If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   "So you as an inmate think you are going to win $1.3 BILLION in a lawsuit? Stop wasting my time"   (pennlive.com) divider line 21
    More: Obvious, prison inmates, malicious prosecution, chambersburg, federal judges  
•       •       •

8443 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 2:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-15 12:38:31 PM
Inmates need hobbies more than regular folks.
 
2013-06-15 01:48:24 PM
Stop wasting my time.  You too, Rick Berman.
 
2013-06-15 02:29:00 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Inmates need hobbies more than regular folks.


They need farking JOBS.  Filing legal actions is their hobby.  Having worked in prisons, I can say unequivocally - these folks are criminals and they spend most of their time sitting around thinking up ways to fark with anyone in authority.  IMHO, they should be required to work, at a job appropriate to their physical capacity, no exceptions, and if they file a frivolous lawsuit, their sentence gets doubled until they're in for life, at which point the last step is loss of a chance at parole.

But then, I'm a realist.
 
2013-06-15 02:29:00 PM
FTFA:  Manning acted as his own lawyer during the trial. He was sentenced to 39 to 78 months in prison on his convictions.


Yeah. this guy totally sounds like a dumbfark.
 
2013-06-15 02:33:12 PM
theatreofreason.files.wordpress.com

careful! that link is a hot one
 
2013-06-15 02:34:15 PM
In his federal suit, Manning claimed his constitutional rights were violated because he was a victim of "malicious, vindictive and intentionally prejudicial prosecution."

Did Jackie Chiles write this?
 
2013-06-15 02:41:25 PM
Did a little searching on the Interwebs.
He got infatuated with a woman at his doctor's office
Stalked her
Got arrested
Part of his bail condition is that he wasn't allowed to contact her again until the trial.
He texted her multiple times
Got arrested again
Tried & convicted

tl;dr He's got a screw loose
 
2013-06-15 03:18:13 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: BarkingUnicorn: Inmates need hobbies more than regular folks.

They need farking JOBS.  Filing legal actions is their hobby.  Having worked in prisons, I can say unequivocally - these folks are criminals and they spend most of their time sitting around thinking up ways to fark with anyone in authority.  IMHO, they should be required to work, at a job appropriate to their physical capacity, no exceptions, and if they file a frivolous lawsuit, their sentence gets doubled until they're in for life, at which point the last step is loss of a chance at parole.

But then, I'm a realist.


Stop that. Nobody wants to hear your rational solutions.
 
2013-06-15 03:19:10 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: BarkingUnicorn: Inmates need hobbies more than regular folks.

They need farking JOBS.  Filing legal actions is their hobby.  Having worked in prisons, I can say unequivocally - these folks are criminals and they spend most of their time sitting around thinking up ways to fark with anyone in authority.  IMHO, they should be required to work, at a job appropriate to their physical capacity, no exceptions, and if they file a frivolous lawsuit, their sentence gets doubled until they're in for life, at which point the last step is loss of a chance at parole.

But then, I'm a realist.


The trick is balancing that with the need to prevent them from being a source of exploitable labor because the warden's brother needs a bunch $1/hr laborers because he's too cheap to pay the local Mexicans $8/hr. I know a lot of prisoners work in activities that are focused on the prison itself; it seems like more might be able to be done on that front but I don't have insight into that world. In your experience, how many of the jobs that are currently done by contractors could instead be done by prisoners?

/Of course they also need to release hundreds of thousands who probably don't belong there in the first place, but that's another discussion.
 
2013-06-15 03:24:52 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Benevolent Misanthrope: BarkingUnicorn: Inmates need hobbies more than regular folks.

They need farking JOBS.  Filing legal actions is their hobby.  Having worked in prisons, I can say unequivocally - these folks are criminals and they spend most of their time sitting around thinking up ways to fark with anyone in authority.  IMHO, they should be required to work, at a job appropriate to their physical capacity, no exceptions, and if they file a frivolous lawsuit, their sentence gets doubled until they're in for life, at which point the last step is loss of a chance at parole.

But then, I'm a realist.

The trick is balancing that with the need to prevent them from being a source of exploitable labor because the warden's brother needs a bunch $1/hr laborers because he's too cheap to pay the local Mexicans $8/hr. I know a lot of prisoners work in activities that are focused on the prison itself; it seems like more might be able to be done on that front but I don't have insight into that world. In your experience, how many of the jobs that are currently done by contractors could instead be done by prisoners?

