Jump to content
Paulding.com

What's this? Paulette not guilty

Cathyhelms

By Cathyhelms,
in Paulding County NEWS

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Cathyhelms

Cathyhelms

Posted
Posted

It appears there are some folks on here that have done nothing but declare Paulette Braddock the republican candidate running for District 19 is a common criminal.

 

I just thought this post deserved a thread of it's own.

 

Your statements above are grossly inaccurate. It is true that Ms. Braddock was indicted for a felony crime. However, she did not enter any plea in the case other than a NOT GUILTY plea. She certainly did not enter a nolo contendere plea, which requires a plea in front of a judge. As a side note, Georgia generally does NOT use nolo pleas on DUI cases because the consequences are the same whether or not you plead nolo. In fact, a defendant cannot as a matter of law enter a nolo plea where the BAC level is .15 or more. It is possible to do a nolo plea to DUI, but it is extremely rare and judges generally do not permit them.

 

As for Ms. Braddock, the charge was DISMISSED against her, as indicated in the link you cited. It does not matter whether someone has a prior record or not in qualifying for pre-trial diversion, although it certainly helps. Pre-trial diversion is typically used for minors in posession of alcohol (to avoid a conviction earlier in life), possession of less than an ounce of marijuana (sometimes considered victimless crime), domestic disputes between family members (to preserve family unity), and where cases are WEAK and it is best for all parties to resolve without the time and expense of proceeding to a trial. In Ms. Braddock's case, my suspicion is that the case was weak, coupled with the lack of a prior criminal history.

 

It is factually wrong for some to claim she pleaded guilty or had to admit her guilt or even committed a crime (which implies that a conviction was obtained). To the contrary, she pleaded NOT GUILTY and, following the completion of the pre-trial diversion program, the charge was nolle prossed, meaning the State can never pursue the case again. She also did not pay a fine as suggested, which can only be imposed where a party is convicted or pleads nolo. There is a fee, though, to participate in the pre-trial diversion program.

 

I realize most folks are unfamiliar with the pre-trial diversion program (which, quite frankly, is probably a good thing since it means you have not enrolled in it before). However, I think we need to be cautious in making assumptions and accusations about criminal behavior by individuals, whether they are running for office or not.

 

http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/255989-avery-vs-braddock/page__pid__3288987__st__0entry3288987

 

Thank you pigpen. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cathyhelms

Cathyhelms

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not according to the guy who may or may not be her lawyer (we don't know if he is because he won't answer).

 

She did community service for the fun of it, apparently.

 

 

mrnn

 

Heck I do thousands of hours of community service ever year!! Voluntarily!! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cabe

Cabe

Posted
Posted

Not according to the guy who may or may not be her lawyer (we don't know if he is because he won't answer).

 

She did community service for the fun of it, apparently.

 

 

mrnn

 

We know that's true because he has all day to spend on p.com. rolleyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cathyhelms

Cathyhelms

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Do you wear orange jumpsuits when you do it?

 

 

mrnn

 

Naw, not orange jumpsuits but I do have a nice orange shirt for one group, a fun uniform for another and a bright green one for another...............let's see, I know there are more.

 

BTW, I think only the community service workers that work on the roadways wear orange, it helps the cars to see them. There are many more community service needs and they don't wear orange jumpsuits for that. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
rednekkhikkchikk

rednekkhikkchikk

Posted
Posted

 

I can't vote in 19, however if I could I would probably skip over that race.

 

do what?

 

LMAO

 

ok then.

 

 

 

right. everyone has something to say sitting behind their computer, posting on the 'net but when it comes right down to it...oh well, at least you're honest enough to admit it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cathyhelms

Cathyhelms

Posted
  • Author
Posted

do what?

 

LMAO

 

ok then.

 

 

 

right. everyone has something to say sitting behind their computer, posting on the 'net but when it comes right down to it...oh well, at least you're honest enough to admit it.

 

I have a business that sits in 19 I have a hefty tax payment, so I have a lot of concern and $ tied up in this district.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gpatt0n

gpatt0n

Posted
Posted (edited)

here is a link

http://www.cobbda.com/PretrialDiversion.htm

 

This is pretty clear to me that a person must admit guilt to enter the diversion program in Cobb County.

 

So I guess there is a difference in PLEADING GUILTY And ADMITiNG GUILT, Or is there a difference??? :lol:

 

Yes there is a difference between pleading guilty and admitting guilt.

 

The effort and spin here is to proclaim innocence when the court documents establish only that she was not found guilty as part of a program designed to help folks avoid a criminal record. The process does require they express contrition (admit guilt)and do public service as an element of their special handling.

 

To suggest that acceptance into a pre-trial diversion program is tantamount to a proclamation of innocence is at best the same as the presumption of innocence that Micheal Ledford had as he sat before the jury prior to the close of testimony and the judgment of the jury.

 

So, to sum up the pitch I'm hearing, none of this matters, not the bankruptcy, not the simple assault, not the mis-characterization of Daniel Stouts votes, not the behind-the scenes sabotage of Paulding's Steve Golden campaign, not the indictment on felony insurance fraud - Paulette as a tea-partier is as fresh and innocent as the driven snow.

 

With that imagery, I can't wait for the mailer that is bound to hit next week.

