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.

(Russia Today)   News: A Kansas City man was released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction. Fark: The Clerk who helped the inmate exonerate himself with DNA evidence was fired   (rt.com) divider line 112
    More: Asinine, DNA, Kansas City, DNA evidence, inmate exonerate, Innocence Project, legal representation, rape kits, Kansas City Police Department  
•       •       •

9927 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2013 at 1:15 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-01 01:18:39 PM
The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'
 
2013-08-01 01:19:57 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


I bet he can sleep at night, though. Not to mention he doesn't have to avoid rooms with mirrors.
 
2013-08-01 01:20:25 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


That may be true, but 9 months before her retirement.....Harshin my buzz.
 
2013-08-01 01:22:03 PM
I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".
 
2013-08-01 01:22:10 PM
FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.
 
2013-08-01 01:22:29 PM

released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.
 
2013-08-01 01:23:53 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'




It nothing like that.

It's more like a bartender seeing someone choke to death on a meatball sand which and performing the Hymlick maneuver.

This was simply a case of Lawyers defending their turf.
 
2013-08-01 01:24:23 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


Why?
 
2013-08-01 01:24:26 PM
FTFA: Buffey's case is similar to Nelson's in that the obstacles to obtain potentially exonerating DNA evidence are high. In addition to needing the requisite legal knowledge to file a proper motion with the court, a 2009 US Supreme Court ruling stated that a defendant willing to pay for a DNA test at his own expense was not entitled to do so. Chief Justice John G. Roberts said that such an allowance risked "unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."

So in short, justice and truth be damned if you can't invoke the proper magical incantations to appease the brokers of life and death.

Pure perversion.
 
2013-08-01 01:24:37 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


She'll be lucky if she doesn't end up in an airport waiting room in Russia.
 
2013-08-01 01:24:52 PM
Yea, if there's one thing we can't have, its innocent people being let out of prison.  Wait...what?
 
2013-08-01 01:24:53 PM
I'm trying to understand this. The Clerk points them to a document that is a matter of public record to help them get what they need. Why is that grounds for a terminatin'?

I'd say it's more analagous to a check-in nurse saying, 'You might want to get a second opinion. Read this.'
 
2013-08-01 01:25:23 PM

angrycrank: I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".


The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment. We let an innocent man go and that sort of thing is frowned upon.
 
2013-08-01 01:25:46 PM
In other words.

1) we don't want to pay your pension

2) damnit, now we have to find out who did it again.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:08 PM
F*cking clerk... helping the public and all.
 
2013-08-01 01:26:56 PM

Weaver95: The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment.


The profits of the Prison Industrial Complex must be preserved at all cost.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:06 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

-=-
You would not feel that way if YOU were in jail for something you did not do, you would have been thankful someone had the decency to help you... So Fark You Corporate dick suckers.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:10 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: FTFA:  both the prosecutor and attorney"had a problem" with her intervention in the case

Yes, people usually have a problem with their incompetence being exposed.


With a special emphasis on attorney/judge types. Did she do the right thing? ABSOLUTELY.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:34 PM

Carousel Beast: netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'

Why?



Because The Process is more important than any other consideration (be it a life wasted in prison, or a life ended due to a medication error).

Better for to waste any number of innocent lives than to violate The Process.
 
2013-08-01 01:27:43 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.


Hopefully he get's compensation for the time lost, hopefully he'll get enough to retire to a beach-front home somewhere

/Nah, who am I kidding? Kansas will fight tooth-and-nail to not pay him a cent for their blundering
 
2013-08-01 01:28:24 PM
Once convicted you have no right to evidence that can clearly show your innocence. Link
 
2013-08-01 01:28:48 PM
she should have been allowed to finish her final 9 months ans get her pension this is a case of butthurt lawyers taking it out on a clerk.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:02 PM
www.filmsquish.com

Good for them.
 
2013-08-01 01:31:15 PM

netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


No, it is analogous to a nurse explaining to a patient where the button on the intercom was - and then the doctor and head nurse (judge and DA) firing the nurse because they were getting their jollies off from the screams.
 
