|
Post by pete1 on Oct 13, 2009 11:30:39 GMT -4
falgar25.......This thread was posted to show the public how games are played in the court system. Remember, I predicted the out come of the trial. This display of corruption is a slap in the face to those risking their lives protecting our Constitution. Had the Q.A.Co. Deputy States Attorney John Mark McDonald killed an Innocent child while driving 22mph over the posted speed I still could have predicted the outcome...........As for the Whistle Blower, JMM cast the first stone. For a prosecutor to post about a pending case speaks volums...........Justme1960..Thank you for pointing out that the information is public record written by the M.S.P........"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" Dante 1265 - 1321.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Oct 13, 2009 12:15:34 GMT -4
Really? You would both have us believe that the charging documents written by the MSP and the Court contain:
I have not read the documents so I don't know, but I find it terribly hard to believe that those facts and conclusions were written by the State.
As for the outcome of the trial, is it possibly true that the case was moved due to complaints about the judge? Could it be that your prophecy fulfilled itself?
|
|
|
Post by justme1960 on Oct 13, 2009 12:31:21 GMT -4
Falgar25, you are correct that it doesn't state anything about the "million dollar home" or the "millionaire." As for the rest of the stuff, it's in those records by the court in Anne Arundel County. You might be surprised to see what is written in police reports and how many times reports are re-written after the fact. I've seen alot of things written in different reports by the State and County not related to any of these cases being discussed and not just in Queen Anne's County that I would never have thought would be written. Everything from accident reports to lawsuits to charging documents, I've found myself surprised many times. It doesn't happen with every single case, but it does happen. The difference is that most people don't fight back or bring it to anyone's attention, so no one ever hears about it.
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Oct 13, 2009 12:48:00 GMT -4
i dunno all the facts of this case w/ macdonald... but i do know this... I know that if a cop doesn't show for court - 99% of the time, the person who got the ticket is let go - it doesn't matter who they are or who they know...
I just think it's a stretch to say that the court didn't notify the cop that the date was moved or that there's this big conspiracy to protect their own... While I don't doubt that cover ups happen... I think this is a little far fetched IMHO... but i dunno & i don't really care... he showed up for court & was let go because the cop failed to show... the reasons as to the whys can only be speculated... as far as any attacks on a politician in this thread or others - my view on that is that they have chosen to be placed in a position that has extreme scrutiny & should be aware of that... but when some choose to go after their family (which those posts have since been deleted) or friends, whatever - i think that's stepping over the line... you want to make a valid argument - keep it valid w/ the facts, no bias, no speculation, and only on the person in question... again JMHO
|
|
|
Post by justme1960 on Oct 13, 2009 13:05:00 GMT -4
I haven't seen anything about this individual's family, but I've definitely seen stuff in other threads about other politicans' family members. I felt sympathy for those family members and thought the stuff to be embarassing if it was true, and also completely irrelevant, so hopefully it all was deleted. As for politicians' friends, I don't think I've seen anything on politicians' friends but it's hard to say for sure because we don't know who everyone's friends are. I agree with Shorti that it is best to stick to the person in question and makes for a more valid argument.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Oct 13, 2009 13:15:57 GMT -4
It's the cop's job to know if and when he should show up in court. Pete as many others here are making the point that the court system here, as well as quite a few major players, lawyers and their ilk, make their own rules, regardless of a citizen's rights to fairness.
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Oct 13, 2009 13:35:48 GMT -4
It's the cop's job to know if and when he should show up in court. Pete as many others here are making the point that the court system here, as well as quite a few major players, lawyers and their ilk, make their own rules, regardless of a citizen's rights to fairness. While I wouldn't say that doesn't happen... i think taking this case in particular when we all can agree that if the cop doesn't show most times you are off - regardless of who you are - is kind of over the top. As far as Stacy's case goes... again, i don't know all the details, nor have I gone & pulled the documents. All I have heard more or less is her side... not saying her side isn't truth... but I know that there are always 3 sides to the story - his, hers & the truth... you know... I can't say anything about it cause I simply personally don't know the facts from the records, nor have i been in court to hear for myself... hence the reason i stay out of most of it... but personal attacks on a politician's family or friends is unnecessary... who are we to judge?
