Total Pageviews

Monday, February 19, 2018

Excerpts from an AL.com article, Feb 18, 2018

Blogger Comments:  It is hard to believe that a sheriff, any sheriff, would take inmate food funds be held in Contempt of Court and still make the comments "I won".  Is the position of sheriff so powerful that some sheriffs think that they are above the law and they cannot be touched.  The sheriff of Morgan County has been taking money from the sheriff's office since 2013.  Franklin wrote counter checks on the inmate food funds during one trip to the bank for $160,000.00 dollars.  While other sheriffs have not removed that much money over a 3 - 5-year timeframe.  We can't help but wonder how much has really been taken.  That was a lot of money to take in one sitting.  Franklin also claims that she lost $40,000.00 dollars last year.  Really Ana?  Are you telling us that your sheriff's office check was cut and all you brought home after paying the $40,000.00 out of pocket was approximately $24,000.00?

Alabama sheriffs pocket tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars allocated to feed inmates

14 comments:

  1. Would it be ok for a sheriff to buy CDs or bonds with the food money, to shore up the account in case it runs short?
    Sounds reasonable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IF she had to pay $ 40,000 to cover food bill costs, and I do say IF, it was money she had already stolen from the account for personal use. She has never had to put a dime of her own money towards the food bill. Ana stop the lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fake news, for sure. The Federal Judge held her in civil contempt for not asking for clarification of the consent decree. The Judge didn't hold her criminally liable, because it was, and is, the Sheriff's money, in accordance with Alabama Law. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that she stole money, it will not become truth.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I get your point as a reader, however, the way it's set up now, being the "sheriffs money" as you say...breeds corruption. We end up with a sheriff that sees $$ and is to busy covering her rear end and blaming others instead of actually doing her job. Ana did not come in this position for the people. She came in it for greed and power.

      So, do you honestly think when this law went into affect it was meant for our sheriff to use those funds for personal trips, personal expenses, expensive vehicles, trailers, dirty car lot dealings, her glorifed posse equipment/"wardrobe" for every horse and member, etc? Any reasonable, logical, honest, moral sheriff with ethics would utilize those funds toward equipment, ongoing training, pay increases, etc...just to name a few things.

      What we ended up with is a sheriff who not only takes from inmate food funds, but most likely takes from multiple MCSO accounts. Lies to anyone and everyone (see her multiple stories regarding inmate food money.) Abuses her power to threaten and destroy anyone who calls her out. Throws sketchy numbers out only to contradict it later and none of them add up. Blames the commission when she can't read a budget or request for needed funds in a timely manner. Fails to apply for needed grants. Last but not least, blames the whistleblowers because she is not running for re-election.

      No matter how many times you repeat the lie that she did not steal money, does not also make it true. You should not base your opinion on one court case. This has not ended. Just because she was not held criminally liable at the time, does not mean she "won." It does not make her honest, moral, or ethical either.

      Delete
  3. I just don’t get it. Ana Franklin was found in contempt of court. Contempt and yet we still have supporters crying for her. This county needs help.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Inquiring Minds Want To Know...February 20, 2018 at 2:42 PM

    Anonymous said...
    "No matter how many times you repeat the lie that she stole money, it will not become truth."

    Then why did she later feel compelled to pay it back? If it wasn't stolen, then why did she repay it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. So your saying she stole her own money (federal judge said it was hers), invested it with a business backed by the millionaire Harold Jeffreys, business bankrupts, then she was paid back the money that the federal judge said was hers...and you continue to say it was stolen?
    I've asked before, but what if a sheriff invested food money into bonds or CDs to grow the account? Wouldn't you agree that would be reasonable?
    What's the difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Federal judge did not say it was hers. "The judge did, however, tell Franklin she has to obey a former judge's ruling in a 2009 consent decree that states the Morgan County sheriff must spend all food money on feeding inmates." Hence, why she was found in contempt of the decree. It was not her money!

      Delete
    2. Civil contempt, paid a small fine for not asking the judge first. She wasn't required, by the court, to "pay back" the money, because the Judge deferred to the Alabama State Law that allows sheriffs to keep all excess food money.
      Just like ole Greg Corndog Bartlett didn't have to "pay back" the $200k+ that he kept.

      Delete
    3. She returned the money because at the time she took it, it was under the consent degree that required her to spend ALL inmate food funds on inmate food. I guarantee you the Judge would have handled it differently if she hadn't shown good faith by having returned the money. Greg Bartlett went to jail. Ana probably would have too if she had not returned it. These are excerpts from a WHNT article: "Franklin admitted taking $160,000 from the prisoner meals budget in June 2015 and investing $150,000 in the car dealership. She returned the bulk of the money in December 2016 and the remainder in February."

      You are incorrect about the judge "deferring to the Alabama State Law that allows sheriffs to keep all excess food money." He found her in contempt because she ignored the decree and blatantly defied the court. She had an opportunity to make changes to the decree prior to taking the money, but chose not too. At a later date, he agreed she could feed the inmates adequate nutrional meals without spending all the money and later revised the decree. Which, brings up the question, how did she have a defecit if she could feed those inmates without spending all the inmate money?

      Delete
    4. Greg Bartlett spent one night in jail because he wasn't adequately feeding inmates, it had exactly zero to do with him keeping the money. He didn't have to pay it back because it was his, according to the State law. He, and his attorney, proposed an amendment to the consent decree that he wouldn't keep any more food money as a way to purge himself of the criminal charge. He walked away a free man with over $200k in his pocket.
      Sheriffs in this state are allowed to use the excess any way they choose, since it is their personal money. Sheriff Franklin chose to invest it with a local business in hopes that it would help grow the account. As it turns out, Mr Jeffreys' car lot was a poor investment.
      A federal consent decree must be agreed to by all parties, that's the "consent" part, it isn't a law, so it can't override a State Law that is already in place without consent.

      Delete
  6. In fact, sheriffs all across this state use the excess money for anything they wish. It's a terrible law, but it's still the law.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Understand the 2009 consent decree in regards to the inmate food funds overrode the Alabama State Law. Judge Kallon by law referred to the Federal consent decree not the Alabama State Law. The consent decree was issued I imagine because the state law allowed the inmate food money to be abused. Ana had a opportunity to amend the decree and if I am not mistaken had a certain amount of time after entering office to do so before taking the money. However, that time frame passed. Perhaps she did not request the change because during her campaign she stated she would not use inmate food money. At the time, the campaign promise was significant because of the Greg Bartlett fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Y'all can keep twisting in the wind, and rehashing old news, but the fact remains that the Federal Judge terminated that part of the decree and didn't hold her criminally liable for stealing her own money. The money she invested with Mr Jeffreys' car lot was returned to her, without interest, and she deposited it in the bank. In fact, just like 55 other sheriffs in Alabama, it's still her money.

    ReplyDelete