 15 years. And now, what does that really mean? Well, what that really means is exactly what you heard. It really means that he's going to spend zero to 15 years in prison. It is up to the parole board. And for those of you who are not so familiar with this channel, maybe new, we used to cover Utah parole hearings. We actually have on record thousands of Utah parole hearings having covered hundreds. And there was there was something that we saw when covering the Utah parole hearings that shocked us. That stunned us. And that is that they are the most lenient state. Maybe only second to Iowa. When it comes to crime. You see, they'll hand out long sentences. Zero to 15. Or even. Who to life. But they parole. They pro left and right. Left and right. We have seen the worst stereo habitual PDF files get paroled after serving just a year in prison. Even less. So it will go to the Utah parole board. And I imagine that he will probably have a parole hearing in just a couple of years. And Utah did not like that we were covering their hearings. They did not like that we were exposing them. So they actually made some changes, but we will do our best. Or I believe that KSL, who recorded this hearing, will make sure that they get press coverage of the parole hearing. And I truly do hope that KSL does not copyright claim this. I already know that this is going to get demonetized on the YouTube algorithm and whatnot because of all of the words, the vile words that were used. So, you know, do your thing to help let this be seen by as many people as possible. It was interesting, right? When the defense, the defense attorney, he gets up and he doesn't use any bio language because he wants to make it seem like this is this is no big deal. It's just what we do behind the keyboard is really not a big deal. You shouldn't look at him as a judge and hold that against him. That's not what the legislators want to say. You know, he's really not a bad guy. You should actually let him out with time served. What an insult. You know, these attorneys, it's like I get that everyone needs a defense attorney, but there's something that these PDF files, they attract defense attorneys. That love their job a little bit too much. They like defending these PDF files a little bit too much. I mean, how can you truly believe what you are saying? Can you imagine a world where they would have let this judge out with time served? And I want to tell you that I don't like this. I don't like this sentencing at all. Now, this judge, she did what she could do. She did the maximum, but I don't like the prosecution in this. To me, this, it smells like rot. Imagine if you are a prosecutor and you find out that a judge, a sitting judge, was doing all of these vile, disgusting things. Not only that, but the judge makes sure to sit on the bench and then give bail to the fire chief. This judge is trying to manipulate justice. This judge that wrecks it for everybody. That actually validates all of our fears. We always joke in the comments section. We joke in the, oh, well, he must have gotten a light sentence because of that judge. And then the PhDs will tell us, oh, no, no, no, no, no. No, you guys don't understand. It's not true. He's a low risk on the static nine nine. It has nothing to do with the judge. He's not going to re-offend. You guys don't know anything. You're just sheeple. But then when we can see the judge and we can point it, we can say, wait a minute. Look, we're not crazy. It's true. Why would the prosecutor not sentence him, not charge him with all of the charges? Why would the prosecutor drop three of the second degree felonies? If the judge serves all 15 years, which I guarantee you he will not, he will be 80 years old when he gets out. And I promise you they will consider him a low risk on the static nine nine. And I don't know what his registration requirements are going to be either. [01:53:19] Speaker 6: If at all. Why would the prosecution not take this to the max? [01:53:35] Speaker 2: Why would they not say this? This is why I became a prosecutor. This is the case that this is why I'm going to get up out of bed every morning. And I'm going to be excited because I'm going to win this. I'm going to take this to trial. And we and you can't lose. The worst case scenario is that you get what you got now. You charge him for all the second degrees, the third degrees, and then the jury finds guilty on this and not guilty on that. That's the worst case scenario. And it's because they don't care for the prosecution down. It's all it is a big boys club, isn't it? Like the judge said, we don't want people. Well, then why did you drop the charges? You know, as the even the audacity of the defense attorney said, well, we don't even know that there were victims. We traveled to that state and the victim didn't. You know, they said it wasn't me. It's like, well, you know, there are so many scenarios for the said it wasn't me. You should have said like, like that person probably was embarrassed. She'd probably like a 16 year old. Like, oh, my God, I got caught sending pictures. Of course, she's going to say it wasn't me. But subpoena the records. Get the proof. It's like all of a sudden they're useless. [01:54:52] Speaker 6: Oh, she said it wasn't her. [01:54:58] Speaker ?: Prosecution. [01:54:59] Speaker 6: They could