"F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:525fce2f$0$31873$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
> "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.
>
>
They painted themselves into a corner and are hoping Frank will die and save
them.
|
| 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 |
|