Replies

Come to think of it, Neenah, this disclaimer thing is kind of an insult to the posters' intelligence.

What part of my earlier post did you miss? If you WANT to see it as an insult, than you can see it like that. If you can't take my words as honest, then don't take them. If you want to interject Bella in a post that has nothing to do with her, then people will see exactly what worth you have.

I stand by what I said. On this thread or any thread pertaining to law, it should be stipulated either in terms of that particular state law or a disclaimer that the law in the state of the case MAY be different. That is logical, and it is the RIGHT thing to do for ALL of us.

If you want to twist my word, or bring in other people on the board, then do it. Show your real worth.

I will stand by my post 100%, because it is right.

You say you were trying to be helpful in posting what you did. I am sure it was helpful, especially to those who have been going over the details of when Ricci went to jail initially, exactly what he went there on, initially and later, etc.

You now criticize me for "interjecting" another poster into a post to you. Gee, I can't imagine why I would associate you with some other posters--oh, wait, maybe it's b/c I see you giving one another high fives and back pats when one of you "trumps", corrects, or ridicules someone who is not in your clique.

You say what the procedure is in State A or State B doesn't matter. I would venture to say that what happens in those states, neither of which is Utah, is exactly as relevant to the discussion as is what happens in your brother's State X, which is also not Utah.

I offer it as my opinion that you take pleasure in "getting" people, perhaps in occasionally offering something that you think will intimidate them. One thing which led me to think this was the way you very clearly implied that Sandude's using the term "Smart-haters" was some sort of "libel." That is ludicrous, of course, but it gives me an idea that you do want to intimidate people by trying to make them think they are doing something wrong, something that will get them in some sort of trouble.

It is my opinion that you are now working up to some sort of claim that I, or someone on here, is giving legal advice in states in which they are not licensed to do so. Sorry, Neen, it won't fly. All the comments on this board are general comments about the Smart case. No one on this board has asked for individual legal advice pertaining to them. No one would be silly enough to seek such a thing on a discussion forum, anyway. Nor would any individual legal advice be given.

And you might consider that one doesn't have to be a lawyer to give legal advice in a state where they are not licensed. (BTW, what state are we in when we're on here, anyway?) I know what state I'm in physically... I've seen a lot of talk about legalities in the Smart case, and many posters have engaged in it. This is called free speech.

I know who on here claims to be in or from Utah. I suspect you do too. I also strongly suspect that everyone who reads these threads knows, too.

Stand by your post all you want. I found its information of interest. But please do drop your penchant for engaging in verbal intimidation--both subtle, and not-so-subtle--of people, simply b/c they don't hold exactly the same opinions you do.

And try to keep the Constitution in mind, instead of just individual rules and laws. It pertains to all of us in the U.S., and we are simply exercising our rights under it.

Your brother was right. The following is from: Title 77. Utah Code of Criminal Procedure

Chapter 27. Pardons and Paroles

77-27-11 Revocation of parole.

(1) The board may revoke the parole of any person who is found to have violated any condition of his parole.

(2) (a) If a parolee is detained by the Department of Corrections or any law enforcement official for a suspected violation of parole, the Department of Corrections shall immediately report the alleged violation to the board, by means of an incident report, and make any recommendation regarding the incident.

(b) No parolee may be held for a period longer than 72 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, without first obtaining a warrant.

(3) Any member of the board may issue a warrant based upon a certified warrant request to a peace officer or other persons authorized to arrest, detain, and return to actual custody a parolee, and may upon arrest or otherwise direct the Department of Corrections to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the parolee has violated the conditions of his parole.

(4) Upon a finding of probable cause, a parolee may be further detained or imprisoned again pending a hearing by the board or its appointed examiner.

(5) (a) The board or its appointed examiner shall conduct a hearing on the alleged violation, and the parolee shall have written notice of the time and place of the hearing, the alleged violation of parole, and a statement of the evidence against him.

(b) The board or its appointed examiner shall provide the parolee the opportunity:

(i) to be present;

(ii) to be heard;

(iii) to present witnesses and documentary evidence;

(iv) to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, absent a showing of good cause for not allowing the confrontation; and

(v) to be represented by counsel when the parolee is mentally incompetent or pleading not guilty.

(c) If heard by an appointed examiner, the examiner shall make a written decision which shall include a statement of the facts relied upon by the examiner in determining the guilt or innocence of the parolee on the alleged violation and a conclusion as to whether the alleged violation occurred. The appointed examiner shall then refer the case to the board for disposition.

(d) Final decisions shall be reached by majority vote of the members of the board sitting and the parolee shall be promptly notified in writing of the board's findings and decision.

(6) Parolees found to have violated the conditions of parole may, at the discretion of the board, be returned to parole, have restitution ordered, or be imprisoned again as determined by the board, not to exceed the maximum term, or be subject to any other conditions the board may impose within its discretion.

I have access to the entire Utah Criminal Code, if there is anything else you need to know about it.