Reporting begins badly, then gets worse.
While Keagan Harsha of WCAX's VT News television station so called "reporting" of the hate crime did Not identify the judge dismissing the charges; in an ongoing display of non-reporting, both AP and Boston Globe merely condensed the already poor coverage, to even less, for reader consumption.
Original REPORT quoted: "In somewhat of an unusual fashion the judge put the case on the stand" - which amazingly enough, continues without identifying the judge.
(Is this the Fourth Estate's version of "Find Waldo" in a story? One wonders What journalism school teaches this kind of stuff?)
Boston Globe - from AP Reports
Judge dismisses hate crime charges
February 24, 2008
ST. ALBANS, Vt.—A judge has dismissed hate crime charges against two teenage sisters accused of slashing tires and spray painting anti-gay slogans on vehicles owned by two gay men, citing a lack of evidence.
more stories like this
Melissa Gaboury, 16, was released on Friday, after spending several months in prison.
Prosecutors said they believed they had enough evidence -- a can of spray paint, a large knife and razor blades that they said were found in the vehicle Gaboury had been driving -- and said she had contradicted herself during police interviews.
"I feel very bad for the victims in this case because they went through this and they pressed forward and we tried to put it together for a trial in a relatively short period of time and the judge didn't feel we had the evidence to convict her," Franklin County Prosecutor Jim Hughes said.
The judge also dismissed the charges against Gaboury's 18-year-old sister who was expected to go on trial next week in the same case.
------
VT: Hate Crime Case Dismissed
St. Albans, Vermont - February 22, 2008
It's a bizarre twist that neither the prosecution nor the defense saw coming-- bringing an abrupt halt to the case of an alleged hate crime by a St. Albans teenager.
In somewhat unusual fashion, the judge put the state's case on the stand... questioning evidence linking Melissa Gaboury, 16, to the crime.
Gaboury was accused of slashing tires and helping paint anti-gay phrases on cars belonging to two gay St. Albans men last October.
The judge dismissed the case citing a lack of evidence.
"In my experience, I've never been involved in a trial or seen a trial where an acquittal has been given at the end of the state's case," said defense lawyer Elizabeth Hibbitts.
That means Gaboury is free to go home after spending the last several months behind bars.
"It just tore me apart. I finally get her back," said Gaboury's mother, Crystal Ann Lesperance-Meilleu.
"I'm just really relieved to be out of this whole mess," said Gaboury.
The state argues that it did produce sufficient evidence linking Gaboury to the crime scene. Although no one actually witnessed the crime being committed, the state argues that a can of spray paint, a large knife, and several razor blades were found in a vehicle Gaboury had been driving. And the state says the 16 year old contradicted herself several times when questioned by police.
"I feel very bad for the victims in this case because they went through this and they pressed forward and we tried to put it together for a trial in a relatively short period of time and the judge didn't feel we had the evidence to convict her," said Franklin County Prosecutor Jim Hughes.
After the case was dismissed, the judge called the jury back in to see if they agreed that the state had failed to produce enough evidence.
Melissa Gaboury's 18-year old sister was scheduled to go on trial next week in connection with the same crime. The judge also dismissed that case, after the state failed to prove it had more convincing evidence against the older sister.
The dismissal means it's very unlikely anyone will be charged for committing this hate crime. That leaves a lot of questions unanswered and a Vermont couple on edge.
Asked who she thinks committed the crime, Gaboury answered, "I don't know and I don't want to get involved."
Keagan Harsha - WCAX News
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Arizona Columnist Fails to Mention Judge in Children's Deaths
(Although Roberts Often Exposes CPS Related Deaths - seldom mentioned are the judges who go along with the agency.) How does this help the reader when Judicial Elections come around?)
Another child dies under CPS' watch
Feb. 23, 2007
Laurie Roberts
Marina Rodriguez holds up the letter her 8-year-old grandson wrote, the one saying he was afraid. In November, she faxed it to Child Protective Services, trying desperately to get someone to listen to her fears about what was happening to her grandsons.
Two months later, one of them was dead.
"When Fabian died, I asked (the caseworker), what happened to that letter," Marina said. "She said, 'Well, that was disregarded because it was coerced."
Four-year-old Fabian Silva is the fifth Tucson child to die in the last year while CPS was supposed to be watching. Just a week before he died, 5-month-old Jahyr Holguin was gone, one month after a hospital reported suspicions that the baby was being abused. His mother's boyfriend now sits in jail, awaiting trial for murder.
On Tuesday, the House Government Committee will hear a package of bills aimed at better protecting the most vulnerable among us: children whose parents can't or won't do the job. It'll be a political fight, with some legislators determined to protect CPS from prying eyes.
If we're lucky, they will, finally, be drowned out by those who know the sad stories of 4-year-old Ariana Payne and her 5-year-old brother Tyler, and Brandon Williams, an autistic boy who was 5 when he was beaten to death. And now of Jahyr Holguin and maybe Fabian Silva.
Rep. Jonathan Paton has seen enough. He and Rep. Kirk Adams are proposing to rip away the shroud of secrecy that allows CPS to covers its failings. "We've had (five) kids now who all have three things in common," Paton said. "Parents investigated by CPS. CPS determined their parents were safe and all (five) are dead. . . . The public has a right to know if policies were followed or not followed so we can make a better decision about how the agency is run."
Fabian's grandparents, Marina and Martin Rodriguez, saw their grandsons regularly until Halloween, when Fabian was hospitalized with a concussion and other injuries.
The Rodriguezes were there at the hospital when the CPS worker showed up on Nov. 1. It was the first and last they ever saw of her. Meanwhile, they say they had a falling out with their daughter, who had recently moved in with her boyfriend, and were cut off from contact with their grandsons.
All through November, Marina and Martin say they called CPS with their concerns, but the agency wasn't interested in talking to them.
Not even after another report was filed in mid-November, this time by a teacher.
Not even after Marina faxed over the letter from her other grandson. While Fabian was in the hospital, she says the boy's father asked his older son to write down what he was feeling. He wrote of being hit, of being scared.
"She (the caseworker) wouldn't talk to me," Marina said. "Then she stopped taking my calls."
On Jan. 26, Fabian was taken to University Medical Center, where he died the next morning.
Tucson police Sgt. Mark Robinson said detectives are still investigating his death. CPS took custody of the older boy the day Fabian died.