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 13, 2009 15:15:03 GMT -4
pete..... You write, "from the information I received." Did you get any of this information from the prosecutor's office or did this come exclusively from Stacy and her family? I can imagine how one person's attempt to negotiate a separation package under threat of a "whistle blower" complaint might be another person's extortion. JMM has as much right to defend himself as anyone else. This thread has been criticizing him and his employer for quite some time. A little balance can't hurt. I was struck by the tone of JMM's original post, but given the comments on the first 2 1/2 pages of this thread, I can understand the frustration. Let's get the facts, all of them, for both these cases before tossing any more insults and accusations. [edit] Enough with the insults! Comment on the facts but stop with the name calling. At the VERY least, get more creative. I have to agree with Falgar25 here - and I think at some point most everyone reaches a point where they feel the need to respond to such language as has been posted on this thread. I for one, do remember a lot of the previous posts, now deleted, so for those of you who want to criticize Jmm about his response - maybe walk a mile in his shoes. As for you Pete - I get where you are coming from "my friend" but so much of what you post is inflammatory and only serves to show some of us that you had a particular personal experience, and it looks like you will NEVER get over it...You have attacked, in one way or another, more people and circumstances than I can count. You have implied that Justice can not be served in the Courtrooms where Judge Adkins and Judge Sause reside and to me, those kind of statements are completely outrageous! There is good and there is bad. You make everything sound like a conspiracy, cover-up, back door deal, and out and out corrupt issue... You state that the Whistle Blower may have a chance for justice if her case is heard and decided by Judge Ross; but I have a little psychic prediction about that...I predict that if he does hear that case and the outcome is other than what you desire it should be, you will be all over this forum with implications about his injustices and he will be thrown in along with Judges Sause and Adkins... IMHO
|
|
|
Post by rmirkens on Oct 13, 2009 16:50:01 GMT -4
My name is Ryan Mirkens and I am a law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. My Ethics professor lives on the Eastern Shore and he told our class about this post. I don't know anything about any of these people, nor do I know anything about the traffic case or the Stacy case. But I do know that no matter what this prosecutor thinks this defendant did or didn't do, NOTHING justifies his actions of posting publicly regarding her case. NOTHING. If he truly felt that this Stacy or Shoregurrl or Pete people, or any people for that matter, wronged him, there were many other avenues and options available for him to take. Commenting publicly on a defendant's case was not the avenue to take. Our Ethics professor was very clear on this.
The prosecutor's duty is to provide justice, not simply to convict. The prosecutor is a representative of the entire legal system. This particular prosecutor should be immediately removed from her case and disciplined by his superiors. A complaint against him should also be filed with the Attorney Grievance board. What he did is prosecutorial misconduct and it reflects poorly upon the entire Judicial System. Other prosecutors have been disbarred for lesser offenses. With his comments about the defendant and specific comments about her case and his obvious hostility towards her, he has denied this defendant the right to a fair trial. She no longer has any ability to receive a fair trial in Queen Anne's County and should be given a change of venue. His open personal hostility towards her is considered to be a personal vendetta, and prosecutors are ethically bound to not prosecute someone whom they have a personal vendetta against. Our Ethics professor said he has never heard of a prosecutor behaving like this before and it leads one to wonder if there is anything else that he has done to this defendant or any other defendant that jeopardized their right to receive a fair trial.
-RM
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Oct 13, 2009 16:55:06 GMT -4
Oh, this just keeps getting better and better.