/Of course they also need to release hundreds of thousands who probably don't belong there in the first place, but that's another discussion.


Hey, you too stop being rational. This is a Fark thread.
 
2013-06-15 03:25:43 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Benevolent Misanthrope: BarkingUnicorn: Inmates need hobbies more than regular folks.

They need farking JOBS.  Filing legal actions is their hobby.  Having worked in prisons, I can say unequivocally - these folks are criminals and they spend most of their time sitting around thinking up ways to fark with anyone in authority.  IMHO, they should be required to work, at a job appropriate to their physical capacity, no exceptions, and if they file a frivolous lawsuit, their sentence gets doubled until they're in for life, at which point the last step is loss of a chance at parole.

But then, I'm a realist.

The trick is balancing that with the need to prevent them from being a source of exploitable labor because the warden's brother needs a bunch $1/hr laborers because he's too cheap to pay the local Mexicans $8/hr. I know a lot of prisoners work in activities that are focused on the prison itself; it seems like more might be able to be done on that front but I don't have insight into that world. In your experience, how many of the jobs that are currently done by contractors could instead be done by prisoners?

/Of course they also need to release hundreds of thousands who probably don't belong there in the first place, but that's another discussion.


Lots of things are done by contractors that could be done by prisoners, but usually it's because they handle tools that would be dangerous for prisoners to access.  As for non-exploitation... WTF?  I didn't say they should get paid.  Let 'em earn $1 an hour.  Of course the usual conflict of interest and misuse of state resources laws should be in effect, to avoid the brother-in-law situation.  But yeah - give them construction jobs.  Masonry, carpentry, farming to produce as much of the prison's food supply as possible (BONUS - fresh vegetables on the table), basic scut-work.  This is not a vacation  This is prison.  You should not want to go back.

And I agree about the number of people actually there, too.
 
2013-06-15 03:37:46 PM
if they file a frivolous lawsuit, their sentence gets doubled until they're in for life, at which point the last step is loss of a chance at parole.

But then, I'm a realist.


Heh.

Having worked in the legal system (I dated a law student and brought her lunch sometimes), I can tell you that the appeals courts are pretty well optimized to handle frivolous jailhouse motions. It's the shiat-job for the lowest-ranking clerk, most of whom probably share your attitude, but it's not a serious problem. The worst offenders get put in the Orly Taitz/Jack Thompson category where a legit lawyer has to sign off on any further action, and that's that.

On the other hand, the prison system and indigent legal defense system being what they are, judges end up granting hearings for motions scrawled in crayon on toilet paper all the time, and not because they're eager to have their time wasted. I'm sure yours was one of the good ones, though.

Also, lest any Farkers get too excited about the headline, the judge did not say "fuhgeddaboudit ya stoopid jailboid," at least not according to TFA, so much as he said, "Your motion is denied, but please note, if your post-conviction appeal is successful you will once again have standing to sue for malicious prosecution." Not that that will ever happen, but good judges do their professional duty even when dumbass  pro se jailhouse litigants don't.
 
2013-06-15 03:50:22 PM
shouldn't this go under the fail tagline?
 
2013-06-15 04:08:29 PM
Fogal and Mills have "absolute prosecutorial immunity" from Manning's claims, Jones concluded.


I wonder if they also have absolute immunity from bullets. Pull the immunity card too often, denying people redress, and some will use alternative means to secure justice.
 
2013-06-15 04:44:08 PM
Fogal and Mills have "absolute prosecutorial immunity" from Manning's claims, Jones concluded. He said Manning "has not tendered one single factual allegation" against the government defendants, and in any case the state is immune from such suits.

Disgusting. There should be no prosecutorial immunity. You fark up as a prosecutor, you should be liable personally.

For example, those guys who've been falsely imprisoned for 25 years? Their prosecutor owes them 25 years of their, the prosecutor's, income. You don't have that in savings? It comes out of assets starting with cars and houses and suits.
 
2013-06-15 06:16:13 PM

doglover: Disgusting. There should be no prosecutorial immunity. You fark up as a prosecutor, you should be liable personally.


