campergeek
Member
"Respect my authority!"... or ....
"Commit a crime or go to jail!"... or ...
Make up your own title for this ridiculous situation
"Commit a crime or go to jail!"... or ...
Make up your own title for this ridiculous situation
Justice misfires over gun
- Thread starter campergeek
- Start date
- Status
Snake Eyes
Member
I just can't fathom this. It raises my ire beyond trite and pithy one liners.
Standing Wolf will be along soon to express the appropriate sentiment, appropriately.
Standing Wolf will be along soon to express the appropriate sentiment, appropriately.
MSGT9410
Member
"Dirrh!"
Disrespectful? Disrespectful??? Of what, of a pompous, self righteous, judge who did not have enough respect, decency or professionalism to read the letter in front of her or to hear out the person standing in her courtroom! The pity is that another judge did order Duff a kick in the duff and then some jail time to boot.
JohnBT
Member
I went looking for the judge's e-mail address, but all I found was a pic. It's probably all for the best that I didn't find her e-mail - she'd probably call me a liar and say mean and nasty things about me, too.
In my opinion:
Not reading the letter = blind justice
Not listening to one of the parties in court = deaf justice
Throwing the woman in jail for contempt = dumb justice
My guess is that in Duffland, justice is not just blind:
Justice is deaf, dumb and blind!
Not reading the letter = blind justice
Not listening to one of the parties in court = deaf justice
Throwing the woman in jail for contempt = dumb justice
My guess is that in Duffland, justice is not just blind:
Justice is deaf, dumb and blind!
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, America's judicial oligarchy wears black robes.
Sent the following letter to the Post-Dispatch:
"Having read Paul Hampel's article, Justice Misfires Over Gun, in the Saturday Post-Dispatch, I cannot help but wonder if it is standard practice in Missouri for a judge to order a person to violate not only state law but also Federal law, and then to jail that person for refusing to do so.
I think the judge in this case needs a lesson in the law, and needs to apologize to that woman and arrange compensation. Or maybe the judge is considering the idea of ordering a bank robbery, or a "hit" on an enemy; after all, if one law violation can be ordered, why not more?"
Jim
"Having read Paul Hampel's article, Justice Misfires Over Gun, in the Saturday Post-Dispatch, I cannot help but wonder if it is standard practice in Missouri for a judge to order a person to violate not only state law but also Federal law, and then to jail that person for refusing to do so.
I think the judge in this case needs a lesson in the law, and needs to apologize to that woman and arrange compensation. Or maybe the judge is considering the idea of ordering a bank robbery, or a "hit" on an enemy; after all, if one law violation can be ordered, why not more?"
Jim
Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Remember Casino with DeNiro, where he fires the politician's nephew? He says, "Either he's crooked or he's stupid, either way I can't have him here."
Same for this judge. There's no way she could legitimately hold that position, either she's crooked or she's stupid, one or the other, either way she's obviously unfit for the position. I hope she gets fired, and I hope she gets fired in such a way that she doesn't get a pension.
Same for this judge. There's no way she could legitimately hold that position, either she's crooked or she's stupid, one or the other, either way she's obviously unfit for the position. I hope she gets fired, and I hope she gets fired in such a way that she doesn't get a pension.
Moondoggie
Member
If there is any "Justice", Judge Duff should serve exactly the same number of hours & minutes behind bars as her wrongfully imprisoned victim did. Under the same conditions, no preferential treatment due to her status as a judge.
Maybe then she'd think twice before flying off the handle.
She needs to learn the consequences of her actions first-hand.
Best case, she gets voted out of office if that's a possibility.
Maybe then she'd think twice before flying off the handle.
She needs to learn the consequences of her actions first-hand.
Best case, she gets voted out of office if that's a possibility.
Pilgrim
Member
I think a complaint to the state's judicial council or body that exercises oversight over judge's behavior should be made. That will be up to Mrs. Ritchie.
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
another case of black robe thug
If the story is true, and I have no reason to think otherwise and the woman was not disrespectful it another case of a judicary that's gone over the edge. Think about the situtation. This woman follows the order, and is arrested by ATF for following the orders. We all know how understanding ATF is.
