Total Pageviews

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Ana's philosophy





13 comments:

  1. Problem is, Alabama State Law says sheriff's are personably responsible for the feeding of inmates. If the food money runs short, the sheriff is bound by the constitution to pay out of pocket to feed inmates. According to State law it is the Sheriff's personal money and personal responsibility. As long as inmates are fed, the State has no say in what happens to the excess.
    Greg Bartlett agreed to not keep any more of the money, up to that point it was accepted that the excess was his personal money. In fact, the court allowed him to keep over $200k of food money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is important to note that the same court order which prohibited the Sheriff from using the food money for anything other than food, also provided that any shortage would not be the responsibility of the sheriff. The County Commission would be responsible. It would behoove the Commission to remember that the consent order applies to the Commission as well since it was a part of the inmate's lawsuit. The Commission has sat back as if it only applies to the sheriff!

      Delete
  2. Google this article...it will put an end to all questions...
    County rejects sheriff’s legal bill By Sheryl Marsh Mar 22, 2011
    She went to meet with her attorneys prior to taking office and Bill Shin specifically told her the consent decree did apply to her. Good article...then they tried to billl the County Commision for it and they denied the bill as she was not even the Sheriff yet...sorry she asked...they said no and she still took it. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon’s 2009 order states:

    “The sheriff of Morgan County shall immediately establish and implement a procedure whereby all funds provided by any source for the feeding of inmates, including funds from the state of Alabama, any municipality, and the federal government will be used exclusively for the feeding of said inmates incarcerated in the Morgan County Detention Facility.”
    Shinn said he gave an informal opinion to Franklin’s attorney and his law partner, Barney Lovelace, that the court order applied to Franklin.

    A note Shinn attached to case law he gave Lovelace to back his opinion read: “Barney, the attached FR CiVP 25 (d) (1) answers your question to Sheriff Franklin’s liability in the (Sheriff Greg) Bartlett jail case.”

    Franklin was sheriff-elect when Shinn gave the opinion in November. She defeated Bartlett in a Republican primary runoff in July and a Democratic contender in the general election.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mary Pons, attorney for the Association of County Commissions of Alabama, said she doesn’t know of any law that clearly addresses the opinion Franklin sought.

    “I can’t think of anything I’ve ever seen for or against that,” Pons said. “If it were me, I would have gone through the County Commission and asked them to get the opinion for me.”

    ReplyDelete
  5. GOODBYE ANA County rejects sheriff’s legal bill By Sheryl Marsh Mar 22, 2011

    ReplyDelete
  6. The antiquated law is meant to compensate sheriffs for out of pocket expenses when feeding prisoners. My opinion but I don't believe it was intended for a sheriff to take left over money for any other reason. If there is left over money and a sheriff wasn't out of pocket for expenses, I don't believe the law was intended to take it just because the money is there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The money is a direct payment to the Sheriff, not to the sheriff's office or the jail. I agree the law doesn't make much sense, but it's the law we have. Judge Clemons didn't find it to be unconstitutional, and allowed Bartlett to keep over $200k.

      Delete
    2. Bartlett was allowed to keep the money because it was taken before the Federal Court made their ruling, not after.

      Delete
  7. Judge Clemon allowed a plea deal from Greg Bartlett in the form of an amendment to a previous consent decree. Not an actual ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Spin more lies Ana...you were told before you took office by Barneys father in law you were not to touch the funds but yet you and Barney felt you could. Do the right thing and resign. Maybe the both of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point out one lie in the above comments. You can't, and you know it.

      Delete
  9. It is a very poor and antiquated way to do business. Legislative action needs to be taken to close this. Money for food needs to be used for just that. Not as a means to pad someones pockets.
    Let me see...$160k was removed, invested in a poor venture that went belly up. Then the $160k was returned. Does being Sheriff really pay that well? As they say...follow the money. Didn't have it to invest, but has it to repay. Doesn't add u.

    ReplyDelete