Tammi Smith -The Charges

New Posts

BeanE said:
Is that where her attorney's name goes? In that place on EJ's line it says Public Defender.
Click to expand...

The F is for sex of the defendant(s). The copy/paste into here skews the columns slightly. Apparently, she has a court appointed attorney, and not a privately hired one.
 
This says hearing vacated for Party 002, who is Elizabeth. No idea if that means the hearing will or won't take place for Tammi. I haven't been able to find anything on the calendar.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2010-101760

2/18/2010 002 - ME: Hearing Vacated - Party (002) 2/18/2010

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 KIMERER, MICHAEL Master Calendar CR2010-101760-002
 
In missing baby Gabriel case, a suspect pleads not guilty
Feb. 18, 2010 12:27 PM

Tammi Peters Smith, the Scottsdale woman implicated in the case of missing baby Gabriel Johnson, entered not-guilty pleas Thursday morning to felony counts of forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference in Maricopa County Superior Court.

She remains free on $15,000 bond.

snip

Smith had no comment as she left the courtroom Thursday, but her attorney Amy Nguyen, said that they do not know why Smith has been charged.

"We know it has nothing to do with the disappearance of baby Gabriel," Nguyen said. "It's all speculation at this point. We haven't been given any information by the state."

Nguyen said that Smith was "anxious to get it behind her."

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...missing-baby-gabriel-not-guilty-plea0218.html
 
http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...missing-baby-gabriel-not-guilty-plea0218.html

Tammi Peters Smith, the Scottsdale woman implicated in the case of missing baby Gabriel Johnson, entered not-guilty pleas Thursday morning to felony counts of forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference in Maricopa County Superior Court.

She remains free on $15,000 bond.


They also are saying in this one that LE still thinks she has info about Gabe, although that is in contradiction with what LE has said since her arrest on these charges. I think. Didn't they say that she was no longer thought to be withholding info or was that regarding Jack? In this article they say that LE thinks she provided EJ adoption advice and places to stay.

ETA: Jinx, BeanE. LOL
 
So, did she get a new lawyer or does AN work with the man that represented Tammi when she was arrested?
 
Yea, right!!! TS doesn't honestly believe she's innocent if she says she is does she?
 
From the lastest article:

Police and prosecutors believe that Smith, 37, provided Johnson with adoption advice and contacts for a place to stay after she fled with Gabriel. And the forgery charge comes from an allegation that she falsified documents as to who is the child's father.

BUT

"We know it has nothing to do with the disappearance of baby Gabriel," Nguyen said. "It's all speculation at this point. We haven't been given any information by the state."

HAH! Well. Lemme tell you, if prosecutors are saying what the srticle says they are saying that counts as info from the state. maybe you should pay attention to the media...they give your client all this great info. Have her hook you up with her "sources".

Okay, I'm done, I swear.
 
not_my_kids said:
From the lastest article:

Police and prosecutors believe that Smith, 37, provided Johnson with adoption advice and contacts for a place to stay after she fled with Gabriel. And the forgery charge comes from an allegation that she falsified documents as to who is the child's father.

BUT

"We know it has nothing to do with the disappearance of baby Gabriel," Nguyen said. "It's all speculation at this point. We haven't been given any information by the state."

HAH! Well. Lemme tell you, if prosecutors are saying what the srticle says they are saying that counts as info from the state. maybe you should pay attention to the media...they give your client all this great info. Have her hook you up with her "sources".

Okay, I'm done, I swear.
Click to expand...


"We know it has nothing to do with the disappearance of baby Gabriel," Nguyen said. "It's all speculation at this point. We haven't been given any information by the state."

Ugh - I totally agree with you...just reading that sentence gets my blood boiling. Doesn't give that attorney any appearance of intelligence, that's for sure.:furious:
 
She's playing a semantics game here I think. And I I agree with vjlaw what happened to the "Sleepwalker" lawyer?
 
OK, question!!!

