Page 15 of 62 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15 16 17 25 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 919
  1. #211
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,903
    I think HHJP is just letting CM write the orders. May as well...he'll do whatever CM wants. Why waste time on it. The darling of HHJP's courtroom needs to get on with her life and not be bothered by the State of Florida anymore!! She wasted 3 yrs. of her life over LE and JA and LDB getting all bothered because Caylee died. Time to move on.....gag
    IMO


  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Amster For This Useful Post:


  3. #212
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by badme102 View Post
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...34486638895579

    "When there is a discrepancy between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement prevails."

    (tweeted by Richard Hornsby a few days ago. I didn't read the case he cited)
    I thought it was the other way around. I thought the legal analyst from WFTV said the written order prevails. I'll go check...


  4. #213
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,812
    Quote Originally Posted by raeann View Post
    HLN has been showing copies of documents one of which is a letter to CA obtained from DOC that clearly state that she has successfully completed her probation and her status is released.....IIRC the date stated on the letter was 1.24.11.
    IMO that's that. I think this is a dead horse we are beating here. In the real world this would be a non-issue and is only an issue due to the scrutiny on this case.

    I don't think there can be a do-over at this point. But as I said before-they did haul Sarah Jane Olsen all the way back to jail for a year after her release from her 30 year incarceration. But that was within 5 days of the error. I am willing to bet there is a time clock running on amending an order-but I don't know.
    But serving out another year is still a far cry from serving probation which the DOC seems to feel was handled.

    So who knows?


  5. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JBean For This Useful Post:


  6. #214
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    pa
    Posts
    1,999
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    well it could be said that the jude would assume that the order was written the way he said it and was proofed before being brought to him for signature-everything is of record. This is arguable and amendable imo. now whether they do argue and/amend is an entirely different issue. can it be done? i think so. Will it be done? probably not. I wonder if there could even be a time limit on amending the order. It is pretty far after the fact. has this been addressed at all does anyone know? Technicalities can bite you.
    IIRC, time limit was 60 days for any amendment/change. Technically he did not change anything, just a clearer concise written explanation that supported his unchanged oral rule. It can be argued that his written order did not state probation to be served after release but neither did it state probation to be served during incarceration.
    Personally I love the mechanics of all that legal wiggling. We have learned so much legal stuff during the KC trial.


  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rotterdam For This Useful Post:


  8. #215
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    294
    I have read the threads and didn't see an answer, why did HHJS recluse himself again? I don't understand why he started all this just to go on vacation and not follow through......Did he have to because he wasn't present to hear the case? TIA and sorry if I missed the answer to this, there is so many pages to read lol.


  9. #216
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    The reality is the court doesn't really have a say in how probation is run after they issue the order;it is up to the DOC or governing agency. It is not the courts problem or KC's problem if the probation was inadequate.It is the problem of the probationary body and they will have to deal with that internally. Think Philip Garrido.

    The whole notion of serving probation in jail is counterintuitive so I am not addressing that, but how it was run by the DOC is not the courts "business" I assume KC would not be able to live with other felons while on probation-yet she just spent the last year living with plenty;so you can see there are all kinds of problems that go part and parcel with serving probation while incarcerated. Something has got to give. So if they visited her once and did not do drug testing it was because they rolled with the punches and didn't spend the time, money and/or manpower that seemed inconsequential at the time.If the probationary body says she served probation to their satisfaction-then she did.

    Also,IMO if this was any other criminal this would be a non issue and would not even be addressed.
    BBM. Thank you. It was what I was trying to get at.


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SilkySifaka For This Useful Post:


  11. #217
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,812
    Quote Originally Posted by rotterdam View Post
    IIRC, time limit was 60 days for any amendment/change. Technically he did not change anything, just a clearer concise written explanation that supported his unchanged oral rule. It can be argued that his written order did not state probation to be served after release but neither did it state probation to be served during incarceration.
    Personally I love the mechanics of all that legal wiggling. We have learned so much legal stuff during the KC trial.
    I will be surprised if she has to serve additional probation. if she was still on probation I would feel differently-but if she has been released from probation and the sentence ha been served? not so much.

    When did the written notice say probation was to be served?
    JMHO of course.

    ETA: also has the issue come up of a time clock running on how far after a probation has been declared complete that they can amend that declaration? that would be key.