CPS spokeswoman Vicki Gaubeca confirmed that the agency received reports on Oct. 31 and Nov. 13. She said they spoke to the Rodriguezes on Nov. 1 and by phone on Nov. 9.
"In addition," she said, "CPS caseworkers interviewed all adults and children living in the home, the biological father, great grandparents, local law enforcement and medical and hospital personnel."
Everybody, it seems, but the people who were begging to tell their story.
Martin, a retired Army counterintelligence agent, said the CPS worker finally agreed to meet with them - after Fabian died.
"I said, how can you conduct a proper investigation that's one-sided? And she goes, 'Well I wasn't about to interview 40 people.' "
Another child dies under CPS' watch
Feb. 23, 2007
Laurie Roberts
Marina Rodriguez holds up the letter her 8-year-old grandson wrote, the one saying he was afraid. In November, she faxed it to Child Protective Services, trying desperately to get someone to listen to her fears about what was happening to her grandsons.
Two months later, one of them was dead.
"When Fabian died, I asked (the caseworker), what happened to that letter," Marina said. "She said, 'Well, that was disregarded because it was coerced."
Four-year-old Fabian Silva is the fifth Tucson child to die in the last year while CPS was supposed to be watching. Just a week before he died, 5-month-old Jahyr Holguin was gone, one month after a hospital reported suspicions that the baby was being abused. His mother's boyfriend now sits in jail, awaiting trial for murder.
On Tuesday, the House Government Committee will hear a package of bills aimed at better protecting the most vulnerable among us: children whose parents can't or won't do the job. It'll be a political fight, with some legislators determined to protect CPS from prying eyes.
If we're lucky, they will, finally, be drowned out by those who know the sad stories of 4-year-old Ariana Payne and her 5-year-old brother Tyler, and Brandon Williams, an autistic boy who was 5 when he was beaten to death. And now of Jahyr Holguin and maybe Fabian Silva.
Rep. Jonathan Paton has seen enough. He and Rep. Kirk Adams are proposing to rip away the shroud of secrecy that allows CPS to covers its failings. "We've had (five) kids now who all have three things in common," Paton said. "Parents investigated by CPS. CPS determined their parents were safe and all (five) are dead. . . . The public has a right to know if policies were followed or not followed so we can make a better decision about how the agency is run."
Fabian's grandparents, Marina and Martin Rodriguez, saw their grandsons regularly until Halloween, when Fabian was hospitalized with a concussion and other injuries.
The Rodriguezes were there at the hospital when the CPS worker showed up on Nov. 1. It was the first and last they ever saw of her. Meanwhile, they say they had a falling out with their daughter, who had recently moved in with her boyfriend, and were cut off from contact with their grandsons.
All through November, Marina and Martin say they called CPS with their concerns, but the agency wasn't interested in talking to them.
Not even after another report was filed in mid-November, this time by a teacher.
Not even after Marina faxed over the letter from her other grandson. While Fabian was in the hospital, she says the boy's father asked his older son to write down what he was feeling. He wrote of being hit, of being scared.
"She (the caseworker) wouldn't talk to me," Marina said. "Then she stopped taking my calls."
On Jan. 26, Fabian was taken to University Medical Center, where he died the next morning.
Tucson police Sgt. Mark Robinson said detectives are still investigating his death. CPS took custody of the older boy the day Fabian died.
CPS spokeswoman Vicki Gaubeca confirmed that the agency received reports on Oct. 31 and Nov. 13. She said they spoke to the Rodriguezes on Nov. 1 and by phone on Nov. 9.
"In addition," she said, "CPS caseworkers interviewed all adults and children living in the home, the biological father, great grandparents, local law enforcement and medical and hospital personnel."
Everybody, it seems, but the people who were begging to tell their story.
Martin, a retired Army counterintelligence agent, said the CPS worker finally agreed to meet with them - after Fabian died.
"I said, how can you conduct a proper investigation that's one-sided? And she goes, 'Well I wasn't about to interview 40 people.' "
Thursday, February 21, 2008
OC Register Reporter Fails to Name Judge In Licensing Death
Why not inform the public?
How else can voters make a choice to retain these judges during an election year?
Home where baby died had earlier death, state violations
Records show child died at Laguna Hills home in 2001. Operator says her own child died as well. State is investigating.
By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ
The Orange County Register
LAGUNA HILLS - A 6-month-old infant who died earlier this month was the second to die at a Barkstone Lane child care facility that has a history of neglect complaints and citations by state regulators.
The state's Department of Social Services has received more than 20 complaints regarding Moulton Ranch Day Care, operated out of a two-story home in Laguna Hills. The state has found the facility to be in violation of state regulations more than 25 times since 1993.
Officials substantiated complaints that Patricia Edwina Baltayan, who owns the day care center, drank wine on at least one occasion while taking care of children, sprayed children's bottoms with cold water when they had potty-training accidents, and scrubbed little boys' genitals until they became raw, state records show. Several other complaints were found to be inconclusive.
Paramedics responded to the home Feb. 8 after receiving a call that a child stopped breathing. Before authorities arrived, a 911 dispatcher instructed someone at the scene how to administer CPR, said Capt. Mike Blawn of the Orange County Fire Authority.
A sheriff's deputy arrived at the home first and took over CPR on 6-month-old Damian Rivera. After firefighters arrived, the baby was taken in the back of a sheriff's cruiser to Mission Hospital in Mission Viejo, where he was pronounced dead.
Daniel Rivera, the child's father, said it was only Damian's third day at the child care facility.
A cause of death has not yet been determined. Sheriff's officials said they found no suspicious circumstances in the death.
Damian's mother, Janay Labrado, 20, said doctors told her that her son's heart just stopped. She would not comment further for this story.
Rivera's father said he and family members suspect Damian may have been a victim of sudden infant death syndrome. But state records showing complaints and violations against the facility have caused him to worry about Damian's care.
Shirley Washington, a spokeswoman with the California Department of Social Services, said the department is cooperating with local authorities who are investigating Damian's death. A report from the coroner's office is not expected for six weeks. All deaths that occur while in the care of a licensed day care facility are investigated by the department, she said.
Complaints filed against day care facilities are also followed up by state regulators and reviewed on a case-by-case basis, she said. Officials make a decision to close down a facility when there is an imminent danger to the children in their care. Moulton Ranch Day Care remains open.