I'm re-reading TPS arrest documents. And something is really standing out to me that didn't when I read them before.
Section D, Number 6. It's basically talking about if TPS is a flight risk. But it specifically mentions that she has family in the state of Tennessee. No other states are mentioned. We know she has family elsewhere.
Why would this document specifically focus on Tennessee???

ETA: Section D, Number 7, does go on to say she has contacts in Texas, Arizona, Tennessee and Louisiana. But I still find it odd that Tennessee is the focus on part 6.
 
NewMommy09 said:
OK, question!!!

I'm re-reading TPS arrest documents. And something is really standing out to me that didn't when I read them before.
Section D, Number 6. It's basically talking about if TPS is a flight risk. But it specifically mentions that she has family in the state of Tennessee. No other states are mentioned. We know she has family elsewhere.
Why would this document specifically focus on Tennessee???

ETA: Section D, Number 7, does go on to say she has contacts in Texas, Arizona, Tennessee and Louisiana. But I still find it odd that Tennessee is the focus on part 6.
Click to expand...

I think it's because that's where they were trying to arrange for EJ to stay in one of their relative's homes.
 
STEADFAST said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe she should be charged for successfully interferring in custody by providing a false document to a LEO when they showed up at her door in December--showing them the bogus "guardianship" paperwork. EJ had reported that LM had hidden Gabriel when in fact she and TS had signed the guardianship/temporary custody papers and had them notarized but NOT by a JUDGE nor through the court!
Remeber TS reporting in interviews that the police said she should then keep Gabe there in her home where he was "safe". this was well before LE had the entire picture of what was taking place with TS's desperate attempts to take Gabe and keep Logan from his parental rights. I have no doubt she'd advised EJ to report that Logan had hidden the baby, not thinking they'd find him at her home. But, just in case she attempted to CYA by printing up the bogus papers.
Just having them notarized means nothing. Logan's signature was NOT on them and of course, neither was a judge's. Therefore, LE does have custodial interferrence on that date, before EJ ever took off. this is when the Smith's had Gabe for the 8 or 10 days. I think that both TS & EJ should be charged with this count of custodial interferrence. I'm sure that the evidence was on TS computer, unless she used one that LE was not privy to during the searches.
I have taken temporary then permanent guardianship of a nephew and you cannot do so without the courts. You have to have evidence of neglect/abuse before a judge will sign away one or both parents rights, even temporarily. This is also the law in AZ.

PS: Not being a fly-by poster--I've been ill & have followed baby gabe's case from the beginning, posting when I could! That this charge has been dropped bothers me because of TS's extreme behavior in showing that she didn't really care about the truth as to Logan's love & caring of his son, that he wants him--just so long as she got what SHE wanted--HIS son! I see her as the catalyst to the ultimate loss of Gabriel if in fact EJ carried out the unthinkable. TS needs to pay the highest price possible so that she never again preys upon another infant. I've actually thought about writing the detectives on the case about this. (maybe they don't realize that she showed an officer such paperwork?)

Also, this was yet another count of her commiting forgery IMHO!
 
BeanE said:
I think it's because that's where they were trying to arrange for EJ to stay in one of their relative's homes.
Click to expand...


actually i think they said they were going to let her stay in one of their houses. i believe they still own property in TN
 
trafficsUP66 said:
I believe she should be charged for successfully interferring in custody by providing a false document to a LEO when they showed up at her door in December--showing them the bogus "guardianship" paperwork. EJ had reported that LM had hidden Gabriel when in fact she and TS had signed the guardianship/temporary custody papers and had them notarized but NOT by a JUDGE nor through the court!
Remeber TS reporting in interviews that the police said she should then keep Gabe there in her home where he was "safe". this was well before LE had the entire picture of what was taking place with TS's desperate attempts to take Gabe and keep Logan from his parental rights. I have no doubt she'd advised EJ to report that Logan had hidden the baby, not thinking they'd find him at her home. But, just in case she attempted to CYA by printing up the bogus papers.
Just having them notarized means nothing. Logan's signature was NOT on them and of course, neither was a judge's. Therefore, LE does have custodial interferrence on that date, before EJ ever took off. this is when the Smith's had Gabe for the 8 or 10 days. I think that both TS & EJ should be charged with this count of custodial interferrence. I'm sure that the evidence was on TS computer, unless she used one that LE was not privy to during the searches.
I have taken temporary then permanent guardianship of a nephew and you cannot do so without the courts. You have to have evidence of neglect/abuse before a judge will sign away one or both parents rights, even temporarily. This is also the law in AZ.

