"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:bsed5994qcjh7m36pb0nejem9b31icl81s@4ax.com...
> "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Full Name" <user@example.net> wrote in message
>>news:ohfc599bfdaveg8nc81m53f6tlumchivea@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:38:08 -0400, "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Oglethorpe" <antikerry@go.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:K86dnSNJiKF7ncnPnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@mchsi.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:524c388a$0$30596$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>>>>>> Haven't seen you lately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good question. He never should have been charged.
>>>>
>>>>We agreed on that a couple of years ago. Last I heard I thought
>>>>his attorney was filing an appeal.
>>>
>>> Frank has been in his prison cell since 9/11
>>>
>>> The judge refused bail pending appeal because the child pornography
>>> videos found on his computers showed he was a danger to children and
>>> having allowed his home to go into foreclosure made him a flight risk.
>>>
>>> https://ecf.gamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007-00018-196-1-cr
>>>
>>> the Court cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant
>>> is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the community.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein,
>>> the Court finds that Defendant's Motion
>>> (Doc. 194) should be, and is,hereby DENIED
>>> .
>>> SO ORDERED this 11th day of September, 2013.
>>> /s/ W. Louis Sands
>>> THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>>
>>Thanks for the info, Judge Sands is a piece of shit. He delayed three
>>years
>>in issuing
>>his verdict, probably hoping Frank would die first. I'm no lawyer but I
>>don't think
>>using the child porn found on Frank's computer as a reason to deny bail on
>>appeal is
>>right. Frank was neither charged no convicted because it was found without
>>a
>>warrant
>>and thus inadmissible. So why should it be brought up at a bail hearing.
>>I hope his lawyer is appealing this. This whole thing has been a kangaroo
>>court.
>>There is supposed to be an element of fairness in out judicial system, but
>>the government
>>is increasingly using unfair tactics to charge people for petty
>>violations.
>>
> I'm not knocking Judge Sands.
> As to why he denied bail, it was mainly a misunderstanding between me
> and my parole-agent about my home, NOT that he found me a danger to
> anybody.
>
> The home was NOT in default.
> I had NOT given away everything I needed to live here.
> I HAD given away (or sold) some of the NICER stuff that nobody in the
> family (or friends) wanted, that I didn't want left for whoever took
> over the house; but I had mainly *replaced* most of that stuff with
> cheap junk so I could live comfortably while staying there.
> The kid DID take the car; so I had to get a replacement when I got
> back; though I COULD have gotten around with my bike and Public
> Transportation (that I was just learning how to use).
> The main bother when I got back was replacing all of the food I gave
> away while expecting to be gone for an indefinite period (up to 18
> months). I still had a FEW canned-goods left; and managed to pick up
> a few necessities (like milk and such) with my bike; but it wasn't
> until one of the wife's relatives drove me around with his rather
> large pickup that I managed to fill up the refrigerator (and deplete
> my bank-account).
>
> Once the misunderstanding was cleared up, Judge Sands *DID* issue
> bail, pending appeals, and then, when asked by my lawyer, *DID*
> reinstate my Internet Access ... Subject to the same restrictions as
> before. If he had been a complete A**, then he could have left me
> sitting.
>
> Of course, THAT would have raised the possibility (probability?) of
> the Appeals-Court finding me "Not Guilty" several years AFTER I had
> already served the full sentence ... and lost the house and everything
> in it as well.
>
> But it wasn't the judge's fault!
> Nor was it really my Parol-Agent's fault.
> I just didn't realize how my keeping the guy up-to-date on what I was
> doing in getting ready in case I DID have to spend more than a month
> or two in jail, sounded to him.
>
> Once corrected ... Well, I'm back ... For now at least, while the
> appeals process grinds slowly through the courts.
>
> Since it's taken THIS long to get this far, any bets on how a system
> notoriously SLOW will drag on?
>
Glad to hear it worked out. I've been dealing with family emergency so
I haven't been following. Personally I don't think the judge should have
taken so long to render his decision. SCOTUS hears much more elaborate
and difficult cases and renders decisions within a couple of months. Why
should your decision take years? Anyway, glad to see you back.
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 |
|