Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[Hope4More]

Well, all you cute bunnies should also hop over to 'otg''s calendar of all the JBR shows coming up in the next few weeks ... https://teamup.com/ksebb2935e68ee3a5f ... set your dvrs, if ya' got 'em. FYI, 'otg', is the poster over there at JBR that educates us on everything. She's my Hope4More over there.

And if you need a refresher, The Bontia Papers will bring you up to speed: http://www.re-newsit.com/p/the-bonita-papers-are-unedited-notes-of.html

Oh my. I looked up the Bontia papers and have been reading reading reading. So much leaps out, including putting a child to bed in a turtleneck shirt (sweater, even?), the strange behavior of all 3 of them, the $118k ransom, on through the enhanced 911 tape in which John tells his very young son- "we're not speaking to you."

I followed this case when it was first in the news on through what I remember were lots of accusations against Boulder LE, but never revisited it, at least until now. Rabbit hole here I come....

 

[Hope4More]

https://www.maricopa.gov/OPDS/Asset...tracts/Service_Provider_Contracts/11075-c.pdf

While contact between the defendant and the mitigation specialist is a contractual obligation, and the contract expires upon sentencing, I don't see anything that forbids post-sentencing contact, and I don't see how it could, since including it would mean the expired contract remains in effect, which is contradictory. It also seems to me to be infringing on free choice and would be legally baseless.

There are all kinds of contracts that have post- employment clauses. For example, a contract for one position I held many years ago contained a (fairly radical) non-compete provision that I agreed not to work in the same field of work at all, in any capacity, for a full 3 years following the voluntary or involuntary termination of my employment with X.

In MDLR's case. What is definitely true is that MDLR lost her status as a DT member after the was sentenced, which meant she was no longer entitled to protected visitation, phone calls, or correspondence with the .

I'd be surprised, actually, if there weren't professional rules discouraging post contract contact, even if such contact isn't strictly forbidden.

 

[FinallyRegistered]

Could you translate that plz? You lost me there.

I checked the time on my post and it says, "10:26 pm" so I blame the Ambien. From what I can tell, I was just trying to corral the bunnies over to the JonBenet Ramsey threads. My sincerest apologies for the confusion.

 

[salberg7]

Oh my. I looked up the Bontia papers and have been reading reading reading. So much leaps out, including putting a child to bed in a turtleneck shirt (sweater, even?), the strange behavior of all 3 of them, the $118k ransom, on through the enhanced 911 tape in which John tells his very young son- "we're not speaking to you."

I followed this case when it was first in the news on through what I remember were lots of accusations against Boulder LE, but never revisited it, at least until now. Rabbit hole here I come....

I never got into the JBR case but am reading the Bonita papers as well. From what I surmise from my limited baseline, it had to be a family member, IMO. Who else as there was minimal evidence otherwise. I may revisit as I watched the first part of the ID Channel series last night. Wonder how the interview between Dr Phil and Burke will be? That is on sometime this week too.

 

[salberg7]

Ethics never stood in MDLR's path before. I personally think they probably still keep in touch (MDLR & the killer). I too don't see any reason why they can't. But...it's like me with an old patient (I am a RN). I have contact with only one person I have ever cared for on a profession level but that's only an annual "how are you" call. I don't particularly feel it is professional to do so, but it is certainly my right.
As far as the warden knowing about this pic being released, I am not concerned. Her life is miserable enough and it's not going to get any better. She is where she should be now. She'll never get out. LWOP is punishment enough. As long as she doesn't profit from it & with Son of Sam laws she shouldn't. JMO.

 

[Niner]

I never got into the JBR case but am reading the Bonita papers as well. From what I surmise from my limited baseline, it had to be a family member, IMO. Who else as there was minimal evidence otherwise. I may revisit as I watched the first part of the ID Channel series last night. Wonder how the interview between Dr Phil and Burke will be? That is on sometime this week too.

It was on yesterday, today, and tomorrow - CBS - here it starts at 3pm

 

[RickshawFan]

The big difference between the JBR case and the TA case as far as poster conversations is that the group here gathered over a trial, the JBR folks over a whodunit. Whole different kind of sleuthing. 10,000 more rabbit holes in that one and lots of dead horse flogging. And no legal stuff.

 

[TrialWatcher]

It was on yesterday, today, and tomorrow - CBS - here it starts at 3pm

I watched Burke Ramsey's interview with Dr Phil and read the information linked by FinallyRegistered. Like many, I have followed this case. It is fascinating. I want to see the rest of the interview but it's difficult not to conclude that the son's demeanour is very strange.

 

[TrialWatcher]

Ethics never stood in MDLR's path before. I personally think they probably still keep in touch (MDLR & the killer). I too don't see any reason why they can't. But...it's like me with an old patient (I am a RN). I have contact with only one person I have ever cared for on a profession level but that's only an annual "how are you" call. I don't particularly feel it is professional to do so, but it is certainly my right.
As far as the warden knowing about this pic being released, I am not concerned. Her life is miserable enough and it's not going to get any better. She is where she should be now. She'll never get out. LWOP is punishment enough. As long as she doesn't profit from it & with Son of Sam laws she shouldn't. JMO.

If there is anything in it for MDLR - she will stay in touch with Arias.

 

[Hope4More]

The big difference between the JBR case and the TA case as far as poster conversations is that the group here gathered over a trial, the JBR folks over a whodunit. Whole different kind of sleuthing. 10,000 more rabbit holes in that one and lots of dead horse flogging. And no legal stuff.

Yah. Giganticus rabbito hole-ios & no legal & no movement- except for marking 20 years, but .....the whodunnit of it is actually (for me) the (only) interesting (it is that) part.

(ETA-- my goodness, over there-- some serious fur flying, head butting, and beat downs for not agreeing with another's most adamant and dearly held position. :O and lol).


The trial I'm trying to find here or anywhere else is the federal trial that started today against the Bundy boys etc who took over the wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Not a whodunnit or murder or like that, and no sleuthing whatsoever, but a really important trial historically, IMO, and one that will air consequential issues.

 

[RickshawFan]

Yah. Giganticus rabbito hole-ios & no legal & no movement- except for marking 20 years, but .....the whodunnit of it is actually (for me) the (only) interesting (it is that) part.

(ETA-- my goodness, over there-- some serious fur flying, head butting, and beat downs for not agreeing with another's most adamant and dearly held position. :O and lol).


The trial I'm trying to find here or anywhere else is the federal trial that started today against the Bundy boys etc who took over the wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Not a whodunnit or murder or like that, and no sleuthing whatsoever, but a really important trial historically, IMO, and one that will air consequential issues.

Yes that would be great if you could zoom in on that trial. I was on that thread during the whole episode and know that area extremely well. Let me know where.

 

[Steve44]

There are all kinds of contracts that have post- employment clauses. For example, a contract for one position I held many years ago contained a (fairly radical) non-compete provision that I agreed not to work in the same field of work at all, in any capacity, for a full 3 years following the voluntary or involuntary termination of my employment with X.

In MDLR's case. What is definitely true is that MDLR lost her status as a DT member after the was sentenced, which meant she was no longer entitled to protected visitation, phone calls, or correspondence with the .

I'd be surprised, actually, if there weren't professional rules discouraging post contract contact, even if such contact isn't strictly forbidden.

It seems to me that by the examples given by both you and Rickshawfan that such restrictions are intended to protect some kind of financial interest, such as preventing proprietary information from spreading to a competitor, or lobbyists offering insider information in exchange for favors. In cases like that such restrictions are understandable, but in a case like MDLR and , where the relationship was based purely on psycho-social issues, there's no future harm that could come to either party or a third party if a friendship develops, so I don't see on what basis such a restriction would be written into such a contract.

 

[Steve44]

Ethics never stood in MDLR's path before. I personally think they probably still keep in touch (MDLR & the killer). I too don't see any reason why they can't. But...it's like me with an old patient (I am a RN). I have contact with only one person I have ever cared for on a profession level but that's only an annual "how are you" call. I don't particularly feel it is professional to do so, but it is certainly my right.
As far as the warden knowing about this pic being released, I am not concerned. Her life is miserable enough and it's not going to get any better. She is where she should be now. She'll never get out. LWOP is punishment enough. As long as she doesn't profit from it & with Son of Sam laws she shouldn't. JMO.

The defense team should have had one more member: a mitigation specialist for the mitigation specialist.

 

[RickshawFan]

It seems to me that by the examples given by both you and Rickshawfan that such restrictions are intended to protect some kind of financial interest, such as preventing proprietary information from spreading to a competitor, or lobbyists offering insider information in exchange for favors. In cases like that such restrictions are understandable, but in a case like MDLR and , where the relationship was based purely on psycho-social issues, there's no future harm that could come to either party or a third party if a friendship develops, so I don't see on what basis such a restriction would be written into such a contract.

IMO there are serious ethical implications for social workers continuing relationships with clients. Very serious.

 

[Hope4More]

It seems to me that by the examples given by both you and Rickshawfan that such restrictions are intended to protect some kind of financial interest, such as preventing proprietary information from spreading to a competitor, or lobbyists offering insider information in exchange for favors. In cases like that such restrictions are understandable, but in a case like MDLR and , where the relationship was based purely on psycho-social issues, there's no future harm that could come to either party or a third party if a friendship develops, so I don't see on what basis such a restriction would be written into such a contract.

Reality is, anything can be written into a contract, even terms that apply after the contract has expired, which was the point I was responding to.

MDLR is ( in theory) bound by two sets of professional standards, only one contractual. Maricopa County can certainly restrict her from contacting clients post sentencing if the office of public defender chooses to do so, for whatever reason.

As a licensed social worker she also has a professional code of conduct she's supposed to uphold, though there is precious little evidence MDLR gives a rat's patoie on that score.

I'm sure Perryville DOC folks know exactly who she is, and that they don't have much use for her, given her penchant for aiding and abetting the 's flagrant disregard of Estrella's rules.

I don't find tabloid stories credible, so for myself have no idea if they are allowed to be in contact and if they are, if they actually are. . Given that there are still a number of "haters" on Twitter monitoring the , and that they tweet to invite others to contact Perryville about any possible conceivable potential maybe breaking of rules by the , I'm confident Perryville is fully aware of any and all communication between MDLR and the , and isn't bending any rules on the behalf of either of them.

 

[Hope4More]

I keep coming here to post a note about her appeals, but start to read up, then forget why I came by, lol.

Another of the supplemental transcripts requested has been identified on the COA docket, a transcript of the cross of the on juror questions.

That transcript isn't in fact supplemental. It should, by law, have been included in the original trial record but apparently wasn't. So.......her attorneys' motion to vacate the May record completion date is actually reasonable, especially if other required transcripts are missing as well.

 

[Steve44]

Reality is, anything can be written into a contract, even terms that apply after the contract has expired, which was the point I was responding to.

MDLR is ( in theory) bound by two sets of professional standards, only one contractual. Maricopa County can certainly restrict her from contacting clients post sentencing if the office of public defender chooses to do so, for whatever reason.

As a licensed social worker she also has a professional code of conduct she's supposed to uphold, though there is precious little evidence MDLR gives a rat's patoie on that score.

I'm sure Perryville DOC folks know exactly who she is, and that they don't have much use for her, given her penchant for aiding and abetting the 's flagrant disregard of Estrella's rules.

I don't find tabloid stories credible, so for myself have no idea if they are allowed to be in contact and if they are, if they actually are. . Given that there are still a number of "haters" on Twitter monitoring the , and that they tweet to invite others to contact Perryville about any possible conceivable potential maybe breaking of rules by the , I'm confident Perryville is fully aware of any and all communication between MDLR and the , and isn't bending any rules on the behalf of either of them.

I realize it's possible, but with what justification? This to me is a separate issue from MDLR's unprofessional behavior, since if present in her contract would apply to any mitigation specialist including those that do respect professional boundaries. This is not contradictory as the unprofessional conduct I"m referring to includes smuggling contraband, assisting in fundraising, and associating with anti-social hostile supporters, all of which are distinct from a loosely defined and not necessarily improper friendship. I should add, should such a friendship develop it should preclude any future professional relationship of the same type, just as a pre-existing friendship should.

 

[Hope4More]

I realize it's possible, but with what justification? This to me is a separate issue from MDLR's unprofessional behavior, since if present in her contract would apply to any mitigation specialist including those that do respect professional boundaries. This is not contradictory as the unprofessional conduct I"m referring to includes smuggling contraband, assisting in fundraising, and associating with anti-social hostile supporters, all of which are distinct from a loosely defined and not necessarily improper friendship. I should add, should such a friendship develop it should preclude any future professional relationship of the same type, just as a pre-existing friendship should.

I guess I don't understand your question/point about justification. Are you referring to the OPD having to justify a rule about not allowing MS's to visit ex-clients? If such a rule exists?

I don't think they would have to justify such a rule (or any rule within the law). Most of Maricopa Co's MS's are contractual employees ($55 per hour, not negotiable). It's a take it or leave it kind of employment, without state employee type protections.

Why (in theory) would the OPD impose such a restriction? That I can readily understand, given the scandals the county has endured of MS's doing far more for inmates than just smuggling papers in and out.

Maybe the State thinks it sends the wrong message to inmates to have MS's bringing Valentines and sending flowers?

 

[Steve44]

I guess I don't understand your question/point about justification. Are you referring to the OPD having to justify a rule about not allowing MS's to visit ex-clients? If such a rule exists?

I don't think they would have to justify such a rule (or any rule within the law). Most of Maricopa Co's MS's are contractual employees ($55 per hour, not negotiable). It's a take it or leave it kind of employment, without state employee type protections.

Why (in theory) would the OPD impose such a restriction? That I can readily understand, given the scandals the county has endured of MS's doing far more for inmates than just smuggling papers in and out.

Maybe the State thinks it sends the wrong message to inmates to have MS's bringing Valentines and sending flowers?

Yes, that's what I"m talking about, if there's a justification to prohibit a post contractural relationship. I don't see that there is, but while the contract is in effect the relationship should be nothing but professional, ie no valentines and flowers - which is in effect what MDLR did, well, chocolate covered ants and weeds anyway. She tried, don't judge, loved it.

 

[Niner]

Oops - my mistake!

I never got into the JBR case but am reading the Bonita papers as well. From what I surmise from my limited baseline, it had to be a family member, IMO. Who else as there was minimal evidence otherwise. I may revisit as I watched the first part of the ID Channel series last night. Wonder how the interview between Dr Phil and Burke will be? That is on sometime this week too.

was on yesterday, today, and tomorrow - CBS - here it starts at 3pm

Turns out - no interview today, but on Monday, Sept. 19th, with Burke.

Sorry fftopic: but wanted to correct myself.