Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Oh I am sick of this Casey probation junk!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mattsmom277" data-source="post: 450943" data-attributes="member: 4264"><p>I found a more in depth article on this. Apparently in court the probation was said to be after being released from jail. The jail time for the checks was considered time served from her time in prison on the other charges. Then when the probation order was typed, the phrase "after release from jail" was NOT included, therefore probation in her city attended her within the jail for the following 12 months, and sent her a formal discharge letter upon completing the 12 months probation while in jail. Not only her defense, but also the prosecutor for the check stuff and the probation office believed she had fulfilled her probation, because according to the final signed court order, she HAD completed it, under supervision of probation, while incarcerated. After her release last month, the judge that convicted her on the checks said Huh? Why is she not here on probation and THEN caught the error, that he himself had signed off on the order way back that did NOT include what he'd said IN court, about serving it after release. So in fact she HAD completed the order HE signed. However, this past Monday he entered a adjustment to that old probation order to include the phrase retroactively to match what he said in court, that it be after her jail term that she serve the probation. That is where the fight is now in court, because by law, the judge signed off and probation did complete their duty to supervise her and in fact even sent her the paperwork that she successfully completed her probation term. So its a technicality yes, it was intended for her to be doing that probation NOW, not back while incarcerated. However, he messed up (the judge) by signing off on the order without that clause, and she and all the other players (prosecutor and probation office) supervised that full term of probation and signed off on completion of the 12 months.</p><p></p><p>Edited: Had to cut post short, had a important phone call. Didn't get to finish by saying that I do hope that they can retroactively apply this probation order and cause her to have to complete that 12 months. Technicalities annoy me to no end when they result in someone not having to properly complete the spirit of an order, in this case, the original intent of having her complete it after release from jail. I think her lawyers have good reason legally speaking to fight this, but I do hope that the order is enforced. I think they may have to alter some terms though, such as having to serve it only in that city or having to have employment (who is going to hire her?!?! Nobody is who). Bottom line though, mess up in paperwork aside, she should be completing at as originally stated in my humble opinion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mattsmom277, post: 450943, member: 4264"] I found a more in depth article on this. Apparently in court the probation was said to be after being released from jail. The jail time for the checks was considered time served from her time in prison on the other charges. Then when the probation order was typed, the phrase "after release from jail" was NOT included, therefore probation in her city attended her within the jail for the following 12 months, and sent her a formal discharge letter upon completing the 12 months probation while in jail. Not only her defense, but also the prosecutor for the check stuff and the probation office believed she had fulfilled her probation, because according to the final signed court order, she HAD completed it, under supervision of probation, while incarcerated. After her release last month, the judge that convicted her on the checks said Huh? Why is she not here on probation and THEN caught the error, that he himself had signed off on the order way back that did NOT include what he'd said IN court, about serving it after release. So in fact she HAD completed the order HE signed. However, this past Monday he entered a adjustment to that old probation order to include the phrase retroactively to match what he said in court, that it be after her jail term that she serve the probation. That is where the fight is now in court, because by law, the judge signed off and probation did complete their duty to supervise her and in fact even sent her the paperwork that she successfully completed her probation term. So its a technicality yes, it was intended for her to be doing that probation NOW, not back while incarcerated. However, he messed up (the judge) by signing off on the order without that clause, and she and all the other players (prosecutor and probation office) supervised that full term of probation and signed off on completion of the 12 months. Edited: Had to cut post short, had a important phone call. Didn't get to finish by saying that I do hope that they can retroactively apply this probation order and cause her to have to complete that 12 months. Technicalities annoy me to no end when they result in someone not having to properly complete the spirit of an order, in this case, the original intent of having her complete it after release from jail. I think her lawyers have good reason legally speaking to fight this, but I do hope that the order is enforced. I think they may have to alter some terms though, such as having to serve it only in that city or having to have employment (who is going to hire her?!?! Nobody is who). Bottom line though, mess up in paperwork aside, she should be completing at as originally stated in my humble opinion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Oh I am sick of this Casey probation junk!
Top