2013-08-01 01:32:49 PM

netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


No it isn't.  Its analogous to a knowing someone needs information that they're legally entitled to see, and giving them a copy of that information because you know they don't have the knowledge to help themselves or the money to hire someone to do it.

She saw someone struggling against a system that was WRONG but ultimately convinced it should fark him anyway because he didn't have the education or money to fight back "properly."  It isn't like the freaking facts of his case changed, he just copied a motion filed by a lawyer this time and it immediately worked and got him out of jail.  Now because his exoneration pissed off whoever decided, "fark that guy, I put SOMEONE in jail for the crime.  it may not necessarily be the correct person, but I nailed his ass so he's staying in prison," this woman gets fired?  farking ridiculous.
 
2013-08-01 01:33:14 PM
If they had just hurried up and executed him already, she could have kept her job.
 
2013-08-01 01:33:21 PM

Wile_E_Canuck: I'd say it's more analagous to a check-in nurse saying, 'You might want to get a second opinion. Read this.'


That would get most any nurse fired. Unfortunately.
 
2013-08-01 01:33:28 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.



No.
 
2013-08-01 01:34:05 PM
alloveralbany.com
 
2013-08-01 01:34:28 PM

Cheron: Once convicted you have no right to evidence that can clearly show your innocence. Link


Oh so the conservative members of the SCOTUS sided with keeping people from exonerating evidence....color me shocked.
 
2013-08-01 01:34:56 PM
Not sure if the handing over of a legal document is cause for what happened to the clerk or not, but I do find it strange that when asked for access to more DNA for further testing to look for the true criminal suddenly there are roadblocks because "our state does not approve the lab".
 
2013-08-01 01:35:21 PM

cwolf20: In other words.

1) we don't want to pay your pension

2) damnit, now we have to find out who did it again.


Her pension will go toward the lawsuit he will file.  She's really helping him x2 time.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:27 PM
alloveralbany.com
 
2013-08-01 01:35:39 PM

cwolf20: In other words.

1) we don't want to pay your pension

2) damnit, now we have to find out who did it again. deal with the public embarrassment of being publically proven wrong.


FTFY. There's little to no chance they will pull this old case out and try to work on it again. The main problem is that is makes them look bad.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:50 PM

Englebert Slaptyback: released from prison three decades after a wrongful rape conviction


I would be the bitterest bastard who ever bittered. 30 years, down the tubes.

And they should have been the good years: the guy was in prison from age 19 to age 49.


If he had earned an average of $50k per year during those years that comes up to $1.5 million. I should think the state owes him that as a minimum for his lost earning potential.  Then there would be the compensation he should receive for lost liberty (I would think that should be a much higher number).  Then there should be compensation for pain and suffering (again a large number). Finally, the state should face punitive damages (also a high number).

I think the state would be fortunate to get off with only a $10 Million payout.

The court clerk should also get a handsome improper temmination settlement.
 
2013-08-01 01:35:59 PM
What an f'd up story. I'm glad i live in Texas where that guy would have likely been executed and that poor clerk wouldn't have had to lose her job.
 
2013-08-01 01:37:05 PM

This text is now purple: [alloveralbany.com image 525x253]


damn you!
 
2013-08-01 01:37:57 PM
Dare thee not to contravene the judgement and will of your "betters".

Day by day our civilization is becoming this:

l3.yimg.com
 
2013-08-01 01:38:23 PM

Weaver95: angrycrank: I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".

The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment. We let an innocent man go and that sort of thing is frowned upon.


Scalia has stated that as long as no intentional maleficence was committed, it is completely proper for a prisoner to be executed, even if we know 100% that he is innocent. So not just "don't let an innocent man go free", but actively seek to kill him, knowing he is innocent.
 
2013-08-01 01:41:31 PM
Knew the man was seeking a motion for DNA testing. Knew the man was denied the motion twice. Knew this was due to his lack of ability to prepare a case. Knew of other motions for DNA testing which had been successful. Frankly, if you had this type of knowledge and did nothing, I would say this would have been a subversion of justice. This is not an opinion on his motion itself but the barest legal aid with no presumption of success.
 