Oddly enough, I spoke with a long time attorney friend of mine about this thread and invited him to come and look at it just a few days ago. He agrees with Mr. Mirkens' Ethics professor almost verbatim.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 13, 2009 16:59:15 GMT -4
I cannot find any Mirkens in the USA on the online people searches.
|
|
|
Post by hale80 on Oct 13, 2009 17:44:16 GMT -4
My name is Ryan Mirkens and I am a law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. My Ethics professor lives on the Eastern Shore and he told our class about this post. I don't know anything about any of these people, nor do I know anything about the traffic case or the Stacy case. But I do know that no matter what this prosecutor thinks this defendant did or didn't do, NOTHING justifies his actions of posting publicly regarding her case. NOTHING. If he truly felt that this Stacy or Shoregurrl or Pete people, or any people for that matter, wronged him, there were many other avenues and options available for him to take. Commenting publicly on a defendant's case was not the avenue to take. Our Ethics professor was very clear on this. The prosecutor's duty is to provide justice, not simply to convict. The prosecutor is a representative of the entire legal system. This particular prosecutor should be immediately removed from her case and disciplined by his superiors. A complaint against him should also be filed with the Attorney Grievance board. What he did is prosecutorial misconduct and it reflects poorly upon the entire Judicial System. Other prosecutors have been disbarred for lesser offenses. With his comments about the defendant and specific comments about her case and his obvious hostility towards her, he has denied this defendant the right to a fair trial. She no longer has any ability to receive a fair trial in Queen Anne's County and should be given a change of venue. His open personal hostility towards her is considered to be a personal vendetta, and prosecutors are ethically bound to not prosecute someone whom they have a personal vendetta against. Our Ethics professor said he has never heard of a prosecutor behaving like this before and it leads one to wonder if there is anything else that he has done to this defendant or any other defendant that jeopardized their right to receive a fair trial. -RM In my opinion, this person is more than likely someone who is already posting on this topic. Too much "my teacher told me..." b/s for me to believe this is a legitimate law student. And a whole lot of self-serving tripe for the poor "perceived" victim - in this case Stacy and her group.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Oct 13, 2009 19:09:25 GMT -4
In my opinion, this person is more than likely someone who is already posting on this topic. Too much "my teacher told me..." b/s for me to believe this is a legitimate law student. And a whole lot of self-serving tripe for the poor "perceived" victim - in this case Stacy and her group. I can't prove it, but I sure do agree.
|
|
|
Post by justme1960 on Oct 13, 2009 19:12:41 GMT -4
Oh, this just keeps getting better and better. Oddly enough, I spoke with a long time attorney friend of mine about this thread and invited him to come and look at it just a few days ago. He agrees with Mr. Mirkens' Ethics professor almost verbatim. Very interesting. I have a feeling most attorneys would agree with your attorney friend.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 13, 2009 19:20:35 GMT -4
Oh, this just keeps getting better and better. Oddly enough, I spoke with a long time attorney friend of mine about this thread and invited him to come and look at it just a few days ago. He agrees with Mr. Mirkens' Ethics professor almost verbatim. Very interesting. I have a feeling most attorneys would agree with your attorney friend. I don't see where Jmm disclosed anything that was not public information and he clearly stated this was not the place that "he" wanted to try the case... I'm a bit interested in why more people reading this thread are not at all interested in any of the prejudicial information about this case that's been posted by everyone else???