I wonder if she chould have transfered the gun to the court and had the judge transfer it to the felon
.
Ok I know that would never fly, but boy would it be an interesting problem.
I hope somebody keeps on top of this one.
If the story is true, and I have no reason to think otherwise and the woman was not disrespectful it another case of a judicary that's gone over the edge. Think about the situtation. This woman follows the order, and is arrested by ATF for following the orders. We all know how understanding ATF is.
I wonder if she chould have transfered the gun to the court and had the judge transfer it to the felon
.Ok I know that would never fly, but boy would it be an interesting problem.
I hope somebody keeps on top of this one.
campergeek
Member
Jim, good letter, but to make one minor correction this occurred in Illinois, not Missouri. Minor issues such as legalities don't stand in the way of local or state legislators over there, so why should they stand in the way of judicial authorities?
pcf
Member
Woman steals property, Judge orders it returned, Woman comes up with excuses.......
Slow down a second, if you've ever been divorced and tried to get your stolen possessions back, it can can be a major pain in the ass. The judge absolutely did the right thing, usually the judge will come up with 10,001 excuses for you not to get your firearms back. Good on the judge for not being a gun grabber.
Wow, the woman decided to mail letters, to "court officials" but never notified the judge, or the judge's clerk. If I call the cops in Atlanta, GA I'm sure they'll send someone over to take care of my drunk and rowdy neighbor.
Whether the man's a felon or not, it was not the woman's firearm, she and her father stole it. Right, wrong, indifferent, stealing is stealing. Steal someone's property and get jammed up in a bad spot, expect zero sympathy.
If you ever get divorced and your firearms stolen, pray you have a judge this willing to get them returned to you.
Slow down a second, if you've ever been divorced and tried to get your stolen possessions back, it can can be a major pain in the ass. The judge absolutely did the right thing, usually the judge will come up with 10,001 excuses for you not to get your firearms back. Good on the judge for not being a gun grabber.
Wow, the woman decided to mail letters, to "court officials" but never notified the judge, or the judge's clerk. If I call the cops in Atlanta, GA I'm sure they'll send someone over to take care of my drunk and rowdy neighbor.
Whether the man's a felon or not, it was not the woman's firearm, she and her father stole it. Right, wrong, indifferent, stealing is stealing. Steal someone's property and get jammed up in a bad spot, expect zero sympathy.
If you ever get divorced and your firearms stolen, pray you have a judge this willing to get them returned to you.
"Don't bother me with facts and legalities! I'm the judge and you are the minion--comply with my commands or be punished."
It's nice that she's so contrite after things came into the open... NOT.
There's somebody who clearly doesn't need to be a judge any more--in fact, it's likely that she should never have been a judge in the first place.
pcf,
Read the article again. The judge had posession of the letter even as she was making the commands. She just couldn't be bothered to read it.
It's nice that she's so contrite after things came into the open... NOT.
There's somebody who clearly doesn't need to be a judge any more--in fact, it's likely that she should never have been a judge in the first place.
pcf,
Read the article again. The judge had posession of the letter even as she was making the commands. She just couldn't be bothered to read it.
I don't know about that state but, I think, in most states it would be considered community property in a marriage. As for the judge, she was absolutely wrong to order a gun be returned to a convicted felon as this is a violation of federal law. She should have read all the evidence and allowed the woamn to speak. Then she should have made the decision on how to proceed. I do not care if she is not a gun grabber, she was wrong - in my opinion and I base that on lots of expereince in courtrooms.
All the best,
Glenn B
SpaceCowboy
Member
As john points out from the article the judge had the letter in front of her and SHOULD have known because she SHOULD be performing the duties for which she was appointed and done so with competency.
Yes stealing is stealing(if you ever need to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family I'll remind the judge to give no quarter as you expect none); though she did not steal it, her father did--or at least he was in possession of it. However, the man was convicted of two separate felonies including a drug charge. Felons can not possess firearms--however right or wrong that may be. Assuming he was legal in the first place(on the state level here), he certainly would have had his FOID card revoked at that point and no longer able to possess a firearm. To transfer a firerarm to a felon is a crime if not a felony. To transfer a firearm to an individual NOT in possession of an FOID card is a felony.
