Judge Jan Jurden Sentences du Pont Heir, Robert H. Richards IV, Probation for Raping His 3 Year Old Daughter Because ‘He Would Not Fare Well’ in Prison
WTF … who cares whether this child rapist would fare well in prison or not!!! How could anyone call this Justice?
Judge Jan Jurden, a Superior Court judge needs to be thrown off the bench after her insane sentencing decision for a child rapist. Judge Jurdan unbelievably sentenced Robert H. Richards IV to probation for the rape and molestation of his then 3 year old daughter stating, he “will not fare well” in prison. WHAT!!! Prison is not meant to be nice, it is meant to be a punishment and to keep predators away from society. However, this misguided judge actually said that prison life would adversely affect Richards. What about the adverse affect that his daughter faces thanks to his rape? So what was the “unique circumstances” that the judge made her decision, his wealth?
Robert H. Richards IV
A Superior Court judge who sentenced an heir to the du Pont fortune to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter wrote in her order that he “will not fare well” in prison and suggested that he needed treatment instead of time behind bars, according to Delaware Online.
Court records show that in Judge Jan Jurden’s sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards confused several criminal justice authorities in Delaware, who said that her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.
Jurden gave Richards, who had no previous criminal record, an eight-year prison term, but suspended all the prison time for probation.
According to the following site, Judge Jurden’s present term ends May 29, 2013. Not soon enough!!!
UPDATE I: Judge said du Pont heir ‘will not fare well’ in prison.
O’Neill said he and his deputies have often argued that a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he has never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”
Richards was no frail defendant, court records show, listing him at 6 feet, 4 inches tall and between 250 and 276 pounds. Nor do court records cite any physical illnesses.
O’Neill said the way the Richards case was handled might cause the public to be skeptical about “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.”
Jurden, who has been a judge since 2001, and Superior Court President James T. Vaughn Jr. did not respond to questions last week about the case.
A du Pont family heir who raped his 3-year-old daughter nearly a decade ago but received no prison time now faces a lawsuit from his former wife that accuses him of sexually abusing his toddler son.
Robert H. Richards IV, 47, who is supported by a trust fund and who paid $1.8 million for his 5,800-square-foot mansion near Winterthur Museum, pleaded guilty in 2008 to fourth-degree rape of his daughter. Currently on probation, he has never been charged with crimes against his son.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME … REMEMBER WHEN LAWS USED TO PROTECT OR PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM?
How can it be that a man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law? Massachusetts highest court ruled the following on Wednesday, “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.” The Court overruled a lower court and stated that the State law “does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA.” Unbelievable! What ever happened to intent? Hell, what ever happened to Justice?
Just curious, what would have happened if he was doing this on a play ground?
A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Wednesday.
The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders’ skirts and dresses.
The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s justice is not only blind, it’s stupid as well.
Michael Dunn Found Guilty on 4 of 5 Counts, 3 Counts of Attempted 2nd Degree Murder in the ‘Loud Music Murder’ Trial …. Judge Declares Mistrial on the Count of Murder of Shooting Death of 17 Year Old Jordan Davis
A verdict is in for the Michael Dunn “loud music” trial …
The jury has returned a guilty verdict on 4 of 5 counts against Michael Dunn, including three for attempted second-degree murder. However, the jury had deliberated for nearly 40 hours but was deadlocked and could not come to a unanimous decision on count one, the first-degree murder in the death of black teen, Jordan Davis. The jurors could have decided not to convict Dunn on that charge but instead find him guilty on lesser charges such as manslaughter. Or they could have acquitted him altogether on this count. Earlier in the day after the jury had stated they had reached verdicts on 4 of 5 counts, but were having difficulty on the first count, judge Healey brought the jurors into the courtroom and recited them an Allen charge, which is an instruction to continue deliberations and make a decision. However, the jury could not come to a conclusion on count one. Circuit Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial for the murder count. The shooting happened on November 23, 2012 outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Michael Dunn will be sentenced March 24, 2014.
Jurors did convict Dunn of the second-degree attempted murders of Tevin Thompson, Leland Brunson and Tommie Stornes, and also convicted him of a fourth count of firing bullets into the vehicle all four teenagers were in.
State attorney Angela Corey will have to decide whether to try dunn again for Davis’ murder.
Supporters of both Dunn and Davis appeared crestfallen after the verdict was announced with the parents of both men fighting back tears. Ron Davis, father of Jordan, held his wife and cried so
The Florida jury in the case of Michael Dunn has found him guilty on four charges, including three for attempted second-degree murder, but they couldn’t reach a verdict on the most significant charge — first-degree murder in the death of Jordan Davis.