Most complaints alleging lack of supervision by Baltayan were found to be inconclusive, according to records obtained by the Register.
However, regulators did verify instances in which a 12-year-old was left alone to care for children, and several instances in which children were left unattended in highchairs.
In an interview at her Laguna Hills home, Baltayan said she did everything she could have done to save Damian Rivera. She added that many of the complaints filed against her were not true.
"They're not right and the people that know, know the truth," Baltayan said of the complaints. "I loved what I was doing, but at this time it's too traumatizing."
Seven years ago, another child in her care also died.
State records show that in May 2001, paramedics were called to her home when a 6-month-old child stopped breathing.
Baltayan said she did CPR on that baby before he was taken to Mission Hospital. He died at the hospital three days later, May 4, 2001.
The cause of death was determined to be chronic tracheitis and peribronchitis – an inflammation of the trachea and bronchial tubes, according to state records. State regulators deemed the death to be due to natural causes.
Baltayan said Damian was the third child on whom she had to administer CPR. Her own child had a reaction to medication and stopped breathing, she said. Baltayan said the child subsequently passed away, but she declined to give any more details of that death.
"I just know I can't do this anymore," she said. "I've had a lot of loss in my life."
Baltayan has talked about quitting before.
Records show that in an August 2007 visit by the Department of Social Services, Baltayan requested to be placed on inactive status, saying she only baby-sat friends' children.
However, she was never moved to inactive status.
When Damian stopped breathing earlier this month, she was taking care of two other children, Baltayan said. She is licensed to care for up to 12 children.
Baltayan was first licensed by the state in 1988. Since then, she's faced several citations from the Department of Social Services.
Records show that state officials met with Baltayan in May 1993 to discuss "concerns about long history of being overcapacity" and told her not to use highchairs for timeouts.
In 1995, she received a seven-month suspension for lack of supervision, drinking while caring for children, and caring for children while her home was being sprayed for ants, according to records.
"On at least one occasion, respondent drank wine in the facility during hours of operation," read a decision by an administrative law judge. "This occurred on the day that respondent attempted to keep her facility open while preparing for and having the facility chemically treated."
Her license was reinstated and the judge decided that the violation "although serious, is conduct that can be corrected with proper discipline containing strict conditions and a period of suspension."
In June 2006, state officials held a conference with Baltayan, the regional manager for the Department of Social Services and other officials because of "concern the Department has regarding the numerous violations of State regulations."
Among the issues discussed at the meeting were allegations of adults in the facility without criminal clearances, lack of supervision, children being left unattended with a 12-year-old assistant, overcapacity, and hazardous materials being accessible to children.
From 2006 to 2007, the department visited Baltayan's home 10 times.
"We have visited that facility quite a bit," Washington said.
When complaints were verified, Baltayan was set up in a plan of correction.
In December 2006, the Department of Social Services investigated a complaint alleging that Baltayan had caused soreness to boys' genitals and threatened children with cold showers after potty-training accidents. That complaint was substantiated through interviews by a license evaluator.
According to state records, eyewitnesses reported they saw Baltayan on different occasions pulling back on children's foreskins, causing one child to scream and cry "so loudly that the eyewitness was concerned the neighbors might call the police."
One witness reported seeing drops of blood during this process.
According to records, Baltayan appealed the department's finding, and asked for expert medical opinions.
In an e-mail sent to the state department, Baltayan also said that the allegation of spraying children with cold water was inaccurate and that "the vocabulary in these investigations are crude and suggest that children are being subject to a house of horrors rather than supported in a loving environment that cares for the whole child."
The appeal was rejected in an April 4, 2007, decision.
Daniel Rivera said he and family suspect Damian may have been a victim of sudden infant death syndrome, in which children under 1 year old die unexpectedly while sleeping. According to the California SIDS Program, a program under the California Department of Health Services that helps individuals affected by SIDS, 171 babies died from SIDS in California in 2004 – about 31 out of every 100,000 births.
"If it was natural causes, we can live," Daniel Rivera said. "If it's something someone could have prevented, someone needs to pay."
Contact the writer: shernandez@ocregister.com or 949-454-7361
How else can voters make a choice to retain these judges during an election year?
Home where baby died had earlier death, state violations
Records show child died at Laguna Hills home in 2001. Operator says her own child died as well. State is investigating.
By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ
The Orange County Register
LAGUNA HILLS - A 6-month-old infant who died earlier this month was the second to die at a Barkstone Lane child care facility that has a history of neglect complaints and citations by state regulators.
The state's Department of Social Services has received more than 20 complaints regarding Moulton Ranch Day Care, operated out of a two-story home in Laguna Hills. The state has found the facility to be in violation of state regulations more than 25 times since 1993.
Officials substantiated complaints that Patricia Edwina Baltayan, who owns the day care center, drank wine on at least one occasion while taking care of children, sprayed children's bottoms with cold water when they had potty-training accidents, and scrubbed little boys' genitals until they became raw, state records show. Several other complaints were found to be inconclusive.
Paramedics responded to the home Feb. 8 after receiving a call that a child stopped breathing. Before authorities arrived, a 911 dispatcher instructed someone at the scene how to administer CPR, said Capt. Mike Blawn of the Orange County Fire Authority.
A sheriff's deputy arrived at the home first and took over CPR on 6-month-old Damian Rivera. After firefighters arrived, the baby was taken in the back of a sheriff's cruiser to Mission Hospital in Mission Viejo, where he was pronounced dead.
Daniel Rivera, the child's father, said it was only Damian's third day at the child care facility.
A cause of death has not yet been determined. Sheriff's officials said they found no suspicious circumstances in the death.
Damian's mother, Janay Labrado, 20, said doctors told her that her son's heart just stopped. She would not comment further for this story.
Rivera's father said he and family members suspect Damian may have been a victim of sudden infant death syndrome. But state records showing complaints and violations against the facility have caused him to worry about Damian's care.
Shirley Washington, a spokeswoman with the California Department of Social Services, said the department is cooperating with local authorities who are investigating Damian's death. A report from the coroner's office is not expected for six weeks. All deaths that occur while in the care of a licensed day care facility are investigated by the department, she said.
Complaints filed against day care facilities are also followed up by state regulators and reviewed on a case-by-case basis, she said. Officials make a decision to close down a facility when there is an imminent danger to the children in their care. Moulton Ranch Day Care remains open.
