|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 7, 2007 14:23:51 GMT -5
tinyurl.com/2adwn2  Now of course, keep in mind that Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are still serving time even after it has been openly admitted they were set up, records falsified and it was all directed from upper levels in government.Bush still refuses to pardon them, even after one has been severely beaten in prison. Even though he has previously pardoned over a dozen other convicted felons(17 I think now). At last report, he had still refused to even LOOK into the matter, stating he had 'more important things to worry about'.  Yeah, I wonder why anyone would claim our government and our leader is sending the 'wrong' messege to our youth. "Enough Money means you are above the law, and harming illegal alien drug smugglers will get you hard time" . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 7, 2007 20:31:42 GMT -5
Ah, it has now been determined that she was raging and throwing a temper tantrum, and was released before she 'had a mental collapse' . . .
Yeah, 'medical reasons'. . . .
You pay a shrink enough money, he will swear to anything you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 7, 2007 22:47:57 GMT -5
You pay a shrink enough money, he will swear to anything you say. This is obviously grossly unethical behavior for those in the mental health profession, and I would hope anyone who pours as much blood, sweat, and tears into getting their doctorate as it takes to successfully do this and be licensed to practice would have enough integrity to not intentionally harm clients for money in this way. Any provider caught doing this should and probably will be prosecuted and penalized to the fullest extent by accrediting bodies, professional organizations, and the law so as to protect the general public. Knowing all the obstacles one has to overcome to get a doctorate and practice, it baffles me that anyone would even think of behaving in this way (especially given the likely consequences of losing the license one worked so hard for), but I realize I should never say never. |
|
|
|
Post by deerdude on Jun 8, 2007 3:29:52 GMT -5
another case of money talks and b.s walks, the two guys are setting in prison for doing there jobs and i would bet money there was a huge party thrown at her place when she got home and you could probably find any illegal drug there that you could possibly think of. our country is going down the tubes at a hell bent pace.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jun 8, 2007 4:20:45 GMT -5
She has been ordered back to court this morning; she may be on her way back.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 8, 2007 9:03:29 GMT -5
Given the limited information we have at this point, I could see both sides of the issue. It could be possible that she does have a medical condition, for which it would be unethical to keep her in jail where presumably she would not be able to obtain adequate treatment. On the other hand, it is a possibility that things went on "behind the scenes" and she was let out purely due to her power and celebrity status. Although I don't know why she couldn't get medical treatment in jail (I suppose it's possible though) and I think the latter is more likely than the former, I don't feel as if I have enough information to pass judgment on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Jun 8, 2007 12:34:43 GMT -5
dgreyhound - I've never been "in" jail, but I've worked for legal services in a jail, and have known folks who have served time in jail, and short of something like a heart attack or immediate surgical care, inmates aren't routinely kicked out to home detention over a rash... BTW - assuming good behaviour, she gets 1 day served  day credit = 2 days against sentence, so if she was physically in the facility for 3 full days, she's knocked 6 days off a 46 day sentence, which is where they were getting the "had to serve 23 days" thing... Actually, I was mistified by the California-style "23" or "46" thing... why not just say 30 days or 60 days or whatever...  Any way you cut it, it's a freakin' joke... |
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 8, 2007 13:33:10 GMT -5
dgreyhound - I've never been "in" jail, but I've worked for legal services in a jail, and have known folks who have served time in jail, and short of something like a heart attack or immediate surgical care, inmates aren't routinely kicked out to home detention over a rash... BTW - assuming good behaviour, she gets 1 day served day credit = 2 days against sentence, so if she was physically in the facility for 3 full days, she's knocked 6 days off a 46 day sentence, which is where they were getting the "had to serve 23 days" thing... Actually, I was mistified by the California-style "23" or "46" thing... why not just say 30 days or 60 days or whatever... Any way you cut it, it's a freakin' joke... Yeah, it seems fishy to me, but I guess there's always a possibility that action was taken for reasons we do not know about, medical or otherwise... |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jun 8, 2007 14:39:55 GMT -5
She's going back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Jun 8, 2007 14:40:33 GMT -5
I'm amazed that she got any jail time in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 8, 2007 14:49:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Jun 8, 2007 14:53:47 GMT -5
That judge was whizzed. I think she needs 45 days of reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Jun 8, 2007 15:04:58 GMT -5
That judge was whizzed. I think she needs 45 days of reality. Besides the 3 days she spent in the slammer she hasn't had 45 seconds of reality in her lifetime... |
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Jun 8, 2007 16:23:21 GMT -5
dgreyhound - I've never been "in" jail, but I've worked for legal services in a jail, and have known folks who have served time in jail, and short of something like a heart attack or immediate surgical care, inmates aren't routinely kicked out to home detention over a rash... BTW - assuming good behaviour, she gets 1 day served day credit = 2 days against sentence, so if she was physically in the facility for 3 full days, she's knocked 6 days off a 46 day sentence, which is where they were getting the "had to serve 23 days" thing... Actually, I was mistified by the California-style "23" or "46" thing... why not just say 30 days or 60 days or whatever... Any way you cut it, it's a freakin' joke... Yeah, it seems fishy to me, but I guess there's always a possibility that action was taken for reasons we do not know about, medical or otherwise... Ah, your heart is in the right place, but you know as well as I do that there is indeed something fishy, and it is all about money, power and a spolied little rich girl refusing to accept that rules apply to her too. (which I still am not so sure of myself yet. . .we will wait and see) And about your earlier remark to wards shrinks . . . . . . .you should know by now there is no 'honorable' profession that lacks criminals. Nor any profession which as a group holds itself to higher standards, regardless what motto the adopt. (other than us hunters, of course, who defend the righteous, uplift the downtrodden, defeat the forces of evil and seek absolute purity of thought and blessed virtue forevermore . . . ) ;D Shrinks are just as likely to take a pay off as anyone else is. When a person can offer you 20 million dollars cash money to say they are mentally unable to remain in confined quarters without undue mental anguish . . . . That is a whole lot of money to anyone in any profession. People with this kind of money are not used to the word 'no' . . . . And have probably paid far less for far greater. |
|