be so lazy at times. I'm telling you. [01:55:03] Speaker 2: I mean, they did a good enough job, I guess, getting him to begin with. [01:55:08] Speaker 6: And again, remember how it all started. The fire chief. The fire chief is caught. [01:55:18] Speaker 2: This judge makes sure to be the one that does the bond hearing, lets him out. He then gets caught again. We'll go over some more. We'll read it through it so you can you could hear it from the record itself. Right. [01:55:31] Speaker 6: But I'm not done with my little rant. [01:55:36] Speaker 2: And then think about actually think about this from the judge's perspective. You just I'm going to get some pleasure in this. Maybe you will as well. Just to think about how what would the terror he has to go through when all of a sudden he sees in the news is oh, my God, the fire chief. The guy that I have relationships with that I fantasize about being a PDF file with. He got caught. Oh, no. What am I going to do? He even goes and gets a new phone. He had he had all the time in the world to make sure that none of his devices had content on it, which he did. I mean, it doesn't take rocket science to make sure that none of your devices are when you have a weak heads up. Right. Right. And the defense attorney is like, they didn't even find anything on his devices. Well, no kidding. Well, you know, why didn't they charge him? Why didn't they charge him? You see, a strong prosecution would have charged him probably with destroying evidence. They probably could have thrown in more charges like that. You think it would have been that hard to prove? Well, no, he just happened to get a new phone and his old phone happened to disappear. It's because I'm telling you that they are. It is a big boys club. The prosecution didn't want to put the pedal to the metal. We have all seen cases when they want to put the pedal to the metal, they don't leave a single rock unturned. They will put a three year old on the stand in a murder case. So, yeah, they could put a 16 year old on the stand to put a judge away. [01:57:14] Speaker 6: Sometimes you have to do it. Anyways, you heard the things this judge did? He would get himself off in his daughter's pancake batter. You know, the daughter was adopted. [01:57:45] Speaker 2: She came out. She spoke out against the adopted father. She's the only one in her family that we have record of that is standing up against him. This judge's wife will stand with him. And we see that all the time. That is not a shock to any of us who's used to these hearings. They always find enablers. And to think the idea that he most likely, I mean, not most likely, in my mind, guaranteed he adopted that girl. So he could by curiously fantasize about her from the age of zero to 15. [01:58:22] Speaker 6: Which he did. He would literally do that to her pancake batter. [01:58:30] Speaker 2: The man of the year. Always the man of the year, isn't it? A war. Can you imagine? You just can't make this stuff up. [01:58:41] Speaker 6: He would have his dog. His dog. Do things to him. [01:58:48] Speaker 2: This is not a normal human being. This is a demented monster. A lizard humanoid. A cockroach. [01:58:58] Speaker 6: Worse than all those things, frankly. Hiding behind, under the cloak of a judge. And they have, uh, wealth. [01:59:26] Speaker 2: Keep paying. He passed a lie detector test. They didn't find any content on his devices. Let him out without any prison time shirt. I mean, this is really, it just doesn't get worse than this. [01:59:46] Speaker 6: It doesn't. And the judge goes on to say, he never even touched them. This is not a crime of physical. [02:00:00] Speaker 2: Unbelievable. So let's go over and thank you. Um, Sir Richard. For pulling the research on his case with everything that he's dealing with. And also I want to thank, um, I want to thank, uh, Tina. Tina sent me this case and said, man, do you got to cover it? And you guys, if you ever see a case that you want me to cover, send it with as much context as possible. So it's easy for me to wrap my mind around it. And, uh, it's deeply appreciated. Let's go over to the article. Um, once trusted judge, he's now headed to prison for explicit online chats. The Ogden judge. And by the way, you know, I don't know if you guys know this. I lived in Utah for a little bit. I love that place. I had no idea it was riddled with so many PDF files. There are so many PDF files there and they are so light on crime. And it has to do with their light leg legislation there, which is another thing we can talk about how insane their legislate. Can you imagine that you can commit these acts? And then you taught the zero mandatory minimum. Even, even in like the, the, the, the, the more left leaning states like Connecticut has longer minimum sentences in their legislation. It's up to the lawmakers lawmakers need to. It's so easy. Just write it on a piece of paper and voted in. Like no one's going to object to making a minimum sentence for chomo crimes, but they don't do it. [02:01:31] Speaker 6: And you got to ask yourself, why don't you do it? [02:01:37] Speaker 2: And I've been judged sentence. Kevin Christian to maximum penalty saying he involved children. He knew in his dark fantasies. And this is written by Jessica Schreifel. Thank you very much for writing this wonderfully written