2011.08.05 Hearing on Casey's probation

[Schu7]

TY!
You mark my words. When FCA breaks the law again, an argument will be made by her DT that her "probation" conducted as shoddily as it was, is the reason she should not have to answer for the charges. That the system failed her by allowing her to serve probation while incarcerated, thereby denying her the same opportunities afforded anyone else, that she was denied guidance or a chance to find gainful employment.

CM has that argument already done. JB is waiting to see where the money lies in this, before writing up his argument.:banghead:

 

[grandmaj]

Probation Hearing folks. This thread is going way off topic with all of these bashing comments. Please get yourselves back on track.

 

[LancelotLink]

Does anyone have a copy of the probation orders and /or court minutes from Jan 25 2010? Not the corrected version?

Also was wondering if Baez and Co. ever tried to have HHJS's ruling on the check charges revisited after HHJS recused himself?

Can't wait for the ruling on this. Seems like a slippery slope either way HHJBP decides to go with this.

 

[JSV]

I wonder if that probation officer who saw her in jail thought she was being released. Where is the paperwork? I want to see the paperwork. Baez is certainly not releasing it; he gave one sentence. Why did only baez receive notice of termination?

There is no double jeopardy, Richard Herman. I can't take this much more. These talking heads are clueless

Is this what you are looking for ?
http://www.issues.cc/complaints/casey-anthony/termination-of-probation-letter-casey-anthony

 

[LambChop]

Is this what you are looking for ?
http://www.issues.cc/complaints/casey-anthony/termination-of-probation-letter-casey-anthony

But wasn't she still under the supervision of the Department of Corrections? So this letter makes no sense. jmo

 

[MissJames]

Is this what you are looking for ?
http://www.issues.cc/complaints/casey-anthony/termination-of-probation-letter-casey-anthony

The letter states she is no longer under the supervision of the DOC, yet she was in jail :waitasec: The entire situation makes no sense.
Are the FL taxpayers going to hold Ms. Finnigan's feet to the fire for making such faulty decisions? It all comes back to her.

 

[logicalgirl]

Does anyone have a copy of the probation orders and /or court minutes from Jan 25 2010? Not the corrected version?

Also was wondering if Baez and Co. ever tried to have HHJS's ruling on the check charges revisited after HHJS recused himself?

Can't wait for the ruling on this. Seems like a slippery slope either way HHJBP decides to go with this.

Well we do know that Strickland gave both sides time to object to his sentence and neither of them did. Pretty hard to object when she pled guilty and actually got off very easy for thirteen felony charges...sometimes those things can come back to bite you.

And I doubt at that point her lawyers thought she would be getting out of jail anytime soon! They were as shocked as the rest of us by the NG verdict.

 

[logicalgirl]

Back a bit the question was asked either what do we want to have happen in this case or what do we think will happen.

I am still thinking about what I think will happen, but what I want to have happen is that HHJP comes back and says - so okay she has served her probation. BUT - having her serve probation in jail and having time served on her lying to the LE at the same time isn't going to work - so back to jail she goes for two years to finish off her sentence.

That would work for me!...:innocent:

 

[JBean]

The letter states she is no longer under the supervision of the DOC, yet she was in jail :waitasec: The entire situation makes no sense.
Are the FL taxpayers going to hold Ms. Finnigan's feet to the fire for making such faulty decisions? It all comes back to her.

Hi MissJames. I THINK she was under the FL DOC only when she was on probation. She was under the authority of the Orange County Jail while pending trial. So once she was released from probation she was no longer under the watch of the DOC as they watch over prisons,parole and probation.

 

[twiggles]

This may have already been discussed but it is confusing to me. It was issued on January 25, 2011 but it references an attachment which was updated March, 2011 . How is that possible? The letter pre-dates the enclosure by 2 months.

http://www.issues.cc/uploads/24881575464.jpg

 

[jjenny]

This from Hornsby's site........

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

The “Catch”
But by withholding adjudication there was a legal catch. Under Florida Statute 948.01, a judge cannot withhold adjudication of guilt on a felony UNLESS they also place the person on probation.

And that is exactly what Judge Strickland did, even though everyone knew she was being held in jail on No Bond for the murder case, Judge Strickland ORALLY pronounced that she was sentenced to the 412 days she already spent in jail on the check fraud charges, but for each count he Withheld Adjudication of Guilt on, he also placed her on One Year of Supervised Probation to be served “once released.”

Does this mean she served her 412 days in jail toward the check fraud charges only? If so, where is the punishment for the "lying to police" x 4? Did Florida overlook that?

I was thinking the same exact thing? Where is the punishment for lying to police conviction if she was serving time in jail on the check fraud and then was on probation while in jail? Why didn't they start calculating her time for lying to police after she served time for check fraud?
:banghead:

 

[krkrjx]

Who knows at this point what will happen on this, but here is what IMO should happen:

1. Court rules that probation was not properly served as imposed by HHJS regarding the check fraud cases.

2. Court rules that error in calculation of time served must be corrected, i.e., 412 days previously served for check fraud were erroneously credited toward time served on unrelated convictions of lying to LE.

3. Court order that Casey Anthony be remanded to Orange County Jail to complete her sentence imposed by HHJP on the convictions of lying to LE, followed by one year community supervision upon release from jail.

This would be at least a baby-step in the direction of justice being served. Who cares if the DT can appeal? At this point in time, that possibility should not be a concern.

 

[Just K]

bbm
Excellent question.
Falls a good mile short of requiring the inmate to display responsibility or to make any attempt to prove themself a decent member of society OUTSIDE.

Did She have access to anyone's checkbooks, debit or credit cards while in Protective Custody?

Did She have access to Personal Identification while in Protective Custody?

Did she have a checkbook while in Protective Custody?

Was she able to go into Retail Establishments to make purchases while in Protective Custody?

There was no way to rehabilitate her or test her ability to tow the line as it related to forgery, uttering bad checks, identity theft, and anything related to the 13 Felony Charges that SHE PLEAD GUILTY to.

In addition, did she and her DT not sign off or agree to that deal, in the courtroom and on video tape, on the plea deal and sentence at the time of that court decision/judgment?

It is more than apparent that both She and her DT knew full well that by allowing the DOC to start probation while she was still incarcerated was in direct violation of a court order.


Are her lawyers officers of the court first or the felon's counsel first?

 

[com n sense]

This is sickening! The defence knew she was in there for the fraud charges & that they were seperate from the lying. Why do they get away with with holding this info from the courts? This is so twisted, they all are. Can JP go back & fix this?
The law is the law! She should be serving ALL her time & not be able to walk away.

 

[LambChop]

The letter states she is no longer under the supervision of the DOC, yet she was in jail :waitasec: The entire situation makes no sense.
Are the FL taxpayers going to hold Ms. Finnigan's feet to the fire for making such faulty decisions? It all comes back to her.

I guess we should be happy they didn't open up the doors to the jailhouse and just let her walk out. lol

 

[krkrjx]

I guess we should be happy they didn't open up the doors to the jailhouse and just let her walk out. lol

Maybe they did. Maybe it wasn't Casey in jail, but a look-a-like. Staged by the DT so we would all think she was doing her time.

Sorry...but hope levity is allowed.

 

[BuzzieCat]

I guess we should be happy they didn't open up the doors to the jailhouse and just let her walk out. lol

The way I see that, that's pretty much what they did! I'm not at all sure that her sentence for what she WAS convicted of (lying) was calculated correctly or that she has served all of the time she should have served for that (in other words, was time served incorrectly counted double, for both the check charges and the lying charges?). In addition, she'd still at least be under supervision with probation if the probation dept had done their job and asked for clarification instead of just going with the easiest route. Seems to me they just thought, well, we've had other inmates serve probation in jail, and this girl is probably going to get a long sentence, anyway, eh, whatever.

I'm almost positive JP will come up with some way to either not make FCA do any probation at all or make it a phone-in, in-name-only probation. If he actually orders her to serve it as JS intended, I will come back here and eat my hat!

 

[EPfan]

Just asking? How much jail time did KC get for the check fraud?

 

[pinkfly]

The longer this goes on the more confused I get.

 

[RR0004]

I was really, really hoping RH would have an opportunity to leap up and demand Casey be brought to justice :maddening:

Thank you, MissJames. So did I. I'd like to believe there was a little bit of "us" in his most recent blog.
oxoxoxoxox