Right. And if a defense lawyer gets someone found innocent and it later turns out they did it, the lawyer should get the sentence the defendant can't be given due to double jeopardy.
 
2013-06-15 08:23:42 PM
Well that is over, now the $950,000 lawsuit for serving to much green jello and not enough pudding desserts.

Next week, $1.5 million lawsuit for a guard passing gas near my cell.
 
2013-06-15 09:12:41 PM
Something that might make people like him think twice. From the time he servers papers till the judge calls the case BS, None of it counts on his sentence.
 
2013-06-15 09:17:49 PM

doglover: Fogal and Mills have "absolute prosecutorial immunity" from Manning's claims, Jones concluded. He said Manning "has not tendered one single factual allegation" against the government defendants, and in any case the state is immune from such suits.

Disgusting. There should be no prosecutorial immunity. You fark up as a prosecutor, you should be liable personally.

For example, those guys who've been falsely imprisoned for 25 years? Their prosecutor owes them 25 years of their, the prosecutor's, income. You don't have that in savings? It comes out of assets starting with cars and houses and suits.


The prosecutor's aren't the ones sending them to jail, that goes to the jury.
 
2013-06-15 09:26:32 PM

doglover: Disgusting. There should be no prosecutorial immunity. You fark up as a prosecutor, you should be liable personally


Great idea, except nobody in their right mind would ever ever ever be a prosecutor, just like nobody in their right mind would be a judge if there were no judicial immunity. And society as we know it couldn't function if there were no judges and no prosecutors.

The low-percentage example: Someone is arrested and charged with a crime. The evidence against him is overwhelming. His defense is that he was framed, but there is little to no evidence of that. The prosecutor believes that he did it, and in the end, so does the jury. The defendant is convicted. Years down the road, new evidence comes to light, and it turns out that the defendant was framed. The defendant is innocent. This is an utterly horrible clusterfark. And the state should pay compensation. But if you let the defendant sue the prosecutor and/or the judge personally, are you also going to let him sue the jurors, who saw the evidence and believed the same thing beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you really believe that anybody is going to be willing to be involved in any part of the justice system -- let alone become a prosecutor of a judge, and maybe handle hundreds of cases over the course of your career -- if the consequence of an honest human farkup in any one of those cases is "you lose all your retirement assets and you go to prison"?

The high-percentage example: Someone is arrested and charged with a crime. The evidence against him is overwhelming. His defense is that he was framed, but there is little to no evidence of that. The prosecutor believes that he did it, and in the end, so does the jury. The defendant is convicted. The defendant is, in fact, guilty as hell. But he can still file a lawsuit against the judge and the prosecutor and maybe the jury. He has little or nothing to lose; he's already in prison, and he probably has few or no assets. But the judge and the prosecutor and the jury do have something to lose. So in order to be safe, they have to hire attorneys and pay legal fees. And again, if you're a prosecutor or a judge, you're going to handle hundreds of cases over the course of a long career -- and every one of them is likely to turn into one of these lawsuits. Even if you never lose a single suit, the legal fees are going to grind you into dust. (And if you say "well, the state can provide you with an attorney" -- are you going to be comfortable letting an attorney paid by someone else handle the case, when the consequences of failure are going to come out of your pocket?)

Finally, an important point: Prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity only mean that the prosecutor/judge can't be hit with a civil suit. If a prosecutor is being evil rather than fallible -- if he's intentionally falsifying evidence, etc. -- and that comes to light, then he can and often does get criminally charged, and even go to prison, just like you want him to.
 
2013-06-16 12:01:06 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Masonry, carpentry, farming to produce as much of the prison's food supply as possible (BONUS - fresh vegetables on the table), basic scut-work.  This is not a vacation  This is prison.  You should not want to go back.


At the Texas prison I worked at, the inmates did grow all their own food for the most part. They had a hog farm, vegetable fields, you name it. Weren't allowed (or were too cheap) to use pesticides, so most of the veggies that survived looked pretty nasty. They didn't do any maintenance/construction stuff because they "couldn't be trusted" to do quality work.

I would like to see prisons work more on rehabilitation (through jobs, education, counseling, etc.) so that when an inmate says "I ain't never comin' back to this place!" he/she means "I'm never going to break the law again" instead of "I'm gonna be smarter and not get caught next time."
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report