Ronald Cummings, drug trafficking charges

[titanfan62702]

I don't personally believe that he has many "enablers". He may have had temptations around him. It's clear that he did use drugs at one time, but when he accepted responsibility for taking care of his children, his drug use was either greatly reduced or stopped.

Nevertheless, I have compassion for someone who gets into trouble after a tragic event such as losing a child, especially if they weren't able to afford counseling.

I've yet to see any proof he took any responsibility for the children he stole from their mother. More proof that his young gf's or even someone in his family had more responsibility that RC did.

 

[titanfan62702]

Tim Miller's actions, after his daughter disappeared, led to becoming a recipient of the "Thousand Points Of Light" award from a sitting President of The United States.

Ronald Cummings' actions, after his daughter disappeared, led to becoming a recipient of a fifteen year prison sentence from the State of Florida.

I see no similarities between their actions or despair.

Ron didn't even hunt for his own daughter or help LE when they asked him to clear up something. I sure never heard that he helped anyone else that had a missing child or did he teach lessons on how to get free meals????

 

[Eileen730]

Yea, I hope he gets out soon and walks straight to the electric chair, enough wasting the taxpayers of Florida money!

LOL i hope they are all holding hands when the switch is flipped lol:loser:

 

[krkrjx]

Something could be brewing with Ron's appeal. I do not want to get my hopes up yet, or anyone else's, but I will be watching over the next few days and beyond to see what is filed, ordered, etc. Too bad the dockets do not elaborate more than they do. And with that said, I cannot elaborate, since I really do not yet understand why a Motion to Compel has been filed...by the state?

I am intrigued by the fact the the prosecutor may have filed this Motion. Googling this does not show many circumstances under which the state would file such a Motion but given there was a plea agreement...well, let's just wait and see. Again, don't want to get our hopes up only to have them dashed, since I am not sure yet that this is not an error in the docket posting.

 

[dodie20]

sounds like Ron might be being forced into keeping up his end of the bargain. MOO.

 

[nomoresorrow]

Thanks K for this great answer. I have been gone all day and just now reading it...(Had Glaucoma laser surgery). I agree posibility 1 seems more logical. That may be the safest for the general public too, at least we know he will serve the appropriate part of 15 years, hopefully at least 85%.:crazy:

:seeya: Somehow I missed your post Nonni. Hope your surgery went well!

 

[nomoresorrow]

Something could be brewing with Ron's appeal. I do not want to get my hopes up yet, or anyone else's, but I will be watching over the next few days and beyond to see what is filed, ordered, etc. Too bad the dockets do not elaborate more than they do. And with that said, I cannot elaborate, since I really do not yet understand why a Motion to Compel has been filed...by the state?

I am intrigued by the fact the the prosecutor may have filed this Motion. Googling this does not show many circumstances under which the state would file such a Motion but given there was a plea agreement...well, let's just wait and see. Again, don't want to get our hopes up only to have them dashed, since I am not sure yet that this is not an error in the docket posting.

Thank you so much for keeping us informed krkrjx!

 

[Emeralgem]

:seeya: Somehow I missed your post Nonni. Hope your surgery went well!

O/T Me too, I must have missed it. Hoping everything went well Nonni

 

[lil momma]

Motion to Compel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_compel


. The motion to compel is used to ask the court to order the non-complying party to produce the documentation or information requested, and/or to sanction the non-complying party for their failure to comply with the discovery requests.

hummmm.

 

[krkrjx]

Motion to Compel

The motion to compel is used to ask the court to order the non-complying party to produce the documentation or information requested, and/or to sanction the non-complying party for their failure to comply with the discovery requests.

hummmm.

When I first saw the docket I thought Ron had filed the Motion to get the state to respond as ordered on 3/21. State had asked for EOT to respond. However...the docket shows the Motion was filed by Appellee, and in this matter Appellee is the state. So the state is filing a motion to get Ron to do something, but what? Comply with his plea agreement? (IDK really, I'm just guessing.)

Of course, the docket posting could be an error. We may see it corrected to say Appellant filed the Motion. And if that is the case, it's probably nothing to get excited about.

Maybe I am just too anxious to see the state stand up to Ron's challenge. If they had good reason for giving him a plea deal...fine. Just make sure it's enforced.

For now anyway, it looks like the SA is not giving in to RC's challenge. And that's a good thing. It goes against the status quo in that area, though...so let's hope the SA doesn't cave to pressure.

 

[Chablis]

When I first saw the docket I thought Ron had filed the Motion to get the state to respond as ordered on 3/21. State had asked for EOT to respond. However...the docket shows the Motion was filed by Appellee, and in this matter Appellee is the state. So the state is filing a motion to get Ron to do something, but what? Comply with his plea agreement? (IDK really, I'm just guessing.)

Of course, the docket posting could be an error. We may see it corrected to say Appellant filed the Motion. And if that is the case, it's probably nothing to get excited about.

Maybe I am just too anxious to see the state stand up to Ron's challenge. If they had good reason for giving him a plea deal...fine. Just make sure it's enforced.

For now anyway, it looks like the SA is not giving in to RC's challenge. And that's a good thing. It goes against the status quo in that area, though...so let's hope the SA doesn't cave to pressure.

The State is not going to cave into Ronald Cummings, the way its talked about its like his last name is Gotti and he has money and influence. He HAS to honor the plea deal. I still think hes trying to get out of the plea deal, so I bet he would be happy with 50 years if that means he can still remain silent about what her did to his daughter. This is exciting news.

 

[krkrjx]

The State is not going to cave into Ronald Cummings, the way its talked about its like his last name is Gotti and he has money and influence. He HAS to honor the plea deal. I still think hes trying to get out of the plea deal, so I bet he would be happy with 50 years if that means he can still remain silent about what her did to his daughter. This is exciting news.

