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 the 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 taxpayer's 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?