Most complaints alleging lack of supervision by Baltayan were found to be inconclusive, according to records obtained by the Register.
However, regulators did verify instances in which a 12-year-old was left alone to care for children, and several instances in which children were left unattended in highchairs.
In an interview at her Laguna Hills home, Baltayan said she did everything she could have done to save Damian Rivera. She added that many of the complaints filed against her were not true.
"They're not right and the people that know, know the truth," Baltayan said of the complaints. "I loved what I was doing, but at this time it's too traumatizing."
Seven years ago, another child in her care also died.
State records show that in May 2001, paramedics were called to her home when a 6-month-old child stopped breathing.
Baltayan said she did CPR on that baby before he was taken to Mission Hospital. He died at the hospital three days later, May 4, 2001.
The cause of death was determined to be chronic tracheitis and peribronchitis – an inflammation of the trachea and bronchial tubes, according to state records. State regulators deemed the death to be due to natural causes.
Baltayan said Damian was the third child on whom she had to administer CPR. Her own child had a reaction to medication and stopped breathing, she said. Baltayan said the child subsequently passed away, but she declined to give any more details of that death.
"I just know I can't do this anymore," she said. "I've had a lot of loss in my life."
Baltayan has talked about quitting before.
Records show that in an August 2007 visit by the Department of Social Services, Baltayan requested to be placed on inactive status, saying she only baby-sat friends' children.
However, she was never moved to inactive status.
When Damian stopped breathing earlier this month, she was taking care of two other children, Baltayan said. She is licensed to care for up to 12 children.
Baltayan was first licensed by the state in 1988. Since then, she's faced several citations from the Department of Social Services.
Records show that state officials met with Baltayan in May 1993 to discuss "concerns about long history of being overcapacity" and told her not to use highchairs for timeouts.
In 1995, she received a seven-month suspension for lack of supervision, drinking while caring for children, and caring for children while her home was being sprayed for ants, according to records.
"On at least one occasion, respondent drank wine in the facility during hours of operation," read a decision by an administrative law judge. "This occurred on the day that respondent attempted to keep her facility open while preparing for and having the facility chemically treated."
Her license was reinstated and the judge decided that the violation "although serious, is conduct that can be corrected with proper discipline containing strict conditions and a period of suspension."
In June 2006, state officials held a conference with Baltayan, the regional manager for the Department of Social Services and other officials because of "concern the Department has regarding the numerous violations of State regulations."
Among the issues discussed at the meeting were allegations of adults in the facility without criminal clearances, lack of supervision, children being left unattended with a 12-year-old assistant, overcapacity, and hazardous materials being accessible to children.
From 2006 to 2007, the department visited Baltayan's home 10 times.
"We have visited that facility quite a bit," Washington said.
When complaints were verified, Baltayan was set up in a plan of correction.
In December 2006, the Department of Social Services investigated a complaint alleging that Baltayan had caused soreness to boys' genitals and threatened children with cold showers after potty-training accidents. That complaint was substantiated through interviews by a license evaluator.
According to state records, eyewitnesses reported they saw Baltayan on different occasions pulling back on children's foreskins, causing one child to scream and cry "so loudly that the eyewitness was concerned the neighbors might call the police."
One witness reported seeing drops of blood during this process.
According to records, Baltayan appealed the department's finding, and asked for expert medical opinions.
In an e-mail sent to the state department, Baltayan also said that the allegation of spraying children with cold water was inaccurate and that "the vocabulary in these investigations are crude and suggest that children are being subject to a house of horrors rather than supported in a loving environment that cares for the whole child."
The appeal was rejected in an April 4, 2007, decision.
Daniel Rivera said he and family suspect Damian may have been a victim of sudden infant death syndrome, in which children under 1 year old die unexpectedly while sleeping. According to the California SIDS Program, a program under the California Department of Health Services that helps individuals affected by SIDS, 171 babies died from SIDS in California in 2004 – about 31 out of every 100,000 births.
"If it was natural causes, we can live," Daniel Rivera said. "If it's something someone could have prevented, someone needs to pay."
Contact the writer: shernandez@ocregister.com or 949-454-7361
Friday, February 15, 2008
Judge not there...Reporter Doesn't Check it Out.
Sadly, in the story below, the Judge causing the problem wasn't identified in the article.
Journalism 101 - ignored.
Court: Late Arrival Did Not Justify Immigration Hearing in Absentia
By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer
Friday, February 15, 2008
Page 1
An immigration judge exceeded his authority by proceeding with an in absentia removal hearing after the alien showed up late, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.
Voting 2-1 to grant Juan Antonio Perez’s petition for review of a decision ordering him removed in absentia because he failed to appear at his scheduled removal hearing on time, the court held that Perez had not failed to appear—despite arriving two hours late and after his attorney had already left—because he arrived just before the immigration judge finished for the day.
However, in a sharp dissent, Judge Pamela Ann Rymer wrote that “[t]hose facing removal should show up on time and be ready to go forward when their case is called.” She also said that “[a]t the very least, they should be in court within a few minutes of the scheduled time, or call in to explain that they will be late.”
Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2000 and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal in 2002.
The former Immigration and Naturalization Service—now part of the Department of Homeland Security—initiated removal proceedings against him and served him with a notice warning that failure to appear at his scheduled removal hearing could result in a removal order being entered in absentia.
Perez was making his way to the courthouse on the date of the hearing when his car overheated in the middle of rush hour traffic. He pulled the car off of the freeway and waited for it to cool, but the car overheated again after he restarted it and tried to drive on surface streets, so Perez left it and found a bus that would take him to the courthouse.
He entered the courtroom approximately two hours after hearing was to start, and the immigration judge was still on the bench. Perez approached the judge’s assistant, handing her his notice of the hearing, but at that moment the judge stood and left.
The judge’s assistant told Perez that the judge was done for the day, and that Perez was too late. The judge issued a removal order later that day.
Perez timely moved to reopen the case, but the judge denied the motion, reasoning that Perez “failed to show that his failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires removal in absentia of an alien who fails to appear for a removal hearing if the alien is removable and received notice of the hearing. The proceedings may only be reopened if the alien can show that the failure to appear was the result of exceptional circumstances beyond the alien’s control, such as battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent; serious illness of the alien; or serious illness or death of the alien’s spouse, child, or parent.
The Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed the judge’s decision, and Perez appealed. Although he conceded that he could not show exceptional circumstances, Perez contended that he had not failed to appear because he had arrived at the hearing while the immigration judge was still on the bench.
In an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was joined by Judge Betty B. Fletcher, the court agreed, rejecting Rymer’s conclusion that the decision was both inconsistent with precedent and unworkable.
“The dissent is wrong on both counts,” Reinhardt said. “We have never held that a petitioner who arrived while the [immigration judge] was still in the courtroom failed to appear. We refuse to do so now.”
Reinhardt rejected Rymer’s suggested rule as being “no more workable” than the majority’s decision, saying that a petitioner’s failure to appear would depend on the “fortuity” of when the case is called.
“The circumstances of the present case illustrate why the dissent’s rule would lead to unduly harsh results,” he wrote. “Even assuming that a car’s mechanical failure does not constitute exceptional circumstances, the reality is that cars break down and overheat.”
He continued:
“Under the dissent’s view, removal could be required under these circumstances. This would be so even where, as here, a petitioner makes a good faith attempt to (and does in fact) appear in immigration court despite the occurrence of an unforeseen event and despite the fact that the IJ is present in the courtroom and able to hear his case…
“We see no reason for so harsh a result.”
The case is Perez v. Mukasey, No. 04-73029.
Journalism 101 - ignored.
Court: Late Arrival Did Not Justify Immigration Hearing in Absentia
By STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer
Friday, February 15, 2008
Page 1
An immigration judge exceeded his authority by proceeding with an in absentia removal hearing after the alien showed up late, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.
Voting 2-1 to grant Juan Antonio Perez’s petition for review of a decision ordering him removed in absentia because he failed to appear at his scheduled removal hearing on time, the court held that Perez had not failed to appear—despite arriving two hours late and after his attorney had already left—because he arrived just before the immigration judge finished for the day.
However, in a sharp dissent, Judge Pamela Ann Rymer wrote that “[t]hose facing removal should show up on time and be ready to go forward when their case is called.” She also said that “[a]t the very least, they should be in court within a few minutes of the scheduled time, or call in to explain that they will be late.”
Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2000 and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal in 2002.
The former Immigration and Naturalization Service—now part of the Department of Homeland Security—initiated removal proceedings against him and served him with a notice warning that failure to appear at his scheduled removal hearing could result in a removal order being entered in absentia.
Perez was making his way to the courthouse on the date of the hearing when his car overheated in the middle of rush hour traffic. He pulled the car off of the freeway and waited for it to cool, but the car overheated again after he restarted it and tried to drive on surface streets, so Perez left it and found a bus that would take him to the courthouse.
He entered the courtroom approximately two hours after hearing was to start, and the immigration judge was still on the bench. Perez approached the judge’s assistant, handing her his notice of the hearing, but at that moment the judge stood and left.
The judge’s assistant told Perez that the judge was done for the day, and that Perez was too late. The judge issued a removal order later that day.
Perez timely moved to reopen the case, but the judge denied the motion, reasoning that Perez “failed to show that his failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires removal in absentia of an alien who fails to appear for a removal hearing if the alien is removable and received notice of the hearing. The proceedings may only be reopened if the alien can show that the failure to appear was the result of exceptional circumstances beyond the alien’s control, such as battery or extreme cruelty to the alien or any child or parent; serious illness of the alien; or serious illness or death of the alien’s spouse, child, or parent.
The Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed the judge’s decision, and Perez appealed. Although he conceded that he could not show exceptional circumstances, Perez contended that he had not failed to appear because he had arrived at the hearing while the immigration judge was still on the bench.
In an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was joined by Judge Betty B. Fletcher, the court agreed, rejecting Rymer’s conclusion that the decision was both inconsistent with precedent and unworkable.
“The dissent is wrong on both counts,” Reinhardt said. “We have never held that a petitioner who arrived while the [immigration judge] was still in the courtroom failed to appear. We refuse to do so now.”
Reinhardt rejected Rymer’s suggested rule as being “no more workable” than the majority’s decision, saying that a petitioner’s failure to appear would depend on the “fortuity” of when the case is called.
“The circumstances of the present case illustrate why the dissent’s rule would lead to unduly harsh results,” he wrote. “Even assuming that a car’s mechanical failure does not constitute exceptional circumstances, the reality is that cars break down and overheat.”
He continued:
“Under the dissent’s view, removal could be required under these circumstances. This would be so even where, as here, a petitioner makes a good faith attempt to (and does in fact) appear in immigration court despite the occurrence of an unforeseen event and despite the fact that the IJ is present in the courtroom and able to hear his case…
“We see no reason for so harsh a result.”
The case is Perez v. Mukasey, No. 04-73029.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Ex Cuts off Dying Wife's alimony. Reporter doesn't name Judge allowing it.
Why are reporters protecting judges when Journalism 101 requires identifying the players?
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73455
By: Dave Balut
Hudson, Fl. - Margaret Cochran is 51-years-old and wonders if she'll make it to 52. She has terminal ovarian cancer.
"I am in pain, I have problems with some of my organs working like kidneys bladder and so forth," said Cochran.
Having stage four ovarian cancer is bad enough, but Cochran has a more immediate concern. She says her ex-husband stopped paying alimony in November.
"I had contacted his wife to say why aren't you paying alimony and his response was, aren't you dead yet?" said Cochran.
Cochran's ex-husband is Stephen Paul Coleman, a 50-year-old former attorney who owns a mortgage company in Jacksonville.
Records show he's ordered to pay $1,650 a month in alimony, but a court statement indicates he's more than $11,000 behind.
"It's life or death. If I don't get it, I have nowhere to live, no medicine. No food no shelter, no vehicle, I would have nothing," said Cochran.
"If he's just ignoring it, the court's not going to have a lot of sympathy for him," said family law attorney David Plante.
Plante says the Florida Department of Revenue helps collect alimony if the person is also owed child support, but not alimony alone. So Cochran must go back to court.
"It's incumbent on him then to prove that he doesn't have the ability to pay for some reason to avoid the contempt power," said Plante.
Cochran has gone back to court in Jacksonville for alimony. She tried to have the case moved closer because of her health, but the judge said no.
"I don't think anyone should spend their last days on earth being drug through court, not being able to pay your bills," said Cochran.
