[Vision2020] Reponse to Jackie and Wayne

J Ford privatejf32 at hotmail.com
Sun Sep 17 19:49:04 PDT 2006 

That is NOT defending their actions, DJA...it is ARGUING the prisoner's new 
point of view and new request(s).

HUGE difference.


J  :]





>From: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>To: J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Reponse to Jackie and Wayne
>Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>J,
>
>  It is legally possible to defend child molesters AFTER a  conviction. 
>They go to trial and visit a judge later after their  conviction, for early 
>release and the ability to get in a car  unsupervised, and go to work, 
>church, a doctor, etc, their lawyers are  the ones that get them those 
>rights. I don't think they should be able  to travel or be released 
>unsupervised. You are free to disagree.
>
>   Second, Sunil and others do defend convicted child molesters. They admit 
>so much.
>
>   Wayne,
>
>   Perhaps you can outline for V2020 what rights you think convicted child  
>molesters should have? Perhaps you can explain why an unsupervised  release 
>of a convicted child molester takes precedence over that of the  safety of 
>the general public? And why these rights of self admitted and  convicted 
>child molesters get support and public dollars while millions  of other 
>poor, elderly, and disabled plights for justice go unheard?
>
>   Best,
>
>   _DJA
>
>J Ford <privatejf32 at hotmail.com> wrote:  DJA:
>
>You can not "defend" a convicted anyone.  You may defend ACCUSED criminals,
>but you can not defend someone that is already convicted.  "Defending a
>convicted person during sentencing" is NOT defending them so much as
>presenting reasons for a convicted person's actions, reasons to be lenient
>and people who speak up about the defendant's character.  The attorney does
>NOT defend at sentencing.
>
>Secondly - couch it anyway you want, you HAVE said Sunil (and others) are
>defenders of terrorists and child molesters.  Considering your penchant for
>standing up for the kirkers and Dougie, this is rather like the pot calling
>the kettle black.  Well, ok - the pot calling the stainless steel kettle
>black, considering Sunil is NOT the one hiding molesters in his midst or
>writing them letters to reduce their sentence because "he just did not
>understand what he was doing was wrong or would be seen as wrong by
>society."
>
>And slander is a legal term used to say "You said something you KNOW was
>wrong for the purpose of committing damage to a person's reputation".
>Sounds like what you do on a daily basis, certainly in view of your opinion
>of Sunil.
>
>Have you ever met him, BTW?  Have you had dealings with him that did not
>turn out the way you wanted?  I mean, just what is your problem with him?
>Or is it any lawyer that you do not like?
>
>J  :]
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Donovan Arnold
> >To: Sunil Ramalingam , vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sunil and His Defense of Terrorists
> >andConvictedChild Molesters
> >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >J,
> >
> >  I never stated that Sunil supports terrorism and  child molestation, 
>that
> >is preposterous, re-read what I wrote. I said  he defends those that do.
> >
> >   Keely,
> >
> >   The definition of slander is the  saying of something that is false 
>and
> >damaging. If it is true, it isn't  slander. Sunil himself admits to
> >defending convicted child molesters:
> >
> >
> >"It is true that I defend convicted child molesters at sentencing
> >
> >hearings that occur after a client has been convicted by a jury"
> >
> >        Sunil Ramalingam--
> >http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2006-September/035436.html
> >
> >
> >   Sunil,
> >
> >  I am not going to try and argue with you. For you are  the master of
> >convincing the jury that the Sun really rises in the West  depending on
> >ones point of view.
> >
> >  I am sure that you can  argue that I got the context wrong in some of
> >your posts, but after 20+  such posts over 2.5 years it is hard to write
> >all them off.
> >
> >FYI,  I did support Sami Omar. He was living in UI Family Housing at the
> >time  he was abducted. I represented Family Housing in the UI student
> >government at the time. I defended Sami in student council and even
> >brought his family there, which was even aired on public  television.  I
> >kept in contact with John Dickinson about what was  going at the trial in
> >Boise. That case is different, because it was a  domestic case and there
> >was no evidence whatsoever that Sami was a  terrorist, in fact it all
> >pointed in the opposite direction. Further,  Sami was not saying he was
> >planning on killing Americans when he gets  out like those detained
> >overseas. And, at least one member of Sami's  family was born right here 
>in
> >Moscow.
> >
> >  I don't think the  government can detain someone forever without at 
>least
> >trying to find  out if someone is guilty. But letting them go if they say
> >"Death to  America" is just to risky when they are capable of acting on 
>it.
> >
> >   My disagreement with you Sunil, is that you clearly are brilliant, yet
> >rather than using your talents to defend victims in our society, you  use
> >your wit and experience to defend convicted child molesters.
> >
> >   I am not arguing you are not doing your job, or you are not good at 
>it.
> >I am arguing that your job should be something more productive and
> >meaningful then the release of child molesters and the scum of the  earth
> >when you know they are guilty.
> >
