She was sentenced for probation violations. She's a career criminal and deserves what she got. I have no sympathy for thieves.

She may have been a career criminal, but she was thrown in jail for something that a jury of her peers determined she had not done.

I have a problem with that.

Actually, the judge canceled her probation on 11 other charges from a previous conviction.

FTFA: Because of her record, Vaughn gave her the maximum for probation violation: 11 five-year state jail terms,

Hubert Sumlin It has nothing to do with the jury's decision. In fact, the judge could have thrown-out their decision and ruled differently if s/he believed the jury did not properly weigh the facts of the case in front of them. I think the decision was correct.

I'm glad to see this happen. These criminals need to be stopped. My wife works in a bank and they have someone arrested every single week for fraud or theft.

It's rare that any of these people get jail time even for large thefts, usually it probation before judgment. These people are stealing $100,000 of dollars and getting probation. Then stealing more.


In this case, the judge looked at the big picture and used a probation violation clause in the law to put her in jail where she belongs.

She has had 20 felony fraud convictions in the past. This is not wrongful prosecution. This is a career criminal who has clearly demonstrated she will not stop stealing regardless of past penalties.

If you are on probation and get arrested, you can go back to jail for the full term of the previous judgment against you. Even if you are found not guilty for the arrest that violates your probation. The key is that when you are on probation, you MUST stay out of trouble if you are on probation. Getting arrested is not staying out of trouble.

Because of the never ending fraud related to check cashing. Paper checks will soon be discontinued by all banks in the US.

FredaDeStilleto: FTFA: Because of her record, Vaughn gave her the maximum for probation violation: 11 five-year state jail terms,

Hubert Sumlin It has nothing to do with the jury's decision. In fact, the judge could have thrown-out their decision and ruled differently if s/he believed the jury did not properly weigh the facts of the case in front of them. I think the decision was correct.

Not because of her record, because he looked at the case again and came to a different decision from the jury.

So, you're saying it's fine for a judge to ignore the decisions of a jury. *That* is what I have a problem with--that, as you say, "It has nothing to do with a jury's decision."

I'm not talking about whether the decision was legally correct, and I have ZERO sympathy for this person. I like that whole trial by a jury of one's peers thang, 'cuz I kinda like that whole notion of rights.

That's going to suck to be her. She could have potentially made more money than she had stolen.

I was going to snark about how she would probably serve those sentences concurrently, but apparently the judge wasn't having any of her shenanigans.

Hubert Sumlin: So, you're saying it's fine for a judge to ignore the decisions of a jury. *That* is what I have a problem with--that, as you say, "It has nothing to do with a jury's decision."

It's not an opinion. It's called a JNOV - and yes, I think in some circumstances it's used correctly. Especially when the other result could be a mistrial.

Con_Authority: Because of the never ending fraud related to check cashing. Paper checks will soon be discontinued by all banks in the US.

I've been in Germany 6 years and haven't written a check in that time. The Überweisung system works great...electronic transfer.

Hubert Sumlin: Not because of her record, because he looked at the case again and came to a different decision from the jury.

Because she is a probationer, he has the right to review her record and case. That's what we empower judges to do.

ahhh Florida. What would Fark do without you?

Hubert Sumlin: So, you're saying it's fine for a judge to ignore the decisions of a jury. *That* is what I have a problem with--that, as you say, "It has nothing to do with a jury's decision."

The judge was NOT ignoring the jury. He was acting on the previous probation charges. If you're on probation and get arrested again, you go to jail. Plain and simple, no jury needed.

If you're on probation and don't show up for a meeting with your probation officer, you're supposed to go back to jail.

If you're on probation and you don't comply with any single term of the probation agreement, you go back to jail. Including not paying restitution as directed.

Sentences go something like this. 4 years in jail, all suspended , 4 years probation. If you get arrested, do drugs, etc. etc. in the next 4 years, you go to jail for the full 4 year jail term.

The judge simply exercised the previous probation terms.

Hubert Sumlin: She may have been a career criminal, but she was thrown in jail for something that a jury of her peers determined she had not done.

I have a problem with that.

Then you don't understand what happened. Read the article again.

To be fair to Hubert Sumlin, the headline is a complete bunch of arse. Nobody is taking subby to task for that.

IIRC, this is the woman that's been arrested under 40 different names and actually has many more convictions. She has so many aliases that they don't know what she has done.

it is time for her to go away.

I remember reading about this lady a few years back during another one of her fraud cases. Her list of major thievery offenses is pretty staggering. Good thing someone finally put a stop to it because she'll never be reformed.