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Oct 13, 2009 19:57:26 GMT -4
My name is Ryan Mirkens and I am a law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law. My Ethics professor lives on the Eastern Shore and he told our class about this post. I don't know anything about any of these people, nor do I know anything about the traffic case or the Stacy case. But I do know that no matter what this prosecutor thinks this defendant did or didn't do, NOTHING justifies his actions of posting publicly regarding her case. NOTHING. If he truly felt that this Stacy or Shoregurrl or Pete people, or any people for that matter, wronged him, there were many other avenues and options available for him to take. Commenting publicly on a defendant's case was not the avenue to take. Our Ethics professor was very clear on this. The prosecutor's duty is to provide justice, not simply to convict. The prosecutor is a representative of the entire legal system. This particular prosecutor should be immediately removed from her case and disciplined by his superiors. A complaint against him should also be filed with the Attorney Grievance board. What he did is prosecutorial misconduct and it reflects poorly upon the entire Judicial System. Other prosecutors have been disbarred for lesser offenses. With his comments about the defendant and specific comments about her case and his obvious hostility towards her, he has denied this defendant the right to a fair trial. She no longer has any ability to receive a fair trial in Queen Anne's County and should be given a change of venue. His open personal hostility towards her is considered to be a personal vendetta, and prosecutors are ethically bound to not prosecute someone whom they have a personal vendetta against. Our Ethics professor said he has never heard of a prosecutor behaving like this before and it leads one to wonder if there is anything else that he has done to this defendant or any other defendant that jeopardized their right to receive a fair trial. -RM Well Ryan, welcome to the real world. Unlike the books you study in school, in this place real people have real feelings and sometimes don't act exactly the way they should. While Mr. McDonald probably shouldn't have written at all, he didn't add anything to the conversation. Everything he wrote had already been discussed in other threads. Perhaps he shouldn't have taken the bait, but it cannot be denied that there was a lot of baiting going on. I never attended law school so probably I'm wrong, but isn't it the prosecutor's job to prosecute? Absolutely, justice is the goal, but the court system designed to be adversarial; Stacy is playing her part and the prosecutor will one day get to play his. Does the prosecutor have a personal vendetta against Stacy? Not from what I read. He seems to have a problem with being personally attacked but so would I, especially if my family was brought into it. Even though several posts have been deleted it is still possible to find his name being brought into this as far back as July. With your comments about prosecutorial misconduct, an inability to get a fair trial in QA county, and your concern about other trials having been jeopardized you sound very very much like a few other members on this board. I wonder.....
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Oct 13, 2009 20:45:13 GMT -4
Well said Mr Flagar25
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 13, 2009 22:08:01 GMT -4
Yes. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Water Lady on Oct 13, 2009 22:25:00 GMT -4
We have finally arrived...Thank you Rich ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by hale80 on Oct 13, 2009 22:37:06 GMT -4
I am sure many will disagree, but I think this has gone a bit far. It has become political and I am not sure why it has not been moved. I personally am not a believer of trying cases on public forums. We all have our opinions, some have a few facts, others believe they have certain knowledge, and in the end, there is the court of law. If we are not satisfied with the outcome there, then there are other avenues to pursue. I for one believe much of the information being shared here is presented with strong opinions of different individuals who feel one way or another. Now, it is turning into numerous issues. None of us really know all the facts in any of these circumstances and yet everyone seems to have taken a side for one reason or another. For me it is becoming disturbing to see the dissent of so many from differing sides. Who ever moved it, thanks. I too agree that the Prosecutor did not say anything that was not already public record. Looks to me like a lot of people have not taken the time to go back over the history of these posts and read whats been said.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Oct 14, 2009 5:36:38 GMT -4
Ethics? In Queen Anne's County..Surely you jest!!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by hale80 on Oct 14, 2009 14:00:37 GMT -4
Wow-eee! My karma went from 11 to -6 overnight... go figure Oh my - another 2 points in 10 minutes...
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Oct 14, 2009 14:08:41 GMT -4
It is pretty easy when the same person has several screen names.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Oct 14, 2009 15:19:06 GMT -4
It is pretty easy when the same person has several screen names. Like you'd know..... I see your old tricks are back too, boi-o-boi how some things just never change.
|
|
|
Post by rmirkens on Oct 14, 2009 19:23:37 GMT -4
Wow, thanks for welcoming me to the "real world." I had no idea that Queen Anne's County was representative of the "real world" and that cyber know-it-alls were representative of the population there. Personally I find that a bit of a turn-off, so I guess it's a good thing for me that I don't live there.
Anyway, I am indeed a real person and I'm not part of any camp or side. I came online to post about a legal issue, not take anyone's side. It would not have mattered to me who the defendant was - my interest was solely in the ethical and legal actions of the prosecutor. However, some of the attitudes on this forum have further piqued my interest and I have put in a call to some local media sources where the law school has connections. The only response I received so far was from the Baltimore Sun, who has committed to having a reporter at the trial on November 19th that the prosecutor invited everyone to. We are interested in seeing this prosecutor in action, so myself and a few others from class also plan on attending.
Thank you all again for the warm welcome to the "real world!"
-RM
|
|