Her church has helped with food and utility bills but Cochran says she's more than $8,000 behind in medical bills.
"I'm afraid I'm going to be on the street," said Cochran.
Our phone calls to Cochran's ex-husband Stephen Coleman were not returned.
But now, Cochran has some help from a family law specialist who heard about her situation. St. Petersburg attorney Wendy Doyle has offered to represent Cochran, free of charge.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73455
By: Dave Balut
Hudson, Fl. - Margaret Cochran is 51-years-old and wonders if she'll make it to 52. She has terminal ovarian cancer.
"I am in pain, I have problems with some of my organs working like kidneys bladder and so forth," said Cochran.
Having stage four ovarian cancer is bad enough, but Cochran has a more immediate concern. She says her ex-husband stopped paying alimony in November.
"I had contacted his wife to say why aren't you paying alimony and his response was, aren't you dead yet?" said Cochran.
Cochran's ex-husband is Stephen Paul Coleman, a 50-year-old former attorney who owns a mortgage company in Jacksonville.
Records show he's ordered to pay $1,650 a month in alimony, but a court statement indicates he's more than $11,000 behind.
"It's life or death. If I don't get it, I have nowhere to live, no medicine. No food no shelter, no vehicle, I would have nothing," said Cochran.
"If he's just ignoring it, the court's not going to have a lot of sympathy for him," said family law attorney David Plante.
Plante says the Florida Department of Revenue helps collect alimony if the person is also owed child support, but not alimony alone. So Cochran must go back to court.
"It's incumbent on him then to prove that he doesn't have the ability to pay for some reason to avoid the contempt power," said Plante.
Cochran has gone back to court in Jacksonville for alimony. She tried to have the case moved closer because of her health, but the judge said no.
"I don't think anyone should spend their last days on earth being drug through court, not being able to pay your bills," said Cochran.
Her church has helped with food and utility bills but Cochran says she's more than $8,000 behind in medical bills.
"I'm afraid I'm going to be on the street," said Cochran.
Our phone calls to Cochran's ex-husband Stephen Coleman were not returned.
But now, Cochran has some help from a family law specialist who heard about her situation. St. Petersburg attorney Wendy Doyle has offered to represent Cochran, free of charge.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Clark County judge accused of sexual misconduct.
Clark County judge accused of sexual misconduct
Del Vecchio confident 'hearing will clear my name'
By DAVID KIHARA
REVIEW-JOURNAL
The special prosecutor for the Judicial Discipline Commission has accused Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, including coercing a judicial assistant into having a sexual relationship with him.
The complaint alleges that the relationship dates to before Del Vecchio was a judge, when the judicial assistant, the daughter of his ex-wife, was 14.
Del Vecchio took nude photos of the girl when she was between the ages of 14 and 16 and had her perform oral sex on him, the 38-count complaint states. The complaint adds that Del Vecchio kept the photos after he became a judge but later destroyed them.
The document, which is not a criminal complaint, also accuses Del Vecchio of using racial slurs against black and Hispanic court staff and of coercing staff into buying him lunches and airline tickets.
The commission's special prosecutor, Mary Boetsch, filed the formal complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission on Friday.
The investigation into Del Vecchio's behavior on the bench dates back to May 2006, when the Clark County Office of Diversity began looking into allegations of sexual harassment. The office investigates allegations of sexual, racial and religious harassment in the workplace.
Del Vecchio, 50, denied all accusations against him Friday night.
He said the diversity office found that there was "insufficient evidence as to all the charges."
Del Vecchio strongly denied that he had a sexual relationship with his ex-wife's 14-year-old daughter in the early 1990s. She was named in the complaint as Rebeccah Murray.
"I feel confident that a hearing will clear my name," he said.
It was unclear whether authorities had or intended to file criminal charges against Del Vecchio.
Del Vecchio and Murray broke off contact in the mid-1990's but she wound up working for him when he was serving on the bench in 2002.
Del Vecchio sought to arrange a special work schedule for Murray that would allow her to work for him, according to the complaint. The request was refused by Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle.
The complaint says he went around Hardcastle and adjusted Murray's schedule to allow her to work and attend law school at the same time, but did so on the condition she have sex with him. Murray didn't want to have sex with Del Vecchio and had to get drunk to do it, the complaint states.
When she tried to end the relationship, Del Vecchio was hostile to her and threatened to fire her, the complaint says.
Murray filed a sexual harassment complaint against Del Vecchio with the county's diversity office in May 2006.
Del Vecchio sexually harassed other court staff, according to the complaint. He told a family court employee, Beata Funk, that he wanted to have sex with her and wanted her to wear tight shirts while campaigning for him, the complaint says.
The complaint also accuses Del Vecchio of:
• Telling another judicial assistant she should date certain attorneys because it would help him get campaign contributions from them.
• Making offensive racial comments to a Hispanic bailiff, calling him a "lazy Mexican."
• Directing a bailiff who had a part-time job with a commercial airline to obtain free tickets for him.
• And making staff baby sit the child of a girlfriend.
Only the Judicial Discipline Commission has the authority to suspend or reprimand a sitting judge, court officials said. Del Vecchio will have a chance to respond to the complaint. The commission could then have a public hearing to consider the merits of the charges.
Chuck Short, county court administrator, said the court began investigating Del Vecchio in 2006 and reported its finding to the Judicial Discipline Commission in the summer of 2006.
"At this point, the court hopes the Judicial Discipline Commission will move at lightning speed to take action due to the egregious nature of the charges," he said. "Anything less is a disservice to the community, the judge and the lawyers and individuals with cases pending before the judge."
Del Vecchio was first elected as a Family Court judge in 2000. He had lost seven previous elections. He has filed for re-election and drawn challengers Ellen Bezian, Cynthia Giuliani and Vincent Ochoa.
Ochoa, a family law attorney who has argued cases before Del Vecchio, said he was surprised when he learned the extent of the accusations. He said the judge never asked him for anything inappropriate such as a free lunch.
Ochoa said there were rumors around Family Court that Del Vecchio was being investigated, but he was shocked to learn the details of the inquiry.
"I knew he had some problems, but I never dreamed they were this bad," he said. "I think it's an embarrassment to the judiciary."
Review-Journal writer Lawrence Mower contributed to this story. Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or (702) 380-1039.