She was found innocent on the current charges, and was sentenced for her probation violation for previous crimes. He did not sentence her to prison based on the charges she was found innocent of. He has a right to review her cases and sentence her for the violations, it's part of his job as a judge.

This case is a pretty good example of everything I find despicable about our legal system. A career criminal tricks a jury into a 'not guilty' verdict, but the judge finds a loophole and slams the criminal with more jail time than she would have gotten if she'd been convicted of the original crime.

Con_Authority: If you are on probation and get arrested, you can go back to jail for the full term of the previous judgment against you. Even if you are found not guilty for the arrest that violates your probation. The key is that when you are on probation, you MUST stay out of trouble if you are on probation. Getting arrested is not staying out of trouble.

While I see where you're going with that. Shouldn't it be "if you are found guilty of something you were arrested for"? I mean, you're innocent until proven guilty even if you're a habitual thief like this woman. Being arrested does not mean you actually did anything wrong, just that you were arrested. It simply shouldn't be a factor unless you're found guilty of something.

JohnnyC: Con_Authority: If you are on probation and get arrested, you can go back to jail for the full term of the previous judgment against you. Even if you are found not guilty for the arrest that violates your probation. The key is that when you are on probation, you MUST stay out of trouble if you are on probation. Getting arrested is not staying out of trouble.

While I see where you're going with that. Shouldn't it be "if you are found guilty of something you were arrested for"? I mean, you're innocent until proven guilty even if you're a habitual thief like this woman. Being arrested does not mean you actually did anything wrong, just that you were arrested. It simply shouldn't be a factor unless you're found guilty of something.

If I were an asshole cop and just didn't like someone whom I knew was out on probation, I'd haul their ass into jail on mere suspicion of illegal activity. Then slap some candy ass charge on them and *BAM* - they're back inside the joint for a couple/few more years!

Oh yes. that's fair.

Look, either we believe 'innocent 'till proven guilty' or we don't. If someone is out on probation and is suspected of committing a crime then prove it. If they're found innocent, then don't violate their parole. The message we send to convicts is that once you're in the system as a convict then don't even bother trying to get out because if you so much as LOOK uppity then your ass is back inside for another 5 to 10.

JoeBagadonutz: She was sentenced for probation violations. She's a career criminal and deserves what she got. I have no sympathy for thieves.

Violations that a jury of her peers say she did not commit.

She probably deserves it for a lifetime of crime. But we have a system of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers... and either we apply that system consistently, even if that means it has faults, or that system loses it's validity.

JohnnyC: Shouldn't it be "if you are found guilty of something you were arrested for"?

No. A frequent term of probation is for "No police contact." That means: No police contact.

When one is on probation, getting arrested is a violation of probation, regardless of the outcome of the arrest. Bail is frequently denied to someone on probation, as they are now being held for a probation violation, also.

Weaver95: either we believe 'innocent 'till proven guilty' or we don't.

You can count me as one of the people who is a firm believer in 'innocent until proven guilty'. You never know when you just might need other people to have faith in that same concept. Belief in that is very selfish, but very necessary.

Con_Authority: Because of the never ending fraud related to check cashing. Paper checks will soon be discontinued by all banks in the US.

What a foolish idea. Why would i even have a bank account if I didn't have to deal with checks?

Not using checks would put banks out of business.

Do you think I'd need them just to make change?

... so, were they Ziggy checks or Family Circus checks?

real shaman: Con_Authority: Because of the never ending fraud related to check cashing. Paper checks will soon be discontinued by all banks in the US.

What a foolish idea. Why would i even have a bank account if I didn't have to deal with checks?


You going to just shove your millions in the mattress?

Weaver95: then don't violate their parole.

Don't confuse probation and parole..... big difference. Probation is typically a suspension of a prison term in exchange for proper behavior. Parole is an early release from prison.

One can have a parole violation for sneering at their parole officer, or having an empty shell casing. Parole is much stricter than probation.

The evidence to uphold a probation violation is not nearly the same as for a conviction. Innocent until proven guilty? Yes, by all means.

But the fact that one is on probation means you have in fact been found guilty. If you violate the terms of your sentence suspension (by getting arrested), your suspension can be revoked and you have to do your time.

Is it possible for cops to mess with you? Yes. But that is still possible even if you're not on probation. The courts will do this, too.

I am intimately familiar with a case in which a person got sentenced to prison for possession of stolen property after proving that the property was not stolen and in his possession legally. If they want you, they will get you.

Rye_: You going to just shove your millions in the mattress?

