Tammi Smith -The Charges

Well, this is certainly confusing. :waitasec:
 
You are right! I think this is just the next step in the process, I'm just not sure what happened to that one charge?

Not sure either. But maybe they dropped "custodial interference" and kept "conspiracy to commit custodial interference" because LE can't yet prove Tammi was successful in interfering with Logan's custody. They would probably still be guilty of conspiracy, though, since they or their co-conspirator committed an illegal act towards that end. Anyway, that's how I understand "conspiracy." I'm not even sure if the illegal act has to happen, but forgery is illegal, so that element would be covered either way.
 
Smith formally charged in baby Gabriel case

February 4th, 2010 @ 11:59am

A woman who wanted to adopt with 8-month-old Gabriel Johnson was formally charged with crimes relating to his disappearance.

Tammi Smith is charged with conspiracy to commit custodial interference and forgery. "These are the charges that our office is comfortable prosecuting right now. Our standard is whether there's a reasonable likelihood of conviction, based on the evidence in possession of our office at the time the charges were filed. That's where we are for now," said Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.


http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1260084
 
Yes, it sounds like Andy Thomas is not comfortable prosecuting her for the custodial interference charge "for now," i.e., with the evidence he has so far. He doesn't like to lose. ;)
 
I love those two words "for now"!
 
Charging Documents - How Tammi was Going to Pressure Logan to Relinquish Custody

~


http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35208375/ns/today-today_people/

"Tammi Smith stated she was going to use her attorney's help to pressure Logan to pay previous child support, current child support and be responsible for visitation," according to the document. "Tammi stated due to the above listed pressure the hope was that Logan would release his custodial rights and the adoption could proceed."


~
 
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35208375/ns/today-today_people/

"Tammi Smith stated she was going to use her attorney's help to pressure Logan to pay previous child support, current child support and be responsible for visitation," according to the document. "Tammi stated due to the above listed pressure the hope was that Logan would release his custodial rights and the adoption could proceed."

Doesn't that admission set her up for a blackmail charge?
 
Doesn't that admission set her up for a blackmail charge?

And how would her lawyer be able to get Logan to pay for back child support when he was living in the home with Gabriel and EJ until Dec. 8th?

I've never even spewed this much crap when I've had to much too drink and spent the evening praying to the porcelain god.
 
And how would her lawyer be able to get Logan to pay for back child support when he was living in the home with Gabriel and EJ until Dec. 8th?

I've never even spewed this much crap when I've had to much too drink and spent the evening praying to the porcelain god.

Isn't TPS a deadbeat parent in LA? Hypocrisy alert.
 
Doesn't that admission set her up for a blackmail charge?

I was kind of wondering the same thing or ...

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion[/ame]

I don't know if extortion can apply to trying to get legal hold over a third party (Gabriel) or not... but it is similar to what she's doing.
 
And how would her lawyer be able to get Logan to pay for back child support when he was living in the home with Gabriel and EJ until Dec. 8th?

I've never even spewed this much crap when I've had to much too drink and spent the evening praying to the porcelain god.

Hence the birth of the term "Verbal colonic."
 
Grand jury indicts Tammi!

Woman indicted in missing-baby case

February 11, 2010 - 4:25PM

A grand jury indicted a Scottsdale woman Tuesday on counts of forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference in connection with the case of a missing 9-month-old Tempe boy.

According to the indictment and police, Tammi Fay Smith, 37, and Elizabeth Johnson plotted to sever the parental rights of Gabriel Johnson’s father.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/150587
 
Grand jury indicts Tammi!

Woman indicted in missing-baby case

February 11, 2010 - 4:25PM

A grand jury indicted a Scottsdale woman Tuesday on counts of forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference in connection with the case of a missing 9-month-old Tempe boy.

According to the indictment and police, Tammi Fay Smith, 37, and Elizabeth Johnson plotted to sever the parental rights of Gabriel Johnson’s father.


http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/150587

Gee, maybe she should have shut up a few days sooner. :angel:
 
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2010-101760

Party Information
Party Name - Number Relationship Sex Attorney Judge Case #
State Of Arizona - (1)
Plaintiff N/A County Attorney, Maricopa
Elizabeth Joanne Johnson - (2)
Defendant F Public Defender-, S E Master Calendar CR2010-101760-001
Tammi Peters Smith - (3)
Defendant F To Be Determined Benny CR2010-101760-002


Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
2/10/2010 NSI - Notice of Supervening Indictment - Party (002) 2/11/2010 Plaintiff (1)
2/10/2010 606 - ME: GJ Not/Supervening Indictment - Party (002) 2/11/2010
2/10/2010 IND - Indictment - Party (002) 2/11/2010 Plaintiff (1)
2/5/2010 IAD - Initial Appearance Document - Party (002) 2/5/2010
2/3/2010 DCO - Direct Complaint - Party (002) 2/3/2010
1/26/2010 152 - ME: Not Guilty Plea Arraign - Party (001) 1/26/2010
1/21/2010 002 - ME: Hearing Vacated - Party (001) 1/21/2010
1/14/2010 IAD - Initial Appearance Document - Party (001) 1/14/2010
1/14/2010 NSI - Notice of Supervening Indictment - Party (001) 1/15/2010 Plaintiff (1)
1/14/2010 606 - ME: GJ Not/Supervening Indictment - Party (001) 1/15/2010
1/14/2010 IND - Indictment - Party (001) 1/15/2010 Plaintiff (1)
1/12/2010 DCO - Direct Complaint - Party (001) 1/13/2010

Case Calendar
Date Time Event
1/15/2010 8:35 Status Conference
1/20/2010 8:30 Preliminary Hearing
1/25/2010 8:30 Original Arraignment Hearing
2/8/2010 8:35 Status Conference
2/12/2010 8:30 Preliminary Hearing
3/9/2010 8:15 Initial Pretrial Conference
 
what does defendent F to be determined mean??
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
2,214
Total visitors
2,287

Forum statistics

Threads
592,553
Messages
17,970,895
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top