I agree with you on this one. Especially happening in Illinois, this is very much a surprise move by the judge. Though Wood River is not in Cook Co., it is in Maddison Co. and therefore, makes a great difference.
pcf
Member
Evidence
Why wasn't his man's criminal record ever entered into evidence?
Since when in any court of law is it appropiate to enter evidence after a judge has issued a ruling?
Since when is a piece of supposedly and randomly delivered mail, evidence?
Since when is legal for either party to withhold pertinent evidence from a judge?
There's a time and place to enter evidence, if you miss that mark there is a defined method to enter evidence into a case. Pulling crap out of one's purse after a judge has issued a ruling isn't one of them.
How exactly is the judge supposed to know that this man is a convicted felon?
What if it was the other way,
-Woman accusses man of being felon,
-Judge refuses to return property,
-Woman sells expensive gun collection
-Man was not convicted felon,
-Man will never see gun collection again
-"Tar and feather judge", "Pinkos legslating from bench", "Anti judge refuses to view evidence" etc etc
Why wasn't his man's criminal record ever entered into evidence?
Since when in any court of law is it appropiate to enter evidence after a judge has issued a ruling?
Since when is a piece of supposedly and randomly delivered mail, evidence?
Since when is legal for either party to withhold pertinent evidence from a judge?
There's a time and place to enter evidence, if you miss that mark there is a defined method to enter evidence into a case. Pulling crap out of one's purse after a judge has issued a ruling isn't one of them.
How exactly is the judge supposed to know that this man is a convicted felon?
What if it was the other way,
-Woman accusses man of being felon,
-Judge refuses to return property,
-Woman sells expensive gun collection
-Man was not convicted felon,
-Man will never see gun collection again
-"Tar and feather judge", "Pinkos legslating from bench", "Anti judge refuses to view evidence" etc etc
SpaceCowboy
Member
We don't know that it wasn't:
When the judge's ruling violates public safety, like transfering a firearm to a convicted felon.
These are not random individuals and she never received a response to her letters or her phone calls.
Assumably, it wasn't pertinent until the judge ordered this woman to commit a felony. Though the evidence was presented before the trial as
As John said, read the article. No one pulled anything from anywhere.
She could have found out quite easily for herself, and should have, after reading the letter from this woman. The state's attorney received a letter and a phone call, should he not have investigated the validity of this claim as well?
Seems like the judge, as well as others, made a mistake and they should make reparations for the consequences their actions had on this woman; even if that would be as simple as an admission of their mistake and an appology.
Wait a minute. I see a bunch of folks passing judgment on a situation in which their only information comes from a news story fed by a divorce combatant. Deep down, I think most of you realize that things are seldom as simple as they seem, and news media don't necessarily get it right.
I am sure that the gun in question could have been delivered to the husband's qualified designee with no problem, but the individual responsible for its removal didn't want to resolve the problem. She wanted (her father) to keep the gun.
You'll read about judges doing some wacky things, and after all, they are human and prone to human failings. They are, however, on the front line of some epic battles involving folks determined to get their way regardless of the consequences to others.
The absence of an official record of the proceeding, especially when a contempt order is entered, is interesting. I suspect there is a lot more to this story and will wait for further details.
I am sure that the gun in question could have been delivered to the husband's qualified designee with no problem, but the individual responsible for its removal didn't want to resolve the problem. She wanted (her father) to keep the gun.
You'll read about judges doing some wacky things, and after all, they are human and prone to human failings. They are, however, on the front line of some epic battles involving folks determined to get their way regardless of the consequences to others.
The absence of an official record of the proceeding, especially when a contempt order is entered, is interesting. I suspect there is a lot more to this story and will wait for further details.
RevDisk
Member
If the guy was a felon, it's illegal to give him a gun regardless of circumstances. That simple. Doesn't matter how I feel about the laws regarding felons, that's just how it is. No one, as far as I know, has the legal right to hand him back a firearm if he's a felon. Not the cops, not the lady, not the judge.
- Status
