Fedral Appeal out the door at the moment?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[AnimeJSK]

Farm, Your completely inability to acknowledge when you're wrong should illustrate for everyone who you are and why you have failed to evolve along with so many former non's, including the families of the victims (with the exception of the Moores).  I know this is something of a dry, technical issue, but I urge everyone to follow what is going on here before you give any credence to Farm or believe what he says.  This is beyond a simple "who is right" and "who is wrong" issue.  On a couple of of occasions in the past, I've been wrong and admitted it.  Farm is what might be called "constitutionally incapable of being honest with himself."


To simplify this for any non-legals out there -

1.  Damien filed a motion under the new DNA statute seeking testing of evidence.
     http://www.wm3.org/live/trialshearings/chrono_detail.php?chrono_Id=20&guy=1&year=2002#

2.  Damien also asked the Supreme Court to let the trial court hear various constitutional claims ("called reinvesting the trial court with jurisdiction" / the "corim nobis" issue).
     (Link below)

3.  These are two separate issues - (1) the hearing on the DNA testing  and  (2) the coram nobis issue.

4.  The Supreme Court denied Damien's request on #2.  No one disputes this.

5.  The hearing on #1 is still pending.  It doesn't matter to Farm that links were provided to the original motion, to subsequent orders from the trial court, to an Arkansas Supreme Court opinion that confirms that this is "still pending in the circuit court", or even that Brent Davis confirms this in his July 2007 response to the DNA status report:  "The State agrees that Damien Echols has pending in circuit court a petition for relief . . . "  (Page 1).  " . . .  will defend its judgments successfully at any hearing in circuit court." (Page 2).   http://www.wm3.org/live/trialshearings/chrono_detail.php?chrono_Id=163&guy=1&year=2007# 

In spite of this, Farm still says, in usual charming manner, that there is nothing pending before Burnett. I guarantee you that he has figured it out (that there were two issues, the coram nobis and the DNA testing motion).  His IQ doesn't explain his inability to admit this --   

This is mental illness - Even when shown it in black & white in his own boys' writing, he cannot accept it.  I hope everyone who is relying on him and his continued certainty that the WM3 are guilty will take a few minutes and really read the above.  If Farm can't admit he's wrong when its this plain, should anyone be listening to his opinion on whether justice has been done for Steve, Michael and Christopher and whether three innocent guys are in prison?  Pam and Mark thought independently, listened to everything.  What they have (and what the above shows that Farm lacks) is that ability to accept the very difficult realization that the WM3 are innocent.



And, for the record.  The "DNA motion" will be heard in the trial court, along with the constitutional claims raised by Jason and Jessie (which are the same claims raised by Damien).  Even though the trial court does not have jurisdiction over Damien's constitutional claims (as Farm points out, the AR SCT denied Damien's request to have the trial court consider them), Jason and Jessie have  Rule 37 petitions pending unheard in the trial court that raise the same constitutional issues Damien is raising.  These matters (i.e., DE's DNA motion and Jason / Jessie's Rule 37 motions) are scheduled to be heard together.  So, while the trial court may (during the hearing) be considering the constitutional issues "only as to Misskelley and Baldwin", are you really so dense as to not see that any favorable ruling on these claims would carry over to Damien?

[Farm]

1.  Damien filed a motion under the new DNA statute seeking testing of evidence.

That's right Dipshit,... And it was granted.

That means it is no longer pending.

What part of this can you two idiots not understand?

2.  Damien also asked the Supreme Court to let the trial court hear various constitutional claims ("called reinvesting the trial court with jurisdiction" / the "corim nobis" issue).

And that motion was denied.

Are you starting to see how it works yet?

3.  These are two separate issues - (1) the hearing on the DNA testing  and  (2) the coram nobis issue.

Hey stupid.

There is no motion for any hearing on DNA testing.

The motion was FOR DNA testing, and it was granted.

That was the only pending motion in the trial court, and it isn't pending anymore as Burnett ruled on it.

I find it hilarious that you followed Dave down his idiot path, and made just as big an ass of yourself.

You're pretty fucking stupid, aren't you?

It has to be humiliating trying to support your pal when he's such a collossal idiot that even his fellow supporters laugh at him.

I wonder if he will now pretend he never claimed there was a motion pending in the trial court, and attribute that ignorance to you?

[Rudder]

you have failed to evolve along with so many former non's, including the families of the victims (with the exception of the Moores).