PS: Not being a fly-by poster--I've been ill & have followed baby gabe's case from the beginning, posting when I could! That this charge has been dropped bothers me because of TS's extreme behavior in showing that she didn't really care about the truth as to Logan's love & caring of his son, that he wants him--just so long as she got what SHE wanted--HIS son! I see her as the catalyst to the ultimate loss of Gabriel if in fact EJ carried out the unthinkable. TS needs to pay the highest price possible so that she never again preys upon another infant. I've actually thought about writing the detectives on the case about this. (maybe they don't realize that she showed an officer such paperwork?)

Also, this was yet another count of her commiting forgery IMHO!
Click to expand...

Good to see you, traffic, and I hope you're feeling better soon!

You bring up excellent points on the temp guardianship papers, as well as the act of presenting them to law enforcement, and possibly Tammi also presented those papers to CPS who also visited that day (Dec 10 if I remember correctly).

I'm surprised she wasn't charged with something in regard to those temp guardianship papers. If I recall correctly, the papers were signed by her, Jack, and Elizabeth. Could they be part of the conspiracy charge evidence?

Have we ever looked up the laws on temp guardianship for AZ?

Do we have screencaps of the document that show who all signed them? If I recall correctly, the docs were shown in a news video, and somebody took screencaps. I'm wondering if Logan's name was forged on it.

Off to see what I can find.
 
BeanE said:
Good to see you, traffic, and I hope you're feeling better soon!

You bring up excellent points on the temp guardianship papers, as well as the act of presenting them to law enforcement, and possibly Tammi also presented those papers to CPS who also visited that day (Dec 10 if I remember correctly).

I'm surprised she wasn't charged with something in regard to those temp guardianship papers. If I recall correctly, the papers were signed by her, Jack, and Elizabeth. Could they be part of the conspiracy charge evidence?

Have we ever looked up the laws on temp guardianship for AZ?

Do we have screencaps of the document that show who all signed them? If I recall correctly, the docs were shown in a news video, and somebody took screencaps. I'm wondering if Logan's name was forged on it.

Off to see what I can find.
Click to expand...

Thanks BeanE!

OH, that would be great if somebody has screenshots of those papers! Most specifically if Logan's name was forged! I've watched & read most everything but somehow missed seeing the documents and was commenting based on TS propensity to talk! She mentioned this a couple of times, which of course, was to make herself appear the savior to baby Gabe.
If she also showed them to CPS, this would be documented, along with the LE visit. I read the entire charging documents and this incident was noticeably (to me) absent!

I'll be sure to look around also and check back soon to see what you find!
 
Yes, AZ Supior Court is involved in minor children guardianship issues:

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/selfserv/formminorgard.htm

ETA: Just as in my case, notice with the court must be filed, then a hearing is scheduled--both parents have to be notified within so many days (with proof of notification) and can attend to dispute. This is when the evidence is presented and usually temporary custody for a number of months signed by judge if evidence exists, before finalization. TS obviously downloaded the paperwork but never filed with the court, having instead had the signatures notarized somewhere else? The clerk is the one who does the notarizing, when it's done legally of course. Even though one parent signed, EJ, still had to file with the court and LM notified!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 148 more.
Total: 4,010 (members: 149, guests: 3,861)

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
3,861
Total visitors
4,010
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,504
Messages
17,970,072
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top