Del Vecchio confident 'hearing will clear my name'
By DAVID KIHARA
REVIEW-JOURNAL
The special prosecutor for the Judicial Discipline Commission has accused Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, including coercing a judicial assistant into having a sexual relationship with him.
The complaint alleges that the relationship dates to before Del Vecchio was a judge, when the judicial assistant, the daughter of his ex-wife, was 14.
Del Vecchio took nude photos of the girl when she was between the ages of 14 and 16 and had her perform oral sex on him, the 38-count complaint states. The complaint adds that Del Vecchio kept the photos after he became a judge but later destroyed them.
The document, which is not a criminal complaint, also accuses Del Vecchio of using racial slurs against black and Hispanic court staff and of coercing staff into buying him lunches and airline tickets.
The commission's special prosecutor, Mary Boetsch, filed the formal complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission on Friday.
The investigation into Del Vecchio's behavior on the bench dates back to May 2006, when the Clark County Office of Diversity began looking into allegations of sexual harassment. The office investigates allegations of sexual, racial and religious harassment in the workplace.
Del Vecchio, 50, denied all accusations against him Friday night.
He said the diversity office found that there was "insufficient evidence as to all the charges."
Del Vecchio strongly denied that he had a sexual relationship with his ex-wife's 14-year-old daughter in the early 1990s. She was named in the complaint as Rebeccah Murray.
"I feel confident that a hearing will clear my name," he said.
It was unclear whether authorities had or intended to file criminal charges against Del Vecchio.
Del Vecchio and Murray broke off contact in the mid-1990's but she wound up working for him when he was serving on the bench in 2002.
Del Vecchio sought to arrange a special work schedule for Murray that would allow her to work for him, according to the complaint. The request was refused by Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle.
The complaint says he went around Hardcastle and adjusted Murray's schedule to allow her to work and attend law school at the same time, but did so on the condition she have sex with him. Murray didn't want to have sex with Del Vecchio and had to get drunk to do it, the complaint states.
When she tried to end the relationship, Del Vecchio was hostile to her and threatened to fire her, the complaint says.
Murray filed a sexual harassment complaint against Del Vecchio with the county's diversity office in May 2006.
Del Vecchio sexually harassed other court staff, according to the complaint. He told a family court employee, Beata Funk, that he wanted to have sex with her and wanted her to wear tight shirts while campaigning for him, the complaint says.
The complaint also accuses Del Vecchio of:
• Telling another judicial assistant she should date certain attorneys because it would help him get campaign contributions from them.
• Making offensive racial comments to a Hispanic bailiff, calling him a "lazy Mexican."
• Directing a bailiff who had a part-time job with a commercial airline to obtain free tickets for him.
• And making staff baby sit the child of a girlfriend.
Only the Judicial Discipline Commission has the authority to suspend or reprimand a sitting judge, court officials said. Del Vecchio will have a chance to respond to the complaint. The commission could then have a public hearing to consider the merits of the charges.
Chuck Short, county court administrator, said the court began investigating Del Vecchio in 2006 and reported its finding to the Judicial Discipline Commission in the summer of 2006.
"At this point, the court hopes the Judicial Discipline Commission will move at lightning speed to take action due to the egregious nature of the charges," he said. "Anything less is a disservice to the community, the judge and the lawyers and individuals with cases pending before the judge."
Del Vecchio was first elected as a Family Court judge in 2000. He had lost seven previous elections. He has filed for re-election and drawn challengers Ellen Bezian, Cynthia Giuliani and Vincent Ochoa.
Ochoa, a family law attorney who has argued cases before Del Vecchio, said he was surprised when he learned the extent of the accusations. He said the judge never asked him for anything inappropriate such as a free lunch.
Ochoa said there were rumors around Family Court that Del Vecchio was being investigated, but he was shocked to learn the details of the inquiry.
"I knew he had some problems, but I never dreamed they were this bad," he said. "I think it's an embarrassment to the judiciary."
Review-Journal writer Lawrence Mower contributed to this story. Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or (702) 380-1039.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
CA Judges and DAs Plan to Eliminate Elections.
Heads up Californians. District Attorneys and Judges recently met to decide whether they should take away the right of voters to elect their judges.
What's troublesome is these elected officials feel, according to the article below from Metropolitican News; is that they have a right to.
(Readers may remember it's Bonnie Dumanis who wants less prison time for former Deputy Bruce Lowell, who shot his wife in the face, killing her in front of their small son. See (Dumanis has higher political aspirations and so courts police associations.)
Feb. 5, 2006 By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Several members of a judicial task force suggested yesterday that the time has come for California to find a new way of selecting and retaining trial judges.
The system of direct elections 'gave me an opportunity' to become a judge, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis acknowledged. 'But I do think it is a sleazy process.'
Dumanis made the comment in Burbank during a meeting of the Judicial Council Task Force on Judicial Selection and Retention. The task force is part of the
Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts, which was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George last September.
Dumanis is one of three task force members who came to the bench by winning election to open seats. She won open seats on both the San Diego Municipal Court and the San Diego Superior Court before being elected district attorney in 2002.
The task force chair is Third District Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie, who won an open seat on the Sacramento Superior Court in 1980 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal 19 years later. Other members include Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Terry Friedman, who won an open seat in 1994, and David Wesley, who survived an election challenge in 2004.
Robie and Friedman both said they disliked the process.
Friedman, a member of the state Assembly at the time, agreed with Dumanis and others that elections give candidates who could not hope for a gubernatorial appointment the chance to serve. In his own case, he pointed out, it was highly unlikely that a Republican governor would have named a Democratic elected official to the bench.
But although he was 'lucky' enough to prevail, Friedman said, 'it was a terrible process.' He commented that his opponent, Valley attorney John Moriarity, 'ran as if it were a legislative office.'
Friedman offered no details yesterday, but his runoff contest with Moriarity was the most expensive judicial contest in county history to that point. Moriarity criticized Friedman for his liberal politics and membership in the ACLU, and Friedman, while not responding in kind, outspent his opponent, in part by raising money through transfers from Democratic candidates and donations by groups that had supported his legislative campaigns but usually did not involve themselves in judicial races.
Friedman said yesterday that at the time, he feared he would be defeated because he 'chose not to respond politically' to the attacks.
Earlier in the day, state courts Administrative Director William Vickrey made a presentation to the task force based on the system used in Utah, where Vickrey worked before taking up his current post.
In Utah, he explained, judges, both trial and appellate, are appointed by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate, from a list of three to seven candidates nominated by a commission. They then must seek retention by the voters, but prior to the retention election, an evaluation is conducted by the state Judicial Council.
The evaluation includes an independently administered survey of lawyers who have appeared before the judge and are asked to rate his or her performance in 14 categories. In the case of judges who regularly conduct jury trials, jurors are surveyed as well.
In addition to the survey results, judicial participation in judicial education, promptness in deciding cases, and physical and mental fitness are figured into the evaluation, and the results are published in the official ballot pamphlet when the judge faces retention.
The pamphlet also includes an explanation of the system of judicial appointment and retention.
The advantages of the system, Vickrey said, are that it keeps partisanship out of the process, while giving voters information that they can use to come to a reasoned decision.
The model would have to be modified, he acknowledged, for use in California, which has about 10 times as many judicial officers.
One option discussed by the task force was 'triggered retention' a system in which the Judicial Council or some similar body would evaluate judges and determine whether they merited retention. If a candidate failed to obtain the required amount of support within the evaluating body, whether a simple majority or more, the judge would have to take his or her case to the voters.
That and other options for retention elections are to be studied by a smaller group of task force members named yesterday. The group will be chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Walter Croskey of this district's Div. Three.
Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company
What's troublesome is these elected officials feel, according to the article below from Metropolitican News; is that they have a right to.
(Readers may remember it's Bonnie Dumanis who wants less prison time for former Deputy Bruce Lowell, who shot his wife in the face, killing her in front of their small son. See (Dumanis has higher political aspirations and so courts police associations.)
Feb. 5, 2006 By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
Several members of a judicial task force suggested yesterday that the time has come for California to find a new way of selecting and retaining trial judges.
The system of direct elections 'gave me an opportunity' to become a judge, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis acknowledged. 'But I do think it is a sleazy process.'
Dumanis made the comment in Burbank during a meeting of the Judicial Council Task Force on Judicial Selection and Retention. The task force is part of the
Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts, which was appointed by Chief Justice Ronald M. George last September.
Dumanis is one of three task force members who came to the bench by winning election to open seats. She won open seats on both the San Diego Municipal Court and the San Diego Superior Court before being elected district attorney in 2002.
The task force chair is Third District Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie, who won an open seat on the Sacramento Superior Court in 1980 and was elevated to the Court of Appeal 19 years later. Other members include Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Terry Friedman, who won an open seat in 1994, and David Wesley, who survived an election challenge in 2004.
Robie and Friedman both said they disliked the process.
Friedman, a member of the state Assembly at the time, agreed with Dumanis and others that elections give candidates who could not hope for a gubernatorial appointment the chance to serve. In his own case, he pointed out, it was highly unlikely that a Republican governor would have named a Democratic elected official to the bench.
But although he was 'lucky' enough to prevail, Friedman said, 'it was a terrible process.' He commented that his opponent, Valley attorney John Moriarity, 'ran as if it were a legislative office.'
Friedman offered no details yesterday, but his runoff contest with Moriarity was the most expensive judicial contest in county history to that point. Moriarity criticized Friedman for his liberal politics and membership in the ACLU, and Friedman, while not responding in kind, outspent his opponent, in part by raising money through transfers from Democratic candidates and donations by groups that had supported his legislative campaigns but usually did not involve themselves in judicial races.
Friedman said yesterday that at the time, he feared he would be defeated because he 'chose not to respond politically' to the attacks.
Earlier in the day, state courts Administrative Director William Vickrey made a presentation to the task force based on the system used in Utah, where Vickrey worked before taking up his current post.
In Utah, he explained, judges, both trial and appellate, are appointed by the governor, with the approval of the state Senate, from a list of three to seven candidates nominated by a commission. They then must seek retention by the voters, but prior to the retention election, an evaluation is conducted by the state Judicial Council.
The evaluation includes an independently administered survey of lawyers who have appeared before the judge and are asked to rate his or her performance in 14 categories. In the case of judges who regularly conduct jury trials, jurors are surveyed as well.
In addition to the survey results, judicial participation in judicial education, promptness in deciding cases, and physical and mental fitness are figured into the evaluation, and the results are published in the official ballot pamphlet when the judge faces retention.
The pamphlet also includes an explanation of the system of judicial appointment and retention.
The advantages of the system, Vickrey said, are that it keeps partisanship out of the process, while giving voters information that they can use to come to a reasoned decision.
The model would have to be modified, he acknowledged, for use in California, which has about 10 times as many judicial officers.
One option discussed by the task force was 'triggered retention' a system in which the Judicial Council or some similar body would evaluate judges and determine whether they merited retention. If a candidate failed to obtain the required amount of support within the evaluating body, whether a simple majority or more, the judge would have to take his or her case to the voters.
That and other options for retention elections are to be studied by a smaller group of task force members named yesterday. The group will be chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Walter Croskey of this district's Div. Three.
Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company
Darren Mack's "sentencing"
Interesting in what was missed during the hoopla of the sentencing of Darren Mack.
Although it could be expect since it involved one murder and one attempted murder.
What was missed was that although Charla Mack received support orders; Judge Weller never allowed them to be enforced. Which explains why Charla had trouble keeping the lights on while Darren continued his over-the-top, lifestyle.
But as far as no firearms at all in the courtroom - Why? A tacit admission deputies are not trained to prohibit attacks, perhaps?
See below for the s-l-o-w-e-s-t moving deputies east of the Mississippi. Please note however, how many deputies arrived and then stood around aimlessly; uselessly, after the attorney was knocked out by the prisoner.
http://videos.kentucky.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=1693323
Bad cop, no dough nut!
Although it could be expect since it involved one murder and one attempted murder.
What was missed was that although Charla Mack received support orders; Judge Weller never allowed them to be enforced. Which explains why Charla had trouble keeping the lights on while Darren continued his over-the-top, lifestyle.
But as far as no firearms at all in the courtroom - Why? A tacit admission deputies are not trained to prohibit attacks, perhaps?
See below for the s-l-o-w-e-s-t moving deputies east of the Mississippi. Please note however, how many deputies arrived and then stood around aimlessly; uselessly, after the attorney was knocked out by the prisoner.
http://videos.kentucky.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=1693323
Bad cop, no dough nut!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)