[sheer]

 


sheer

[Fishmonger Dave]

What Farm is saying is that there are two steps to having a conviction vacated as a result of new forensic evidence:

1.  A motion is filed to permit the testing -
2.  Then, a second step is required - that a new motion be filed for a hearing after the testing is complete.

On the one hand, the defense motion was filed "for forensic DNA testing."

On the other hand, Farm is the product of several generations of inbreeding and is therefore reading the law far too narrowly. 

When the defense initially filed for federal intervention, the state asked the federal court to dismiss because the defense had "not exhausted state remedies."  In its supporting brief, the state says:

Echols also filed a state habeas corpus petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-201 et seq. on July 25, 2002, in the Craighead County Circuit Court.. . . .  Specifically, Echols invoked the "New Scientific Evidence" provision of the state habeas statutes. That statute reads, in part:

(a) Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may commence a proceeding to secure relief by filing a petition in the court in which the conviction was entered to vacate and set aside the judgment and to discharge the petitioner or to resentence the petitioner or grant a new trial or correct the sentence or make other disposition as may be appropriate, if the person claims . . .


The statute does not require a separate motion after the testing is completed. 

Farm is wrong for several reasons -

1.  The state trial court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the federal court all make reference to "a disposition" of the DNA claim.  Hey Farm, show me the disposition.  Maybe its behind your liquor cabinet.

2.  Farm's theory would require the Arkansas Supreme Court to act as a fact finder - to make a disposition on the findings after forensic testing is completed.  Only a fucking pinhead doesn't know that the Supreme Court is a court of review - it doesn't find facts, that's what trial courts (a judge or jury, depending on the circumstances) do.

3.  If a new motion were required, DNA testing would result in cases remaining in an endless holding pattern - the trial court grants a motion for testing, which stays everything else and........ nothing else happens without a new motion being filed? 

[Rudder]

What Farm is saying is that there are two steps to having a conviction vacated

First of all FishmongerEsq., how the hell are you qualified to put words in anyone's mouth? I've read the links posted by you and Anime, and at the risk of sounding like a Farm Groupie, you don't know squat. Seriously, you come off as "special".

[Fishmonger Dave]

Listen up you crack whores.  If I want any more lip from you, I'll drop my zipper.  Your opinions of me mean less than nothing. Didn't you read your Master's instruction to keep comments in the correct topic?  This discussion is so far over your head its ridiculous; watching you trying to follow it is like watching a goldfish trying to understand the theory of relativity.

[Rudder]

Listen up you crack whores.  If I want any more lip from you, I'll drop my zipper.  Your opinions of me mean less than nothing. Didn't you read your Master's instruction to keep comments in the correct topic?  This discussion is so far over your head its ridiculous; watching you trying to follow it is like watching a goldfish trying to understand the theory of relativity.

Now I'm confused.

[sheer]

Now I'm confused

Not as much as dave/anime:

[Farm]

What Farm is saying is that there are two steps to having a conviction vacated as a result of new forensic evidence:

1.  A motion is filed to permit the testing -
2.  Then, a second step is required - that a new motion be filed for a hearing after the testing is complete.

That's exactly right, you stupid motherfucker.

And there has been no second motion.

So when you claimed there was a motion pending, you were full of shit.

Why not stop being such a pathetic loser and just admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's not like everyone here doesn't already know it.

Unless you just enjoy having your ass handed to you?

[Fishmonger Dave]

1.  The state trial court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the federal court all make reference to "a disposition" of the DNA claim.  Hey Farm, show me the disposition.  Maybe its behind your liquor cabinet.

Or, put another way,
Hey Farm, show me the disposition.

Or, put another way,
Hey Farm, show me the disposition.                           Hey Farm, show me the disposition.

Or, put another way,

Hey Farm, show me the disposition.

Oh, what's that you say??  There hasn't been one?  Oh - thanks.

Your guesses don't even pass the laugh test.  If a separate motion were required, there never would have been an exhaustion issue and the first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus wouldn't have resulted in the "stay and abey" order.  Doh!  If the only purpose of the DNA motion were to develop evidence for a potential future motion (as you claim), it would hardly constitute a "pending state action", would it, shithead? 

So when you claimed there was a motion pending, you were full of shit.