  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JBean For This Useful Post:


  13. #218
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by cuppy199 View Post
    Yes politics can be rotten but on both JP and JS behave I have to say I dont believe for one minute either of them would use this case or any other case to further their career. Both of them are very highly respected and honorible judges.We cant always help the hand we are dealt and sadly they just happen to be dealt KA.
    Respectfully, let me try this another way. Seeing my previous post got deleted. It sounds to me like there is no superior over-sight judicial check system in place on Judges. And they rule as final say. No matter what they rule. Well that smacks of far too much power.IMO The DT can always go to a higher court for a ruling change. But it seems the prosecution is held completely to what a Judge says. Even judges who make incompetent mistakes. Or make political self serving decisions.

    This is far from a fair and equable situation between the two court sides of the law.IMO The burden is on the prosecution in court cases. Yet they must function under a handicap. I would think this must be a far cry from what the founding Fathers laid down for the legal system in the USA. The people of the society should have equal courts rights as the accused.IMO Oh how this Casey case is highlighting a core problem here.IMO I sure do not think this is making for the best legal system in the world, as is widely touted by the people.IMO
    Frederick The Great - “If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks”


  14. #219
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,705
    Quote Originally Posted by askfornina View Post
    also pulled from the ask lawyers thread for all of your information, FWIW, etc:
    YES! and that is how it should be, you can't make someone serve it twice...or at least you shouldn't be able to. That would mean any one of us could be caught in that sort of mess.


  15. The Following User Says Thank You to SilkySifaka For This Useful Post:


  16. #220
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by rotterdam View Post
    Except the Judge still had to sign the order and it is assumed , he would have read it.
    I doubt he read the paper work. The reality is truth. The courts are rushed do to understaffing. He would get a many page document. And just sign it do to time limitations on his work day. Just how many more judges would be needed at what cost, if they took the time to read the endless paper work?
    Frederick The Great - “If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks”


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Schu7 For This Useful Post:


  18. #221
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    pa
    Posts
    1,999
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    I will be surprised if she has to serve additional probation. if she was still on probation I would feel differently-but if she has been released from probation and the sentence ha been served? not so much.

    When did the written notice say probation was to be served?
    JMHO of course.

    ETA: also has the issue come up of a time clock running on how far after a probation has been declared complete that they can amend that declaration? that would be key.
    No starting time for probation on the written order, just a duration of one year. From what I understand , probation is generally expressed with an ending date on the written order, not a starting date. Which was impossible in this case, a fact that Mr. George brought up during the sentencing.


  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rotterdam For This Useful Post:


  20. #222
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    1,854
    Quote Originally Posted by SilkySifaka View Post
    YES! and that is how it should be, you can't make someone serve it twice...or at least you shouldn't be able to. That would mean any one of us could be caught in that sort of mess.
    right. no matter what casey may or may not have done, i would not want her constitutional rights violated. that is a slippery slope


  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to askfornina For This Useful Post:


  22. #223
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,117
    Richard Hornsby explained this very well in his blog

    http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

    I'm not sure we can assume now what Perry will rule based on what Hornsby is saying. Sounds to me like if HHJP follows the law, she will be serving probation and Judge Stricklands order will stand.
    Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO


  23. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Talina For This Useful Post:


  24. #224
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,812
    Quote Originally Posted by rotterdam View Post
    No starting time for probation on the written order, just a duration of one year. From what I understand , probation is generally expressed with an ending date on the written order, not a starting date. Which was impossible in this case, a fact that Mr. George brought up during the sentencing.
    Typically it is a time limit set by the court and enforced by DOC or other agency. the probation departments are extremely powerful and have a lot of say. So if they followed the orders given them and the probationary period was completed, I think this is all moot.

    Another way to look at Perry's stay order is that he is trying to buy time to come up with any precedent to keep her on probation rather than letting it go. I suspect imposing the stay was not for the benefit of KC but rather just the opposite;it was for the benefit of the state.


  25. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JBean For This Useful Post:


  26. #225
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    ETA: also has the issue come up of a time clock running on how far after a probation has been declared complete that they can amend that declaration? that would be key.

    Well Judge Perry is well within the 60 day period to amend is signed calculations on Casey's lying jail time. Surely can can rule that the check fraud probation and lying jail time can not run concurrently. And redo the jail time for lying to the police. I HOPE!!!!
    Frederick The Great - “If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks”


  27. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Schu7 For This Useful Post:


Page 15 of 62 FirstFirst ... 5 13 14 15 16 17 25 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Could You Talk Face to Face with Casey and Get Her to Open Up?
    By littlemisslegal in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 09:50 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 06:59 AM
  3. What charges do you think Casey Anthony will face?
    By LinasK in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 11:06 AM
  4. Casey's Parents May Eventually Face Charges
    By Janis396 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 540
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 02:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •