daisynae
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks for that I fixed it.
At least I have condition 16.
16. Not cosume or possess any substance containing achohol
Tammi Smith - the Sentencing Phase
- Thread starter artsy1
- Start date
New Posts
-
IN IN - Sophie Hill, 14, left her home in Fishers, 17 Apr 2024
- Latest: Unalienable Rights
-
VA VA - Norfolk, BlkMale 42-46, UP118834, gunshot wounds, scars, found with another ind, Apr'12
- Latest: ProudSuggestion3528
Thanks for that I fixed it.
At least I have condition 16.
16. Not cosume or possess any substance containing achohol
ChickenPants
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,394
- Reaction score
- 0
Condition 19: Not have any contact with the victim(s) in any form, unless approved in
writing by the APD.
I find this interesting. According to Judge Kreamer and his 703 order, there was only ONE victim, Logan McQueary. He made that quite clear. I am wondering under what possible circumstances Tammi would want to or try to contact him, especially in trying to obtain prior approval by the APD.
writing by the APD.
I find this interesting. According to Judge Kreamer and his 703 order, there was only ONE victim, Logan McQueary. He made that quite clear. I am wondering under what possible circumstances Tammi would want to or try to contact him, especially in trying to obtain prior approval by the APD.
DaisyNae,
It was not stated that "Tammi Smith cannot make money on her actions on this matter." Here's what was stated -
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State shall submit a brief setting forth the legal basis for any request that Defendant not be allowed to profit from these offenses. The Court will take no further action unless and until such motion is filed..."
The Judge will rule, after the motion is filed.
daisynae
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh O.k. thank you for that. I hope like a motion will be filed
and they rule she cannot make any money on this !
ChickenPants
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,394
- Reaction score
- 0
What do you think the legal basis will be that State shall set forth. Interesting that prohibited profit is prohibited from "THESE OFFENSES". I read that to mean that she simply can't author a book about her experiences leading up to and through the trial. But I wonder if there are any other issues related to those types of offenses that she could profit from, as well.
The judge made a point of recognizing that Tammi is a business woman. And he granted her a work release. I found that strange because the people at WS have uncovered a lot of questionable business activities including but not limited to IRS issues, lack of proper certifications, etc. And I am frankly surprised that the Judge did not address possible issues that could arise based on that history. But then again, it was not focused on as part of THIS case. So it is confusing.
The State could possibly use Son of Sam Statues. Arizona is one of 40 States that have active Son of Sam Statues.
A Son of Sam Law is any American law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. Son of Sam laws are designed so that criminals are unable to take advantage of the notoriety of their crimes; or financially benefit from the sale of a story, or any other mementos pertaining to their crime.
Such laws often authorize the State to seize money earned from deals such as book/movie biographies and paid interviews and use it to compensate the criminal's victims. In certain cases, a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal.
'Son of Sam' statutes: Federal and State summary
Federal Son of Sam statute:
18 U.S.C.S. § 3681 (Lexis 2000)
40 states that have active Son of Sam statutes: ( Arizona is included
Arizona Citation: ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-4202 (Mathew Bender 2000)
History: Enacted in 1978.
TITLE 13. CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 38. MISCELLANEOUS
ARTICLE 27. CRIME VICTIM ACCOUNTS
A.R.S. § 13-4202 (2000)
§ 13-4202. Void contracts; crime victim accounts; establishment; notice to victims; exceptions; civil liability; definition A. Every contract whether written or oral, express or implied, with an accused with respect to the reenactment of a crime by movie, book, article, radio or television presentation, live entertainment or expression of thoughts, feelings, opinions or emotions is contrary to public policy and void unless the contract provides for payment to the commission of any monies which would be paid to the accused for such information or rights.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/SonOfSam/index.htm
ChickenPants
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,394
- Reaction score
- 0
That is very interesting, thanks. This would then include follow-up programs, biopics, "48-Hours" type programs and etc., which may proliferate as the Elizabeth Johnson portion of the trial is anticipated. I always try to remember it is one case (IMO) with two co-defendants. This portion is interesting:
"In certain cases, a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal." I wonder if that would extend to any paid compensation to Jack, for instance, if he were to participate in documentary-type programs about the case. But I also wonder if the State of Arizona will bother to pursue upholding this law.
What I had in mind when I asked the question was Stones of Grace. It was referred to by name in the sentencing. The Judge indicated that he did not think Tammi was in any state of mind (sic) to be counseling others. However as far as I know that website is still up. And there seems to be no prohibition in the Order relating to this business. Theoretically then if Jack (or other people related to Tammi) decided to go forward with this venture, she, being married to him, could profit either directly or indirectly from SOG. I don't see anything in the order prohibiting her or even him from doing it. Just IMO.
Does anyone remember this as being part of her sentence??
Condition 18 - Count 2: Be incarcerated in the county jail for 30 day(s), beginning
1/5/2013 with credit for -0- day(s) served.
This says another 30 days in jail in January!!
Condition 18 - Count 2: Be incarcerated in the county jail for 30 day(s), beginning
1/5/2013 with credit for -0- day(s) served.
This says another 30 days in jail in January!!
Yes, I remember. IF she completes her current 30 days & complies with probation, she doesn't have to serve the 30 days in January.
However, if the probation department gives her a bad report, then off to jail she goes on January 5, 2013 for another 30 days.
IMO The Prosecutors asking the Judge to rule that Tammi Smith not be allowed to have contact with minor children, other than her own, may have been an attempt to stop Tammi Smith from operating a facility like Stones of Grace; without specifically naming this organization.
But, the Judge ruled:
"IT IS ORDERED denying the State's request that Defendant not be allowed to have contact with minor children."
ChickenPants
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,394
- Reaction score
- 0
That makes sense. LOL I guess the women who could possibly be future mothers in need of help, or those already pregnant, are still fair game...lol....
Yes, I notice that the judge requested a brief explaining why state does not think Tammi should benefit financially from anything having to do with this case....and didn't state request she be prohibited from contact with ANY children? His decisions seem IMO to have leaned toward some kind of diplomacy or middle ground.
IMO he was too lenient and wishy-washy. The way I read it is that these issues are enforceable during her probationary period. Worst case scenario is she could behave herself and pass through that with enough loopholes open to continue having an interest in activities that should have been more forcefully denied her. IIRC, Stones of Grace at one time was (or still is) operating under Jack's name. Theoretically she could be a figurehead and be influential, and as I've mentioned, benefit by virtue or her relationship with Jack, without being personally in contact with people. I know that sounds kind of far out, but let's not forget she has characterized her activities as a Mission. The judge had the opportunity - and the power, to make some hard and fast rules: Shut it all down. You will never make one cent off of this case or anything having to do with mothers and babies, ever.
Looks like Tammi has filed her appeal, and that either she's trying to dump her attorneys or they are trying to dump her.
7/17/2012
NAP - Notice Of Appeal - Party (002)
7/17/2012
NOTE:
7/17/2012
MFW - Motion For Withdraw of counsel - Party (002)
7/17/2012
NOTE:
7/16/2012
109 - ME: Sentence - Probation - Party (002)
7/16/2012
7/17/2012
NAP - Notice Of Appeal - Party (002)
7/17/2012
NOTE:
7/17/2012
MFW - Motion For Withdraw of counsel - Party (002)
7/17/2012
NOTE:
7/16/2012
109 - ME: Sentence - Probation - Party (002)
7/16/2012
Personally, I think Tammi cut off her nose to spite her face. IF she were to win an appeal, I think she would be found guilty again in another trial AND would get the maximum sentence allowed!
Because now the prosecution has all those letters about Tammi's history in their hands, so they could come at her with both barrels blazing!
Because now the prosecution has all those letters about Tammi's history in their hands, so they could come at her with both barrels blazing!
ChickenPants
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,394
- Reaction score
- 0
She certainly trashed Anne (her lead atty) enough and did it in writing to her disciples. I can't imagine how Anne got through the rest of the trial knowing what was going on behind her back. You've got to believe she's going to try to file based on ineffective counsel, and I hope she is turned down. After all, she stood outside the courtroom and told the world she was pleased with her team. At the very least, I hope no attorney will want to touch her, especially with the EJ trial coming up.
seattlechiquita
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 257
wo wo wo wo wo... what letters? 
wo wo wo wo wo... what letters?
All the letters that people had sent in to the prosecution & the judge that pointed out all the stuff that had been discovered about Tammi on the internet. Ms. Andrews brought up a few things that I know WSers had found, at sentencing. And I believe that some of those letters probably contained everything that has been posted on all the various websites about her.
So I imagine now Ms. Andrews knows about Tammi's prior forgery charges, as well as all the other stuff she's been up to. And now they know that this was NOT Tammi's first forgery charge....
Just saying....
I'm not an attorney, but from Google searching, it appears to be the part of probation dealing with Community Service and Restitution.
Remember the judge wanted something from the prosecution side as far as restitution to Logan? I suspect that is what it is about.
daisynae
New Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2012
- Messages
- 210
- Reaction score
- 0
Thank you for that! That would be some justice. Tammi forking over money
to Logan. I will love that!