FWIW, I never said the SA would be caving in to Ronald Cummings. I said cave to pressure, in reference to what can happen when one goes against the status quo. Status Quo in that area is don't rock the boat, don't make waves, don't argue too loudly, let everything quietly go away, and only fight back if it doesn't cost too much. This is how I see that community and how they look at and just accept everything that happens there, not just RC antics.

 

[Chablis]

FWIW, I never said the SA would be caving in to Ronald Cummings. I said cave to pressure, in reference to what can happen when one goes against the status quo. Status Quo in that area is don't rock the boat, don't make waves, don't argue too loudly, let everything quietly go away, and only fight back if it doesn't cost too much. This is how I see that community and how they look at and just accept everything that happens there, not just RC antics.

I know, I just spring boarded off your post.

But I think he is in major trouble, I would not be shocked if he is the first to attempt to make a "new" deal with immunity for what he did to his child. Its probably going to be very interesting.

 

[krkrjx]

Motion to Compel is filed to get the court to order the other side to do something.

In a civil case where two parties are bound by an agreement that allows arbitration in the event of a dispute, a Motion to Compel might be filed by one party to get the other into arbitration if they have refused. IOW, compel them to live up to their end of the agreement.

In a criminal case, a Motion to Compel might be filed by the defense to get the court to order the prosecution to turn over evidence (discovery) if they believe the prosecution is withholding.

In an appeal, a Motion to Compel could be filed by the appellant to get the court to order the appellee to turn over evidence, or to respond to an order of the court, among other things. In a criminal case involving a plea agreement, a Motion to Compel can be filed by one side if they believe the other side has not lived up to their end of the plea agreement.

We still do not know what the Motion to Compel is asking for here, so it's a wait and see situation until we know more...JMO.

 

[twall]

Update for Ron's appeal

04/15/2011...
ORD-Granting Motion to Compel
5/05/2011
W/I 20DAYS LOWER COURT CLERK SERVE COPY OF SUMMARY ROA ON AE;RESPONSE W/I 20DAYS OF SERVICE OF SUMM RECORD

krkrjx-interpreration of the latest entry on Ron's appeal please! What does ROA ON AE mean?
Is the appeals court ordering the lower court (where Ron's case was handled) to produce the documents on Ron's case?

 

[krkrjx]

Update for Ron's appeal

04/15/2011...
ORD-Granting Motion to Compel
5/05/2011
W/I 20DAYS LOWER COURT CLERK SERVE COPY OF SUMMARY ROA ON AE;RESPONSE W/I 20DAYS OF SERVICE OF SUMM RECORD

krkrjx-interpreration of the latest entry on Ron's appeal please! What does ROA ON AE mean?
Is the appeals court ordering the lower court (where Ron's case was handled) to produce the documents on Ron's case?

I do not know much at all about appellate procedures and the abbreviations are something I usually have to guess at. I cannot come up with what AE could mean here, but I think ROA is Record on Appeal. There is no way to know from the brief blurb on the docket what the Motion to Compel is asking for. As more entries are made, it may be easier to figure all this out. Given that the Appellee filed the Motion, I am assuming the state is asking the court to have the Appellant (RC) do something or produce something. I can't even guess at what, though.

ETA: Keep in mind the issues on appeal here. Ron is appealing the lower court's denial of his 3.800 Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. The latest entry is granting a Motion to Compel and asking the lower court to serve a copy of the Summary ROA (which I think means Record on Appeal) on the AE--whoever that is. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean this Summary is the issue addressed in the Motion to Compel. It could be the Motion to Compel is asking for something that the appellate court feels can only be achieved by providing a copy of said Summary. Once that is provided perhaps some kind of decision will be made, IDK. Let's keep watch on this and see where it goes, but IIRC Ron did not bother to mention in his original Motion to Correct that his sentences were born of a plea agreement (if he did, I am having a brain fog about it). Possibly the appellate court is not bothered by that omission; but maybe they are.

 

[Chablis]

Does anyone know if there is some law that an incarcerated person can not publicly plea for the return of their "stole" child? Does he not have access to reporters and people like Nancy Grace? Wouldn't he say, hey, I am in Prison, but my daughter is still missing and I am pleading for her return? Or has he just given up on hope since the LE have declared this a homicide? I find this very odd.

 

[dodie20]

There's something I've been wondering...Ron made his deal and promised to be truthful. Say he is truthful, but in the process, it comes out that he has, for example, previously lied and deliberately hindered the investigation. Can he be charged with those crimes or does his deal protect him? moo.

 

[krkrjx]

There's something I've been wondering...Ron made his deal and promised to be truthful. Say he is truthful, but in the process, it comes out that he has, for example, previously lied and deliberately hindered the investigation. Can he be charged with those crimes or does his deal protect him? moo.

As I understand the terms of RC's plea agreement, he was to provide truthful answers to all SA/LE questions, regardless of what questions they asked. However, I do not think any lies previously told can legally be held against RC in terms of his not living up to his end of the bargain, unless he repeated any of those lies since the plea deal was accepted by the court. The deal requires honesty from that day forward.

IOW, Any questions asked of RC from the moment he signed his plea agreement must be answered, and answered truthfully...whether it be a new question or a re-asking of questions of days gone by.

 

[lonetraveler]

This so-called "Plea Deal" Ron made with LE............I'm curious as to how LE will know that Ron is telling the truth. How can LE actually vet any stories or statements given by Ron in accordance with this "Plea Deal"? Please don't tell me that since a "Deal" was made that LE will just assume that Ronald Cummings is going to actually tell the truth. I also have heart burn that this "father" would have withheld any information in regards to his missing little girl that could help in anyway to find his daughter or his daughter's body unless he is guilty in some way for Haleigh's demise.