> >  I am sure you with  your big brain will justify that in your own mind.
> >But I think anyone  with a heart will ask WHY the child molesters get a
> >good lawyer and  trial when there are so many other more deserving and
> >wronged people  with their rights being stepped on. They should be a 
>higher
> >priority to  you and any lawyer concerned about justice.
> >
> >   Best,
> >
> >   _DJA
> >
> >Sunil Ramalingam  wrote:  Tom,
> >
> >It is true that I defend convicted child molesters at sentencing hearings
> >that occur after a client has been convicted by a jury (or a judge in
> >juvenile cases) at the sentencing hearing and in subsequent legal
> >proceedings, or at a post-conviction hearing filed by a client who is
> >usually in prison.  If a convicted child molester is charged with a new
> >crime, then I may defend that person.  As a public defender I don't judge
> >my
> >clients; there is no shortage of people ready to do this (regardless of 
>how
> >much or how little information they have about the crime or the criminal)
> >and it's not my place or job to do so.  I try to represent them to the 
>best
> >of my ability, and I don't apologize for this.
> >
> >I have never represented a convicted terrorist as a lawyer, though I 
>would
> >were I to be appointed to do so or if I were retained to do so.  I did
> >represent a witness in Sami al Hussein's case, and am happy I was able to
> >offer him assistance.  Perhaps Donovan would like to insult me for doing
> >so.
> >
> >As one who believes our judicial system has underlying principles, I
> >believe
> >that all people who are held have the right to due process and a fair and
> >proper hearing.  I do not believe that we have the right to imprison
> >people,
> >no matter what we label them, forever, or to try them in kangaroo courts.
> >This is a defense of legal principle and human rights.  I consider it a
> >defense of our country, and the notion that we have enduring principles
> >These are beliefs that Donovan neither shares nor supports.  He is a fan 
>of
> >expedience.
> >
> >Though Donovan does not support the Iraq war, he appears to find the Bush
> >Administration infallible once they arrest or confine a Muslim.  At that
> >point he believes it is appropriate to hold that person indefinately.  I
> >find this position shameful and disgusting, and Donovan finds me 
>repugnant
> >because of this, I am willing to live with the loss of his approval.
> >
> >It is interesting to note the subject line of Donovan's most recent post.
> >He has claimed he only attacks those who attack him.  Most recently he
> >incorrectly made fun of Keely's spelling; I asked him if he wanted the 
>same
> >done to him.  Since we all post all too quickly, we all make spelling
> >errors, and few of us would really want to have our own posts criticized
> >for
> >our typos.  This is the point I was making.
> >
> >Donovan, in the thoughtful and Christian response we have all learned so
> >well, responds by attacking my character in a way that has the smallest
> >germ
> >of truth but is intended to be a slur.  I have written him offline and
> >pointed out that hatred of Middle Easterners has often resulted in racial
> >slurs and threats being directed towards me; I have told him that I
> >consider
> >his calling me a defender of terrorists could actually be harmful to me.
> >You see the effect (or is it 'affect' Donovan?) my request has had on 
>him.
> >
> >Of course, this is the man, or aging adolescent, who has suggested it 
>would
> >benefit the gene pool if children were to die playing in construction 
>sites
> >that should be off-limits if their parents fail to provide proper
> >supervision, so I would be foolish to expect better of him.
> >
> >Sunil
> >
> >
> > >From: "Tom Hansen"
> > >To: "'Donovan Arnold'" ,        "'Sunil
> > >Ramalingam'" ,
> > >Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Sunil and His Defense of Terrorists and
> > >ConvictedChild Molesters
> > >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:05:37 -0700
> > >
> > >Arnold -
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Your statement, here on a public listserve, that Sunil Ramalingam 
>defends
> > >convicted child molesters and convicted terrorists, reflects upon your
> >lack
> > >of maturity and sense of decency, and in virtually all litigious 
>circles
> > >maybe considered libelous.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Name ONE convicted child molester which Sunil has defended!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Name ONE convicted terrorist which Sunil has defended!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Failing either of these requests, you owe Sunil a VERY meaningful and
> >VERY
> > >public apology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Tom Hansen
> > >
> > >Vandalville, Idaho
> > >
> >
> >
> >=======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >=======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Why keep checking for Mail? The all-new Yahoo! Mail shows you when there
> >are new messages.
>
>
> >=======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >=======================================================
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial!
>http://www.windowsonecare.com/trial.aspx?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>  All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done 
>faster.


>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Check the weather nationwide with MSN Search: Try it now!  
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=weather&FORM=WLMTAG

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list