article. Um, with the Salt Lake, uh, Lake Tribune. So Kevin Christensen had been a trusted man in Fox elder County. He was a justice court judge for decades, a beloved grandfather, a devoted church member, but he held a dark secret. He had chatted online about his attraction to little ones and had charged conversations with users. He thought were little ones. He will send ordinary photos of young family member and images of girls in his latter-day saints ward directory to others as they share fantasies about the girls. So look at this. He sent ordinary photos of young family members and images of girls from his latter-day saints ward directory to others. He's literally distributing like, you can't like, why would, again, why would the D.A. not, not charging with everything? Christensen online conversation came to light last year as the FBI investigated another man for possessing this, by the way, the fire chief so far is taking it to trial. Oftentimes they'll take it to trial on the last day pull out. But as of now, he's taken to trial. It's going to go to trial. Um, let me check Sir Richard's notes. Um, because we'll cover that if this video does, does well. [02:03:20] Speaker 6: Um, he is due in court. Actually, I don't, I don't see where it is here. I don't know what he's doing, Kurt. Sorry. [02:03:38] Speaker 2: Um, I think it might be next month for some reason, but okay. Who is, uh, Tremonten's fire chief. Authorities say that while investigating Hanson, the fire chief, they found chats between the two men describing, describing their fantasies. Hanson was arrested last January and Christensen as a box elder county justice judge allowed him to post jail bail. The judge was arrested later. Again, think about what he was going through in this. He's like, oh my God, my lovers arrested. They're going to be going through his phone. What am I going to do? Okay. So he gets up and he runs. He gets rid of all his devices. He burns his computer. He's probably sitting there in the backyard digging this hole, right? And he's dropping the studies, you know, dropping things in acid. He knows he has just like a little bit of time because he knows they're going to find the conversations. And the whole time he's thinking, should I recuse myself? But he knows if he recuses himself, that his lover maybe will, will, will sell out the judge to get a light sentence. So he thinks that he can, he's going to go get bail. Also, he probably thinks if I give him bail, maybe he'll be able to hide evidence. I do get pleasure in thinking about him worrying for those two waiting, waiting for the them to come banging down his door. So I just want to say again, if you truly think that Utah is so incompetent that they cannot, using a digital trail, identify who they were. If I don't know, it's hard. It truly is hard for me to believe that. You know, are they outside the country? No. They already said that they knew which state they were. They already said that they knew which state they were. So I just want to say again, [02:05:27] Speaker 6: if you truly think that Utah is so incompetent that they cannot, using a digital trail, identify who they were. [02:05:31] Speaker ?: I don't know. [02:05:32] Speaker 6: It's hard. It truly is hard for me to believe that. [02:05:37] Speaker 2: You know, are they outside the country? No, they already said that they knew which state it was. The defense attorney said they traveled to that state to see and that person, and they contacted a person. The person said, it wasn't me. I just don't, I don't know. It just seems weak to me. On Monday, as a former judge faces own sentencing from the second district court judge, Catherine Coughlin, he cried. He apologized to his family and those who trusted him. He betrayed the public trust of the judiciary. [02:06:08] Speaker 6: Oh, I was wrong. Wait a minute. [02:06:12] Speaker 2: Christensen, the firetree fled guilty. I don't know. I'm getting gay. Another man. [02:06:23] Speaker ?: No. Okay. [02:06:23] Speaker 2: Never mind. I get confused with the names. We're going on the same thing. Okay. People who received the explicit images. Okay. On Monday, as the former judge faced down his own sentencing from second district court judge, Catherine Coughlin, he cried and apologized to his family who trusted him. He betrayed the public trust. He said to the judiciary, the sorrow I feel is truly beyond words. He said, my heart is broken and I see how this is affecting my family. Shut up. How is it broken? He's a lizard humanoid. He means nothing. I mean, think about the, the, just the absolute depravity. Conklin handed down the maximum of those up to 15 years to the state of Utah, saying that anything less than the prison would give the perception that Christensen was being let off easy because some good old boys network. And I still believe that the prosecution treated him as if he's part of some good old boys network, or maybe the PDF file network. Mr. Christensen had no problem pulling girls from his ward and his own family members into his dark fantasies. Conklin said, adding that the, in, in, in pond, impugn, impugn, I don't know, the integrity of the court system impugn, impugn, impugn. Conklin added that it was a brazen violation of judicial ethics for Christensen to grant chief bail someone who knew he was having explosive chats