He'll protect it with his holistic conservative voodoo... it's some bad mojo.

real shaman: it is time for her to go away.

The retailers who fell for her shenanigans deserve to get ripped off.

Ms Thief needs to have her assets confiscated, but there's no public-safety reason to keep her away for 55 years. Give her twelve months to make the point.

Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for her board and lodging for ever, just because shops are willing to accept checks without necessary ID.

/ What do I care? It's your tax dollars, not mine.

opiumpoopy: Ms Thief needs to have her assets confiscated, but there's no public-safety reason to keep her away for 55 years. Give her twelve months to make the point.

You can't be serious. She has twenty felony convictions. She will continue to steal as long as she is able. Now she is no longer able. They should have thrown away the key long ago.

real shaman: I am intimately familiar with a case in which a person got sentenced to prison for possession of stolen property after proving that the property was not stolen and in his possession legally. If they want you, they will get you.

So where's the incentive to clean up your act? I mean, if you're gonna get nailed even if you play by the rules...what's the point of even showing up to play the game?

Would do her.

/obscure?
//also, DRTFA

She deserves it. She's nothing but a petty thief, and I say lock her up and throw away the key.

Did subby click on the asinine tag by mistake? Did he mean hero, instead?

Like, yay, good job, judge? You're a hero?

Rye_: Paper checks will soon be discontinued by all banks in the US.

No, I don't see it happening. I worked at a C-store a few years ago and people complained about the e-check thing because they usually float a check until payday.Not that I condone it, but I much prefer my debit card and online banking.

opiumpoopy:

/ What do I care? It's your tax dollars, not mine.

If it turns out to be your checking account, I bet you'll care.

Hubert Sumlin: She may have been a career criminal, but she was thrown in jail for something that a jury of her peers determined she had not done.

I have a problem with that.

It's nice to know that a jury's time can be wasted in that matter, regardless of the legal reasoning behind it.

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: ... so, were they Ziggy checks or Family Circus checks?

Much worse... Anne Geddes

Weaver95: So where's the incentive to clean up your act? I mean, if you're gonna get nailed even if you play by the rules...what's the point of even showing up to play the game?

And people wonder why crime is so high in poor black communities!

Good, you're learning. Help us fix the farked up system that rewards bad behavior and punishes being different.

today's miscarriage of justice brought to you by THE PATRIOT ACT.

/is there nothing it can't do?

Look at her record subby.

Florida, it's the reason for the word retard.

JoeBagadonutz: She was sentenced for probation violations. She's a career criminal and deserves what she got. I have no sympathy for thieves.

Amen.

cut the leach off from society. she's useless.

No, the banks won't go out of business without checks. Some countries (like Sweden) eliminated them years ago just by making e-checks and debit cards ridiculously easy. (I lived in sweden a while and had a bank account. Never even SAW a check.)

The steps to eliminate them are:

1. Make it really easy and cheap for everyone to get broadband internet.

2. Make it really easy for everyone to bank online

3. Set it up so that knowing someone else's bank account numbers makes it easy to pay them, but doesn't make it any easier to pretend to be them.

That's it. Civilized countries are doin' it. Checks are so 20th century. Or maybe 19th.

retrosteve: The steps to eliminate them are:

1. Make it really easy and cheap for everyone to get broadband internet.

Fullstop. RIAA and the MPAA would fight you to the death. And comcast would rape your pet to death rather than let competition into the market.

seminole87: this is fark, where 2 out of 3 posters have a prison record ... get ready for the bleeding hearts

you are only one traffic stop gone wrong from getting a prison record.

Hubert Sumlin 2008-12-13 10:30:06 AM She may have been a career criminal, but she was thrown in jail for something that a jury of her peers determined she had not done. I have a problem with that.
-------------------

Indeed.

/Absolutely disgusting.
//If the judge can disregard what the jury decides, WTF is the point of a jury?

Jakevol2: today's miscarriage of justice brought to you by THE PATRIOT ACT.

/is there nothing it can't do?

Get real. Back up your claims with some evidence or STFU.

/no fan of the Patriot Act but don't blame it for no reason

For those of you that are worried about whether or not this "poor" womans rights were violated.....

Where did this money she stole come from? Has she ever paid any of it back?

How many people lost their homes, college funds, etc. WE all pay for when she rips off a bank. Everybody snivels about CEO's and Fund Managers getting bailed out after running companies into the ground, but this woman and her ilk affect us as much or more.

She preys on individuals and small-business owners.

She is clearly a sociopath and should never be let out into society again.