You mean when I claimed it, when Riordan claimed it, when the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas claimed it - and when Federal District Judge William Wilson ruled it, we were all full of shit.  Can't have it both ways, you mentally challenged rent-a-cop - either we're all wrong or......... (you guessed it) YOU ARE.
Tell you what - you stop embarrassing yourself trying to play lawyer and I won't spend my nights guarding any buildings - deal?

Oh, and by the way,
Hey Farm, show me the disposition.

[Farm]

Disposition of what, you stupid motherfucker?

The state trial court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the federal court all make reference to "a disposition" of the DNA claim.

There has been no DNA claim filed in the trial court.

What part of this can you not understand?

Here's the July 25. 2002 motion you spoke of, Dave.

See if you can find the words Habeas Corpus anywhere in it.

http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

It's just a motion for DNA testing, you blathering idiot.

It was disposed on June 2,2004 when Burnett ordered the testing.

We're waiting on the motion Dave.

You were supposed to show us a motion pending before the trial court.

You really should either find one, or simply admit you had no idea what you were talking about.

Oh, and I'm glad I could clear up who has state jurisdiction for you.

You're welcome, BTW.

It must be humiliating for you, being gutted over and over again by a .... "Layman".

[Fishmonger Dave]

I know it's getting late and you are therefore 3/4 of the way to sloppy drunk by now, so I'll only ask once more tonight:

You are laboring under the misimpression that there are two steps in the statue - (1) get permission for getting the testing done, and then (2) file a new motion to have those tests used by a defendant.  Your saying this is what we in the law give the technical phrase: "farting out of your mouth."  The statute's relevant portions are below - you can go grab the whole thing.  You're full of shit in saying its divided into these two parts - it is a seamless process.  The motion for DNA testing is brought, if the legal requisites (identity, chain of custody of evidence, etc) are present, then the testing occurs.  The trial court then holds a hearing to determine the significance (or lack thereof) of the new, previously unavailable forensics.  You're pulling new steps out of the air, which you can't back up with anything except your ugly mug saying it.
 
The state trial court, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the federal court all make reference to "a disposition" of the DNA claim that will serve to mark the end of state court proceedings. None of them speak of "further motion being filed" over the DNA/new forensics issue.   Hey Farm, show me the disposition. 
Hey Farm, show me the disposition.

Here's the July 25. 2002 motion, Dave.
See if you can find the words Habeas Corpus anywhere in it.
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/motions/de_dna_testing.html

To my utter amazement, you're actually raising a legitimate issue.  Who'd you call?  You quite obviously didn't come up with this on your own. 
You are, at best, half right -- the defense never called it a (state level) habeas corpus action when they filed it.  The State did..  Quoting from the State's motion to dismiss (for nonexhaustion) Damien's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in Federal Court, the State writes:

Echols also filed a state habeas corpus petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-201 et seq. on July 25, 2002, in the Craighead County Circuit Court.

  See  http://www.wm3.org/live/trialshearings/chrono_detail.php?guy=1&chrono_Id=147&page=3 , bottom of page 9.

In its response, the defense then adopted the phrase and also called it a state habeas corpus action. Were they duped?  Should they have fought the use of the phrase and maintained, as you do, that the postconviction DNA statute & proceedings were completed -- and driven ahead with the federal habeas action, saying that  only if the new testing uncovered something would the defense have to seek a stay and abey from the federal court (by filing a new motion in the state court while the federal habeas was underway?) to exhaust state remedies at that point?  Hardly even possible.

[Farm]

To my utter amazement, you're actually raising a legitimate issue.  Who'd you call?  You quite obviously didn't come up with this on your own. 

It's real simple Dave.

As I have told you since you stumbled your dumb ass into this thread, there are no motions pending before the trial court.

There never was a DNA claim filed in circut court.

Riordan only acknowledged months ago that he had gotten test results on which he could have possibly even based a DNA claim on.

He also stated that he had no intentions of filing a state claim.

You and your idiot pet animatron have been mindlessly rambling for three pages about a motion that never even existed.

Stop whining like a lil' bitch about where you got your silly shit, and just admit you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Then we can continue your education.

[Fwarm]

You know what I know Dave?

Exactly what I told you.

Judge Wilson told defense to get the fuck out of his court room.

I might have a drink too since everyone seems to be concerned about what everyone else is drinking.

You do realize there is no hope for Damien you are just hiding your head in the sand. Damien is going to be executed.