After the decisions were read out Saturday night in court, Judge Russell Healey — who moments before had said that the jury had reached a verdict on all counts — declared a mistrial on the murder count.
This possibility had seemingly been floated around since 4:45 p.m. Saturday, when the 12 jurors sent a note saying they’d decided on four of the five counts that Dunn faces. But they hadn’t unanimously reached a verdict “on count 1 or any of the lesser included offenses related to it.”
Count 1 is first-degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Davis.
Jurors could have decided not to convict Dunn on that charge but instead find him guilty on lesser charges such as manslaughter. Or they could have acquitted him altogether on this count.
Michael Dunn – Pic from Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office
The jury in the Michael Dunn murder trial found him guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree Saturday but a mistrial was declared on a first-degree murder charge after the 12 jurors couldn’t agree on it.
The Brevard County man was charged with fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis, of Marietta, Ga., in 2012 after they got into an argument over music coming from the parked SUV occupied by Davis and three friends outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Dunn, who is white, had described the music to his fiancee as “thug music.”
Dunn’s trial started Feb. 3, and jury deliberations began Wednesday and lasted more than 30 hours over four days.
Liberal & Obama Supporter Attorney Jonathan Turley Says Expansion of Barack Obama’s Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty
WOW, IF THIS DOES NOT WAKE PEOPLE UP, NOTHING WILL … LIB ATTY AND OBAMA SUPPORTER BLASTS OBAMA’S ACTIONS
Last night on ‘The Kelly Files,’ Jonathan Turley, a liberal Constitutional attorney and Obama supporter said a mouthful last night with regards to the imperial president, Barack Obama’s “unilateral” and Unconstitutional actions. Turley stated, “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left” and Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism.”
This is a must watch interview and remember, this is coming from a lib. Turley is basically describing … “TYRANNY”.
KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we’ve lost that.
TURLEY: Well, I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.
And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.
KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven’t been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.
TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.
And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.
KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What’ so bad that will come of this?
TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’
The president’s State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it’s dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we’ve never seen it to this extent.
KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn’t have — they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits –which they’ve done — I mean, what are they supposed to do?
TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they’re just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.
But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.
I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn’t matter what party held the White House. But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country.
Clark County District Judge Linda Marie Bell Denies OJ Simpson’s New Trail & Upholds His 2008 Conviction on Kidnapping & Armed Robbery
OJ SIMPSON DENIED … IT’S TRUE, WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS, STAYS IN VEGAS AND SO DOES OJ IN PRISON!!!
Clark County, Nevada District Judge Linda Marie Bell has denied O.J. Simpson’s appeal for a new trial. In upholding his 2008 conviction for kidnapping, armed robbery and other charges the judge said that Simpson was denied on “All grounds in the petition lack merit.” Simpson’s “non-dream” legal team’s had asked for a new trial on 22 specific grounds related to his trial and appeal. However, Judge Linda Marie Bell’s 101 page, point-by-point-by-point ruling denied the “Juice” as she stated, “Given the overwhelming amount of evidence, neither the errors in this case, nor the errors collectively, cause this court to question the validity of Mr. Simpson’s conviction.”
A judge in Las Vegas rejected O.J. Simpson’s bid for a new trial on Tuesday, dashing the former football star’s bid for freedom based on the claim that his original lawyer botched his armed robbery and kidnapping trial in Las Vegas more than five years ago.
“All grounds in the petition lack merit and, consequently, are denied,” Clark County District Judge Linda Marie Bell said.
Simpson lawyer Patricia Palm said she wanted to speak to Simpson before commenting on the decision. Ozzie Fumo, her co-counsel in the effort, said he expected they would appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.
VIDEO - KTNV Channel 13 Action News
OJ Simpson is currently serving 9 to 33 years on his 2008 conviction of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges in the 2007 Las Vegas incident where Simpson and others were arrested in bizarre Vegas memorabilia heist. Karma baby!
Look for O J and his defense team to appeal this decision in federal court next. As reported at the Las Vegas Sun, Simpson’s attorney Ozzie Fumo said, “This is just the first step and we are going to Nevada Supreme Court and Mr. Simpson will be vindicated when this is done. We’re not giving up this fight and it’s not over.” Note to O J defense team, its over!