2013-08-01 01:42:24 PM

Wile_E_Canuck: I'd say it's more analagous to a check-in nurse saying, 'You might want to get a second opinion. Read this.'


She wasn't changing what he was trying to do, just show him how to do it correctly.  Our check-in nurse gave him a hospital map after he couldn't find the doctor's office by himself
 
2013-08-01 01:42:25 PM
And the best part is the guy can't sue the prosecutor or the arresting officer because of immunity laws. So he only has one option left to truly get justice.

If I were the prosecutor and arresting officer and possibly the judge I would be spending a lot of time looking over my shoulder.

After all he already did 30 years what does it matter if he does the rest of his life after wrecking the shiat of the people who wrongfully put him there. If I were on the jury for that case
 
2013-08-01 01:42:50 PM
Sounds to me like two lawsuits are coming...
 
2013-08-01 01:43:06 PM

Weaver95: angrycrank: I don't see how providing a copy of a successful application that is already public can in any way be considered "providing legal advice".

The legal system isn't about justice, it's about punishment. We let an innocent man go and that sort of thing is frowned upon.


Wait, is this a Zimdog thread?
 
2013-08-01 01:44:32 PM

KellyX: Sounds to me like two lawsuits are coming...


I'd love to be on the jury awarding him a fat sum and ensuring the louts that got him fired suffer.
 
2013-08-01 01:44:54 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: And the best part is the guy can't sue the prosecutor or the arresting officer because of immunity laws. So he only has one option left to truly get justice.

If I were the prosecutor and arresting officer and possibly the judge I would be spending a lot of time looking over my shoulder.

After all he already did 30 years what does it matter if he does the rest of his life after wrecking the shiat of the people who wrongfully put him there. If I were on the jury for that case


Or: just follow them around until they turned to you, shoot them dead, then explain to the cops that since you knew from direct experience what they were willing to do to you for no reason at all, you were standing your ground.
 
2013-08-01 01:45:20 PM
You people realize she was still given her full pension, right?
 
2013-08-01 01:45:51 PM
Wasn't even supposed to be here today.

/Hey, guess which court is going to get focused on by Innocence Project.
 
2013-08-01 01:46:41 PM

netweavr: It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx.


No, no it's not. Not even remotely so.

Please try to be less stupid.
 
2013-08-01 01:48:05 PM

netweavr: The Clerk should be fired.

The inmates attorney should probably be disbarred as well, but the Clerk cannot take that kind of proactive action...

It's analogous to a check-in nurse changing your Rx. Sure, he/she may be 100% correct, but it's still cause for a terminatin'


I completely disagree, and I walked this particular line 100 times myself before I was a lawyer.  The clerk was asked for a public record, she was pro-active in assisting a member of the public in locating that record.  She did not tell her what to file or what to say in her own motion.  She was providing technical procedural advice not legal advice under the meaning of the law.

I ran the Pro-se information Project for a Family court just outside of DC and I was often faced with the exact same dilemma.   I was a only a paralegal (with a judge's signature stamp in my desk) so I could technically only tell people HOW to file things  not WHAT to file, so I danced this dance all  the time.  FOr example I got a series of simple standard form approved for a lot of common domestic filings and motions approved; but I was only allowed to give them out if they checked off a form requesting the documents, not if they verbally asked for them.  A chief motivator for going to law school was the fact that I would often have an attorney or two in my office and I would walk them through exactly what they needed to file and what the motion needed to say to get some sort of action from the court, but if five minutes later, a person who WASN'T an attorney came into my office, I was legally prohibited, under penalty of criminal law, from repeating those exact same words to them.

This often lead to the farce of me sending the person to the office of the volunteer attorney (when one was around-usually a freshly minted lawyer trolling for cases by doing a stint at the free advice desk) and then having that attorney call back to my office so I could tell them exactly what to say to the person I just sent there.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report