Total Pageviews

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Another Response by Sheriff Ana Franklin

Blogger Comments:  Barney is putting up a hell of a fight for holding Sheriff Ana Franklin to the 2009 Amended Consent Decree.  He explains over and over why Franklin should not be held in contempt.  Wonder why?  All of this would have been over had Sheriff Franklin been willing to release the "real bank records".  Franklin's refusal to release the official bank records is a
Barney goes on to say [A] civil contempt order may be upheld only if the proof of the defendant's contempt is clear and convincing.  This clear and convincing proof must ... demonstrate that 1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; 2) the order was clear, definite and unambiguous; and 3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with they order.

1) proof of contempt
2) the order is clear, definite and unambiguous
3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order

We see this as a Yes, Yes, Yes answer.  
1) Franklin took the money knowingly after receiving a legal opinion BEFORE SHE TOOK OFFICE. 
2) the order was clear, definite, and unambiguous. Again, apparently the order was clear enough for Retired Attorney Bill Shinn to interpret, definite, and unambiguous. 
3) the violator had the ability to comply with the order. Franklin became greedy.  The 45% return on the taxpayers dollars was too tempting.  In other words the devil made her do it.

On page 24 Barney goes on to say "there has been no competent evidence presented that, from June 2015, when a portion of the funds in the Food Account was removed, until all of the removed funds were placed back in the Food Account prior to filing of the Motion to Show Cause, that the withdrawal of funds from the Food Account by Sheriff Franklin caused the inmates to not be fed a "nutritionally adequate diet".  In other words, there is no correlation between the withdrawal of funds by Sheriff Franklin and any violation of the inmates' constitutional right to be fed a "nutritionally adequate diet".  Barney, isn't this issue being addressed in additional Federal Lawsuits against the sheriff?

Last but not least, the public wants to know why Franklin has been unwilling to release the real bank records.  Isn't it true that Sheriff Franklin does not want the real bank records released because she spent a lot more out of the food funds that she wants the public to know?





























5 comments:

  1. People in Morgan County need to realize that all these legal opinions and blah blah by Ana and her attorneys are costing us as taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to fight a corrupt Sheriff...so not right...give it up...throw in the towel. Do what is right for a change. Why try to fight a leader who has ruined Morgan Count

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stand Up to corruption...if Kallon rules in her favor we need every law abiding citizen on the front porch of the Federal Courthouse in Decatur on April 14 to demand justice. She cannot lie her way out of this mess. She cannot abuse taxpayers money. Just because she and her cronies have power with badges...we as a community can demand what is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great idea!!! What should I put on my sign? Are pitchforks allowed?

      Delete
    2. You meant to say... If Judge Kallon rules in favor of Alabama State Law, instead of a Greg Bartlett plea deal from years ago.

      Delete
    3. 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.” End of story.

      Delete