Comments on: Today in Innocence, Part II

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Wed, 23 May 2012 17:02:43 +0000

A few months ago Robert Higgs had a blog post about how he wanted bureaucrats to all commit suicide. I thought it was a bit much. Stories like this on the other hand are moving me more and more towards his position.

By: Gene Kernan

Gene Kernan — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:12:12 +0000

Articles of Impeachment.

By: zywie

zywie — Wed, 23 May 2012 12:40:27 +0000

24 years for $50 worth of crack. Even if he’s guilty, that’s excessive.

By: John C. Randolph

John C. Randolph — Wed, 23 May 2012 08:40:00 +0000

Well, what do you know? She was appointed by Bubba the Slut. I wonder if there were any cigars involved?

-jcr

By: John C. Randolph

John C. Randolph — Wed, 23 May 2012 08:36:58 +0000

I’d love to see this innocent man file a suit against the judge personally for depriving him of his civil rights under color of authority.

-jcr

By: John C. Randolph

John C. Randolph — Wed, 23 May 2012 08:35:31 +0000

“U.S. District Court Judge Joan A. Lenard ”

..will forever be known to me as “that uppity shyster bitch”.

-jcr

By: Phil in Parker

Phil in Parker — Wed, 23 May 2012 01:31:12 +0000

Actually, I almost side with the judge on this one. A verbal order isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. But the proper response is: “You (procecutor or defense, don’t matter) go and write up the order. It the first order of business after lunch”.

Really not that hard.

By: Mike H

Mike H — Tue, 22 May 2012 23:43:49 +0000

I now get what the judge meant by “a lot of moving parts here” – it was a mechanical analogy, not a comment on the suffering of the innocent petitioner. She was clearly NOT moved in that sense.

By: supercat

supercat — Tue, 22 May 2012 23:38:22 +0000

Unless Mr. Phillips is being locked in Judge Lenard’s chambers, I don’t think the judge is physically responsible for keeping him in custody. If those who are physically holding him aren’t willing to release him on the basis of verbal request from the prosecutor, then unless there is a statutory provision that would allow a judge to arbitrarily demand people’s release, I’m not sure why the judge should be expected to do so. To be sure, if there is a statutory provision which would grant the judge clear authority to order Mr. Phillips’ release, the judge might be faulted for not exercising it. On the other hand, if the laws set forth by the legislature require that certain steps be followed to ensure that there is a clear legal record of why Mr. Phillips is being released, and if the requirements are not patently unreasonable, I would direct more criticism at the prosecutor who fails to perform such steps in timely fashion than at the judge who insists that they be performed.

By: DPirate

DPirate — Tue, 22 May 2012 23:06:29 +0000

She chose “cover your ass (future political career)” over an innocent man’s freedom. What an asshole.

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Tue, 22 May 2012 22:57:24 +0000

[sarcasm] C’mon people. We’re only talking about a couple more weeks of a man’s life here. That is NOTHING compared to a judge’s ego. Please, for God’s sake, have some consideration for the poor judge, she has a very difficult job. [/sarcasm]

By: marco73

marco73 — Tue, 22 May 2012 22:35:11 +0000

Judge Lenard needs someone’s homework complete so that she can let an innocent man out of prison, just like a good little facist bureaucrat.

Maybe the bailiffs in the federal courthouse can start referring to paperwork foulups that keep innocent people in jail as “pulling a Lenard.”
How do you like that legacy, your honor?

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Tue, 22 May 2012 21:21:05 +0000

It appears that these people who have the audacity to be innocent are a goddamn inconvenience to the state what with them being so stupid as to have been convicted and all. Harumph!

By: albatross

albatross — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:12:19 +0000

Is the judge waiting for a little squeeze to move matters along? Couple hundred do it, your honor?

By: James Sr.

James Sr. — Tue, 22 May 2012 19:22:33 +0000

Makes sense to me now why our courthouse judges need metal detectors for their courts.

Any other hostage situation would have had the place full of bullet holes.. and no one alive to say a word.

By: Aresen

Aresen — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:23:50 +0000

Lenard said she couldn’t release Phillips because she needed to see it on paper. “It has a very broad sweep and differing legal theories,” Lenard said. “There are a lot of moving parts here.”

How did this lady get to be a judge? Is ‘innocent’ too difficult a word for her to understand? (Maybe because it has two more letters than ‘guilty’?) This is simply and utterly retarded. Obviously her brain has very few moving parts.

Pity she has judicial immunity.

By: Personanongrata

Personanongrata — Tue, 22 May 2012 18:01:10 +0000

If U.S. District Court Judge Joan A. Lenard was as concerned with the testimony of West Palm Beach cop Michael Ghent in 2003 as she is with the “paperwork” in 2012 then perhaps an innocent man, Elroy Phillips, wouldn’t have been railroaded in her courtroom and spent the past 9 years locked in a cage.

By: Dante

Dante — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:02:02 +0000

“Lenard also happens to be the judge who presided over Phillips’ trial in 2003.”

That’s the rub, isn’t it? The people who are employed by America’s criminal justice bureaucracy are the type of people who, after telling themselves for decades that they simply cannot be wrong or make mistakes, adamantly refuse to admit they were wrong and can make mistakes when presented with airtight evidence that they can be wrong and make mistakes.

It’s a combination of massive ego, ignorance and character flaws, with a dash of arrogance thrown in for good measure.

And these are the folks with the power to arrest, imprison and kill us. Often doing so with no more than a hunch. Because, you know, they simply can’t be wrong.

Protect & Serve (Themselves!)

By: Scott Lazarowitz

Scott Lazarowitz — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:46:34 +0000

If the State did not have a monopoly in ultimate judicial decision-making, and if the people had freedom of choice of which third-party arbitrators and private judges to make judicial decisions, this kind of judge would then be run out of town. But noooo, the sheeple prefer to keep their government monopoly on “justice” and let imbeciles, retards and lowlifes be in charge, here in the Banana Republic of USSA.

By: SJE

SJE — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:42:15 +0000

I can understand being super careful if you could be sued for letting this man be convicted in the first place, but the judge is immune from lawsuit. Let him go, d-bag.