|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 16, 2009 23:31:12 GMT -5
This is about the bondsman case; others so desperately want to hide. This case started 5/12/09(warrant authorized) and on the 6/16/09 subscribed and sworn before the Judge. On the 7/2/09 brought to trial.What I found interesting in that sequence was that there was no arrest or charges when the officers were at the house after John called them to the scene. Who was trying to hide this? Now Scott why don’t you tell the truth. If this thing was bogus as you say, don’t you think this accusation would have been dropped then and not wait until Aug for another hearing. The warrant isn't bogus. I never did say that. I simply added some things that I heard about what happened. That is no different than saying that any case would be dropped at the first court appearance. Time was given for discovery so more facts could be gathered. After all John has been in that system for a very long time. Oh did I mention ironically he has the same attorneys as Stephanie has (law firm). I am not sure why that is really ironic. If John has been taking Stephanie to the lawyers at that law firm, he probably knows them pretty well. It only makes sense to use a lawyer that you know. This incidentally; ends Stephanie’s case, as the court found her guilty giving her the same sentence as Bethany. That is lowering it to “mister meaner” which carries, one yr probation and seeing the co cmh. In short, there is NO hearing for her in AUG. So get your info striate!!!Almost the same sentence. There were a few minor differences if you look at the paperwork. As long as she keeps out of trouble during probation, she'll get through this just fine. Guess I heard it wrong about her having a court appearance in August. We'll know in August won't we? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 16, 2009 23:32:37 GMT -5
And yes Scott I understood when I thought you were mod three that you are not mod three sorry for the mixup. As mod three tried this before. Apology accepted. I was willing to leave the names as they were, and add in the twins last names also. Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 16, 2009 23:44:56 GMT -5
Scott, your day will be fullfilled when you can post the family name won't it!! What is with the deal anyways? You became friends with people that were out to slaughter the family and you have not let up on reprinting allegations made that were false and etc. I like the freedon of information also, so I would take it you would ask your friends for a copy, since they are so close to the court house and I'm sure they could just fax a copy your way. Maybe you should press putting out minors names and see if any action comes your way. That would be better than listening to garbage from a person in Michigan on the phone. I guess I'm to forthright and not very interesting as you stated you didn't believe half of the stuff I wrote.
Also, if you read the court papers, you would know that Stephanie is done for one year when she appears to show she has fullfilled her requirements from the judge. So, if you didn't notice, get out your copy, which we know you have, and read it sir. It will put your mind to ease.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 17, 2009 20:51:02 GMT -5
Scott, your day will be fullfilled when you can post the family name won't it!! What is with the deal anyways? You became friends with people that were out to slaughter the family and you have not let up on reprinting allegations made that were false and etc. I like the freedon of information also, so I would take it you would ask your friends for a copy, since they are so close to the court house and I'm sure they could just fax a copy your way. Maybe you should press putting out minors names and see if any action comes your way. That would be better than listening to garbage from a person in Michigan on the phone. I guess I'm to forthright and not very interesting as you stated you didn't believe half of the stuff I wrote.Actually, the family name could be posted along with the twins names. That isn't an issue really. WK was the one that posted the names of the other children here. I have no reason to need to have the names posted of course. I am pretty sure that everyone in Michigan where any of this probably really matters know all the names anyhow.... Where have I said I didn't believe half the stuff you wrote? I will get most copies through the court system. As I mentioned, I really am not so much interested in the names listed in the court paperwork as I am in the investigation paperwork. Currently the court paperwork that is being circulated is that which WK has been sending out to people by PM and email, and that which is being sent by anonymous letters to some of the friends in Michigan. (not saying that WK is sending that out by letter) Also, if you read the court papers, you would know that Stephanie is done for one year when she appears to show she has fullfilled her requirements from the judge. So, if you didn't notice, get out your copy, which we know you have, and read it sir. It will put your mind to ease.Yep. I thought that is what I meant in my other post. In regard to: You became friends with people that were out to slaughter the family and you have not let up on reprinting allegations made that were false and etc. I have posted the hammer issue a few times BECAUSE of the fact that it was tossed out or disregarded by the court. I see it in the same light as the 'aiding and abetting' that is made such an issue. It was simply a part of the recorded legal paperwork at one time, but wasn't an issue later on. Yes I became friends with quite a few people thorough all of this. People on both sides of the issue, and I ended up walking a fine line between the two sides on several occasions. I just read through a bunch of emails from last year, and realized that in essence, I was getting pretty much the same information from both sides. I think it comes down to how it was presented was all. Scott
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 18, 2009 15:57:46 GMT -5
No, Scott, the hammer issue is not the same as the aiding and abetting. The hammer issue was a false allegation. The aiding and abetting is a court finding. A very very big difference. Something tossed out is not something disregarded by the court either. Tossed out would be a lie or no evidence of such item. Disregarded would be unimportant to the case. Using a hammer would definitely be important to a case!! Accusations that were turned in were not recorded legal paperwork. It was better known as toilet paper.
So aiding and abetting to you is not important. That really surprises me as if it would have been the family that was aiding and abetting someone to testify in their favor or persuade them to say things for the family, you would have been all over that like a bee after honey. And did anyone say that aiding and abetting wasn't an issue later on? I believe you are reading different court papers than I have. Right now I can't see that fine line you are walking, but a very broad line in favor of the ex workers!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 18, 2009 19:32:30 GMT -5
The aiding and abetting is a court finding. A very very big difference. Could you please give a brief explanation of what you consider aiding and abetting to be. I am getting mixed messages from your postings.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 18, 2009 20:51:48 GMT -5
There was no criminal procedure, only a admittance of lying by one twin and no contest to lying from the other twin. How odd. The papers posted show that the court found the girls guilty. That seems to be a procedure. Criminal, from the papers. I don't actually have to talk to any legal person. I am capable of reading the actual MI statute that governs how and by what means court records are expunged. You can as well. Michigan Compiled Laws Section 780.621(3) The purpose of this expungement statute is to expunge the record of one-time offenders who satisfy the requirements of the act. Check with your legal people. Perhaps they can explain why this law only seals and does not expunge the records.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 20, 2009 20:01:05 GMT -5
O.K, how about reading your own statement. One time offenders!! That has absolutely not one thing to do with a false allegation. If you are an offender, clean up your act, fulfill all your requirements from the courts, then see if you can have your expungement statue.
Falsely accused" meaning: Someone makes a false statement to the authorities of a crime which was not true. No, you are not a one time offender. You are a innocent victime of a false accusation!
So, legally, those false records are always false records so they are not to be put in a public file. But, you can NOT just throw away a charge given to the authoriities, but since it is false, it's not allowed to be public information. That would slander to the innocent victim.
Check with your legal people. Perhaps the twin girls could have their one time offense erased, if they follow all the rules of their sentence. Hopefully they remain one time offenders!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2009 20:17:59 GMT -5
Falsely accused" meaning: Someone makes a false statement to the authorities of a crime which was not true. No, you are not a one time offender. You are a innocent victime of a false accusation! I think I misunderstood what these papers were. It seems like they are not court documents but fall under the classification of arrest documents.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 23, 2009 8:50:02 GMT -5
It is very easy not to really know what anything really is by reading comments on the thread. These papers were false allegations turned in to the police and investigated, with evidence of the investigation being given to the prosecutor. The prosecutor then with the investigation determined to charge with a felony for lying.
|
|