Isn’t it amazing how some of these folks just cannot seem to go gentle into that good night and have to put themselves in the media light. Even serving time and being irrelevant, this narcissist still gets PR. Interestingly enough, Dana Pretzer on Scared Monkeys radio was discussing this phenomenon with Dr. Clint VanZandt of those like O J Simpson and George Zimmerman just cannot seem to go away.
Another alleged crime, another judge and another judge for George Zimmerman …
George Zimmerman posts bail in his domestic violance case and is told by judge that the conditions of his bail are as follows: that he cannot go to two Florida addresses; he cannot have contact with the accuser, Samantha Scheibe; he cannot possess weapons; he must wear a monitoring device; and he cannot travel outside Florida.
A Florida judge on Tuesday set bail for George Zimmerman at $9,000 and ordered a number of conditions for his freedom — including that he not possess weapons — while he awaits trial on charges he pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend.
He was released from the John E. Polk Correctional Facility on Tuesday afternoon. He didn’t speak with the media. It was unclear where he was headed.
Zimmerman was arrested Monday at his girlfriend’s Apopka home, four months after he was acquitted of murdering teenager Trayvon Martin.
Earlier, Zimmerman said little as a judge, during Zimmerman’s first appearance Tuesday afternoon in Seminole County court, said he found probable cause for Zimmerman’s arrest on a felony charge of aggravated assault and misdemeanor counts of domestic violence battery and criminal mischief. Zimmerman’s arraignment has been scheduled for January 7.
Even Liberal Democrat Howard Dean Asks, “I Wonder If Obama Has the ‘Legal Authority to Do This’ Regarding Obama’s Fix (VIDEO)
Folks, even Howard Dean can see this is tyranny …
Following Barack Obama’s speech where he proposed a “keep your plan” fix for Obamacare, former Vermont Governor, DNC Chair and Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean pondered while on MSNBC whether Emperor Obama had the legal authority to even propose such a “FIX” as the law had been passed by Congress. Hmm, many Conservatives are asking the same question regarding Obama’s actions. Wow, does that make Dean a racist?
“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this, since this was a congressional bill that set this up?”
So what is it with Barack Obama? Does he think because it is called Obamacare that he has the legal authority to change any part of the law he feels by executive fiat? Imagine if a Republican did that with abortion? When Republicans confront Obamacare, they are constantly told that it is the law of the land. Really? If it is, then how come Barack Obama thinks he can just change it himself? Maybe the real probalem with Obama is that he was too busy reading the Communist Manifesto as a youth instead of watching School House Rock and “I’m Just a Bill”.
George Zimmerman Attorneys Will Ask State of Florida to Cover $200K-$300K of His Legal Bills in Murder Trail in Death of Trayvon Martin
George Zimmerman to ask the state of Florida to reimburse him for certain legal fees …
Defense attorney Mark O’Mara stated that he is in the process of preparing a motion asking Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to authorize the payments for certain legal fees to pay for George Zimmerman’s legal defense. Florida state law allows for certain legal costs like experts witnesses, travel, depositions, etc to be reimbursed when acquitted of a crime. Florida Statute 939.06 states that a defendant who has been acquitted is not liable for any costs associated with his case and, if he or she paid anything, they would be due a refund, if approved by a judge or clerk. Attorney fees are not apart of the statute. Attorney O’Mara said that the motion will request between $200,000 to $300,000. George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer, was found not guilty by a jury in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
Look for the usual suspects to lose their mind when this motion is presented to the Court.
George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who killed Trayvon Martin, plans to ask the state of Florida to cover $200,000 to $300,000 of his legal expenses, his attorney told the Orlando Sentinel Monday evening.
Because Zimmerman was acquitted, state law requires Florida to pay all his legal costs, minus the biggest one: the fee that goes to his lawyers.
That includes the cost of expert witnesses, travel, depositions, photocopies, even that animated 3-D video that defense attorneys showed jurors during closing argument that depicts Trayvon punching Zimmerman.
Like it or not, according to Florida Statute 939.06 Zimmerman is entitled to be reimbursed. George Zimmerman was found “not guilty” by a jury of his peers. If the state of Florida does not like it and tries to block the motion, maybe next time they should provide more sound legal judgement and not be forced into the prosecution of an individual for political reasons. Maybe this will be a lesson to them to actually put on a case based upon fact, rather than emotion. Or maybe next time they will actually present a case.
The Sentinel reported that Zimmerman’s request would be based on a Florida law that says a defendant who’s acquitted isn’t liable for costs associated with his or her case. It must be approved by a judge or a clerk.
O’Mara told the newspaper he expects the Judicial Administrative Commission to throw up roadblocks.