with online. He could have quietly recused himself, Conklin said, and stayed out of the case without implicating himself. Utah's parole board ultimately decided how long Christensen will stay in prison. Defense attorney, Ryan Ronchel had asked that Conklin release Christensen on probation and into a therapy program, noting the former judges already spent 459 days. Come on. That is so tough. You know, if you're complaining about being in solitary confinement, just don't. Okay. You can leave solitary. Go. Go. Yo. Oh, is that a problem that you don't want to be in solitary? All right, let's go. You can, you can leave solitary. You can go to general, but Bushnell noted that the investigation ever found any child materials. Oh, well, yeah, because, um, um, um, um, because he got rid of all of his devices. Like a week before. The evidence investigators did find that Bushnell said was highly inappropriate chats. The cold, hard truth, because the chats are not on the devices. They were through whatever subpoenas they got. The cold, hard truth of this case is that while Mr. Christensen was engaged in these chats, he never received. The defense attorney argued he never touched a single person. Okay. Bushwell noted that the legislature and Utah sentencing commission has suggested that a defendant convicted of crimes admitted to should receive 120 days in jail. Well, he asked, you see how weak they are in this type of crimes. So they're really insane. He didn't confident follow that guidance and ignore the client had been a justice court. Judge argued that none of the inappropriate conversations happened while he was on the bench. But assistant Utah attorney general, Austin Memmeth had argued for prison saying. Christensen uses unique position as a judge to manipulate the system and was a risk to children everywhere. And I do have to give this ADA a round of applause. He did do a wonderful job arguing. I rather enjoyed all of it. He's a risk to children and his family in the church. Those encounters online everywhere this defendant goes, he is looking for children. He is 100% true. Conklin, the judge agreed, while the chat may have been a fantasy, said that the people generally don't fantasize about things they don't want to happen. It's not a light drop. These chats show us who Mr. Christensen truly is when he's at home and thinks no one is watching. After the sentencing, Utah attorney general, Derek Brown, sent a statement noting that Christensen was a sitting judge when he was committing these crimes and that he swore the oath to uphold. Today, he is a convicted felon. He said, no one is above the law and this office will keep proving that. Except it's not this ADA is fault, but I still don't. I still believe the district attorney who makes a decision should have made it his crusade, his mission to charge and take this judge to trial. That's what when else would you do it? Hanson, the former Trenton fire chief, has pled not guilty. Okay, so I was right to eight first degree felony charges, alleging he distributed child essay material to others online. He is also charged with aggravated essay of a child and prosecutors have accused him of essaying a girl who he held a position of trust is expected to be in court early. Oh, I was right, guys, it is next month, July. Um, so we'll cover that case. We'll cover that. We'll see what happens. We'll see if he, you know, a lot of times in these situations, they, they wait to the last second to go to trial and then they do a plea deal. We'll see if this DA has more of us, you know, I think it will show the true cards, right? Are they going to order the, they, they very often don't go to trial. They like doing the plea deals because they don't really have a spine. They don't really do it for the right reasons. They're journeymen, you know, they like to do this and then, you know, run for office somewhere else or open a law firm. You know, that's what I've seen. Anyways, thank you, Sir Richard, for the research. And we actually have a case at Utah that we're going to cover soon. We're bringing back plans from the past. There was a horrible, horrible monster. And he did the worst to his family. And we covered two of his parole hearings. And they paroled him. They paroled him. He also had like a zero to 40 or something. They paroled him after a couple of years, even though the family is there on the parole hearing crying, crying, not to let him out. And guess what he did right away? Oh, he hurt him bad. And now he's going back to prison. So we're going to expose all of that very soon. So make sure you check out the Utah playlist. And with that, I'll let you go. [02:12:34] Speaker 1: The amended information that was filed in March of 2025 initially charged Mr. Christensen with six second degree felonies and two third degree felonies. If Mr. Christensen had been convicted of all of those offenses and given the maximum sentence, his prison time would potentially have been between six and 30 years. The actual time an inmate serves in prison, of course, is up to the board of pardons, as has been mentioned a few times today. But in April of this year, the charges were amended. All of the second degree felonies were dropped. The new information listed only three third degree felonies. And those are the crimes to which Mr. Christensen has pled guilty.