Posted on 07/22/2019 7:50:47 PM PDT by treetopsandroofs
A former juvenile court judge, a Democrat who took the bench after being declared the winner of a disputed 2010 election, was jailed Monday, and had to be taken out of the courtroom in Cincinnati, according to reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Either she committed a crime or she didn’t. Which is it?
She isn’t guilty. It says she gave a confidential information to her brother when he was charged with a crime. But she wasn’t found guilty of that. She was found guilty of “unlawful interest in a public contract” which is a criminal code written too limit influence in business dealings with the government. Read it for yourself. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.42
That has nothing to do with helping a family member legally navigate criminal proceedings with information that was not confidential. (Which is why they couldn’t charge her with breaching confidentiality.) This is a trumped up process crime just like Mueller is trying to create with Trump.
She was actually charged with helping her brother get a job in the judicial office, charges that were brought 2 weeks after she blew the whistle on a corrupt judge. Her brother got the job before she was ever elected judge.
The jury included many friends and neighbors of the corrupt judge. It was not a unanimous verdict, but she was never allowed to poll the jury. Her case was presided over by a local judge, not a visiting judge.
Corrupt judges have a lot of ways to go after their opponents. And the state systems will often go after the whistleblower because they prefer falling with things in private. Is it hard to believe this could happen in other places? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
DO IT!
Love it...
This ‘sraight shooter’ broke the law providing hidden papers to her brother. That was a crime.
Except that she didn’t. Even a cursory look will show you that things don’t add up.
I read the article and that’s what it states.
Article says she provided confidential papers to her brother related to his criminal proceedings. She was convicted of undue interest in a public contract. Those two are not the same thing.
Okay, you win your point but lose the battle.
She was a convicted judge. Off to prison she goes.
There were a flurry of things she had been criticized openly for. The papers to her brother was only part of the issue. She was criticized for that and other things, and she was convicted of one crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.