Tammi Smith -The Charges

New Posts

Baby Gabriel custody ploy is alleged
State: Suspect sought to adopt baby's mom
by Laurie Merrill - Dec. 7, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic


The state has alleged that a Scottsdale woman charged in the disappearance of Baby Gabriel Johnson discussed adopting his mother as a way to gain custody of the child, according to a defense motion.

The state says Tammi Smith, 38, who wanted to adopt Gabriel, and Elizabeth Johnson, 24, of Tempe, the baby's mother, also discussed seeking a change of venue to Tennessee in the custody case.

In addition, the state alleges, the two talked about using child-support payments to pressure the baby's father, Logan McQueary, into surrendering his rights, according to the motion.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...briel-johnson-custody-ploy.html#ixzz17Qy6ncvx
 
I don't get it. How is this alleged ? TPS and JS ( I think) both said this. It's documented. And the fact to change the venue to Tennessee, what is that about ? You know the request to change the venue to Tennessee seems interesting to me at this point ????
 
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Tammi Smith or CR2010-101760)

12/09/2010- RMR Response to Defendant's Motion to Remand to the Grand Jury


And docketed 12/10/2010 by Defendant 2:

12/09/2010- Pro Per Mail (Party 001)


I hope this is the seven page letter EJ sent to the judge and attorneys. I have gotten this mixed up in the past , but I think when the clerk specifically notes "Defendant 2" it refers to TPS.
 
saba said:
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Tammi Smith or CR2010-101760)


12-22-2010 - Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel (Party 002)



The madness continues...
Click to expand...

It seems there is some confusion over just which defendant is denoted by (Party 002). This has confused people in the past and is aggravated by the fact that EJ's new attorneys have never been listed on the case header so it has read, "to be determined" for some weeks now.

So special treat, I called the court clerk. She told me that the 12-22-2010 Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel concerns Tammi Smith, and was filed by Mr. Agan.
 
TPS probably trying to hoo doo him and he is smart enough to know it. I don't get how she is allowed to have public defenders when the home she owns is nicer than probably some of the judges. why can't she put everyone out of their misery and just tell what really happened...the real story! :banghead:
 
I wonder if this musical attorneys is just a stall tactic?

PERHAPS they're stalling so enough time goes by that IF and WHEN they find Gabriel, they THINK there's no way the judge would give him to Logan because he would have bonded too much with the 'new parents?' :banghead:

What's best for the child and all that stuff!:croc:

IF that is their plan, it's not going to work, IMHO. Then not only would these two, or maybe three, go to jail, but the 'new parents' as well. Whoever has Gabriel knows the deal! THEY are NOW accomplices in this crime.:behindbar:

just sayin'
fran
 
Shout out to AZLawyer or any other atty in AZ who knows the law....

What protocol does the system use in AZ to determine if someone is eligible for a PD???? The Smiths seem to have too many assets to qualify by CA standards??? Is she required to file financial documentation to prove her indigence?
 
The_Flashlight said:
And this was the court appointed attorney, correct? I wonder why what's going on?
Click to expand...

So Tammi is, "between lawyers" as some might delicately put it. This motion came at a time when Elizabeth's attorneys were out and about blaming Tammi for duping their young, naive client. Mr Raynak went so far as to offer that he hopes and prays that Ms. Smith cooperates with law enforcement the way Elizabeth has done.
If ever there was a time when Tammi Smith needed an effective advocate, this was that time. Instead, she is busy churning through another attorney while public perception hardens against her.

MOO

Raynak interview w video: http://www.kpho.com/news/26176237/detail.html
 
saba said:
So Tammi is, "between lawyers" as some might delicately put it. This motion came at a time when Elizabeth's attorneys were out and about blaming Tammi for duping their young, naive client. Mr Raynak went so far as to offer that he hopes and prays that Ms. Smith cooperates with law enforcement the way Elizabeth has done.
If ever there was a time when Tammi Smith needed an effective advocate, this was that time. Instead, she is busy churning through another attorney while public perception hardens against her.

MOO

Raynak interview w video: http://www.kpho.com/news/26176237/detail.html
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
Gma Kat said:
Shout out to AZLawyer or any other atty in AZ who knows the law....

What protocol does the system use in AZ to determine if someone is eligible for a PD???? The Smiths seem to have too many assets to qualify by CA standards??? Is she required to file financial documentation to prove her indigence?
Click to expand...

Yes, she must have provided a financial affidavit claiming indigency. I don't think there is any cut-off level of assets, though; I think the court compares assets and income with liabilities, expenses and likely costs of defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 3,748 (members: 70, guests: 3,678)

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
3,678
Total visitors
3,748
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,198
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top