“That’s where the fight is,” said O’Mara, who told the paper he’s been paid nothing by Zimmerman but has kept billing records.
Ted Nugent Says, ‘Trayvon Got Justice,’ as Anti-American Libs Try to Stop Free Speech … Calls Petitioners “Idiots” and “Subhuman Numbnuts” & Calls Out Barack Obama and Eric Holder
Whether you love him or hate him, Ted Nugent, the Motor City Madman rocker is allowed his “free speech” as afforded by the United States Constitution.
During an interview with Maine radio station WGAN, Nugent defended his recent comments regarding Trayvon Martin, blacks and crime and those that think that he should not play rock and roll in Connecticut were “idiots”. Those that have an issue with the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution have started a petition to prevent Nugent from performing at Toad’s Place in New Haven, CT. Really folks, this is how you direct your energies? Nugent called a group of petitioners who want his August gig at the nightclub Toad’s Place in New Haven canceled “subhuman numbnuts.” I guess it is safe to say that none of the “numbnuts” will be attending his concert. These same “idiots” are the ones who are claiming that “Justice for Trayvon” and wanting to get Attorney General Eric Holder and the DOJ to file a Civil Rights case against George Zimmerman. Oh the irony, as at the same time the collective “idiots” are trying to take away Ted Nugent’s freedom of speech. What a shock that there is a liberal double standard.
Ted Nugent stated that “Trayvon Martin got justice”. Personally, I think this is a poor choice of words because of how individuals define justice. What Trayvon Martin got was his day in court. Initially that is what Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Martin’s parents and the liberal MSM wanted when they made this story a race issue and forced Florida to try the death of Trayvon after prosecutors in Sanford. FL had decided not to. But that is not what they really wanted, they wanted their pound of flesh from George Zimmerman. They were only after a guilty verdict no matter what the evidence showed. They could not accept a jury’s “not guilty” verdict in the case and now are seeking other avenues of going after Zimmerman. As if this case has not been exploited enough.
Ted Nugent expresses his views as only the ‘Motor City Madman’ can …
When asked about the “idiots” in Connecticut who think he “shouldn’t play rock and roll,” Nugent told the conservative host: “You and I stand on the line of reason” and must not be silenced.
“People who hate Ted Nugent hate freedom,” he said, and promised to continue to speak what he sees as the truth.
Nugent also had some choice things to say about liberals, racial activists and Trayvon Martin during the interview.
Defending his previous comments about blacks and crime, Nugent insisted the statistics bear him out.
Of the Trayvon Martin case, Nugent said, “Trayvon got justice.” He went on to say that Martin was a “gangsta wannabe” who had a “bloodthirst,” as evidenced by the fact that he was supposedly eager to “get into fights with people.” He said Martin showed racism in calling George Zimmerman a “cracka.”
Ted Nugent went on to say …
Nugent said Zimmerman got only a “sliver of justice.” Although Zimmerman was found not guilty, powerful people from President Barack Obama to Attorney General Eric Holder have targeted him, as have “Holder’s best friends,” the New Black Panthers. Nugent implied the president and Holder are trying to subvert the legitimate verdict in the case.
“It pains me deeply” to have to acknowledge that the president and some others in the administration are “just bad people,” Nugent said. He said he had hoped to be able to speak better of the country’s top officials.
Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz Says George Zimmerman Special Prosecutor Angela Corey Should Be Disbarred & Her Conduct Bordered on Criminal Conduct.
In an interview with Mike Huckabee, law school professor Alan Dershowitz said that the George Zimmerman special prosecutor Angela Corey should be disbarred were her actions. Dershowitz then went on to say that her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. Alan Dershowitz also said that the DOJ does not really investigate an individual for civil right violations unless they work for the state or the federal government. Zimmerman really cannot violate another’s civil rights on his own. Dershowitz said that the DOJ should be going after special prosecutor Angela Corey. She filed a false affidavit in front of the judge in order to get a second degree murder charge. She mislead the judge into getting an over-charge of second degree murder and failed to tell the judge that there were photos that Zimmerman’s that demonstrated that Zimmerman’s nose was broken and wounds on the back of his head. These are true violation of one’s civil rights. In the end Dershowitz said that this was a classic case of self-defense.
Real Clear Politics: (Huckabee, July 14, 2013)
MIKE HUCKABEE: You have said that you thought the prosecutor ought to be disbarred, that’s a pretty serious type of violation to get a person disbarred. It is that serious to you?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Right, it is. She submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She’s known for overcharging, she’s known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn’t going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I’ve seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I’ve seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Cory.