 

I got a sneak view of it. Like most political mailers, it takes liberties with the truth. Here it is:

 

Snow-White-DISTRICT19-81.jpg

 

PS: This post was done prior to additional research that confirmed that one may enter pre-trial diversion without any formal admission of guilt on the part of the party, in this case, indicted for a crime.

 

The COBB DA's office does publish on its website the assertion that one requirement for entry into the program is that the person admit guilt but that additional research shows that a formal admission of guilt in a pre-trial diversion contract is negotiable. Expunging of the record of the event is also an element subject to negotiation as is the number of hours of public service. District Attorney's office also charge a fee - they cannot fine a person as they are not judged guilty by the process - for entry into the program.

 

The bottom line is that some who are or feel they are innocent of crimes may opt for the pre-trial diversion program as it effectively makes the charges go away.

 

However, had a DA agreed that there was no basis for the charges in this or any other case, they would not have formally indicted the individual but rather would have simply dropped the case. Essentially, if the DA would not be able to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and that the individual charged was probably guilty of the crime, that DA would know a judge would likely give a directed verdict of dismissal. Because in those cases of obvious innocence or total lack of evidence implicating an individual, there would be no trial, there would be no need for pre-trial diversion.

Edited by PUBBY
To add PS
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cathyhelms

Cathyhelms

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I thought your business was on 278 west of Dallas?

 

In Dallas. :)

 

 

Whitey you're right we're just outside District 19, I just checked the maps.:blush: Doesn't matter what happens, 19 will affect all of Paulding County. Don't you agree?? :unsure:

 

We are in the Dallas City limits. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
dawneykids

dawneykids

Posted
Posted (edited)

It appears there are some folks on here that have done nothing but declare Paulette Braddock the republican candidate running for District 19 is a common criminal.

 

I just thought this post deserved a thread of it's own.

 

 

 

http://paulding.com/forum/index.php?/topic/255989-avery-vs-braddock/page__pid__3288987__st__0entry3288987

 

Thank you pigpen. :D

All I got from that info is that she pled not guilty, that doesn't mean shes not guilty. Ted Bundy pled not guilty too, did that make him not guilty? I don't think so.

Edited by momof 3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cathyhelms

Cathyhelms

Posted
  • Author
Posted

All I got from that info is that she plead not guilty, that doesn't mean shes not guilty. Ted Bundy plead not guilty too, did that make him not guilty? I don't think so.

 

Well, it means she is not a convicted felon as some have said here. She did not have to plead guilty to get a pre-trial diversion. Sometimes it's just better to take the deal than spend the $ it will take to dispute it. It appears there are some financial problems going on so it could well be she had no $ to pay an attorney. Does this mean she is innocent?? I don't know, but I do know she is not a convicted felon.

 

I said I am not a Paulette supporter I will however make sure what everyone knows what is as truthful as it can be, without all the spin and hype. I would do the same thing for you if someone was spewing and spinning stuff about you and I had information that said otherwise.

 

Heck, I'd do the same thing for Whitey, surepip and Feelip. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
feelip

feelip

Posted
Posted

We have some outstanding attorneys right here in Paulding County!

 

Yeah, regular ol' Matlocks. :rofl:

 

Well, it means she is not a convicted felon as some have said here. She did not have to plead guilty to get a pre-trial diversion. Sometimes it's just better to take the deal than spend the $ it will take to dispute it. It appears there are some financial problems going on so it could well be she had no $ to pay an attorney. Does this mean she is innocent?? I don't know, but I do know she is not a convicted felon.

 

I said I am not a Paulette supporter I will however make sure what everyone knows what is as truthful as it can be, without all the spin and hype. I would do the same thing for you if someone was spewing and spinning stuff about you and I had information that said otherwise.

 

Heck, I'd do the same thing for Whitey, surepip and Feelip. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

 

No thanks. I haven't committed INSURANCE FRAUD!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Beach Bum

Beach Bum

Posted
Posted

Yeah, regular ol' Matlocks. :rofl:

 

 

 

No thanks. I haven't committed INSURANCE FRAUD!

 

Yeah - speaking of Matlocks, one of our dear family friends and an attorney from my hometown of Summerville, GA is a "Matlock". He could have very well practiced with mulitple state and national firms but he prefers practicing in our little ole hometown. He probably makes more money than everyone in Paulding County combined on an annual basis also. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
feelip

feelip

Posted
Posted

Yeah - speaking of Matlocks, one of our dear family friends and an attorney from my hometown of Summerville, GA is a "Matlock". He could have very well practiced with mulitple state and national firms but he prefers practicing in our little ole hometown. He probably makes more money than everyone in Paulding County combined on an annual basis also. :lol:

 

 

Yep.

 

Nothing personal. I just don't trust Paulding County attorneys. But I did hear of one today that I might consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Animal

Animal

Posted
Posted

Yes there is a difference between pleading guilty and admitting guilt.

 

The effort and spin here is to proclaim innocence when the court documents establish only that she was not found guilty as part of a program designed to help folks avoid a criminal record. The process does require they express contrition (admit guilt)and do public service as an element of their special handling.

 

To suggest that acceptance into a pre-trial diversion program is tantamount to a proclamation of innocence is at best the same as the presumption of innocence that Micheal Ledford had as he sat before the jury prior to the close of testimony and the judgment of the jury.

 

So, to sum up the pitch I'm hearing, none of this matters, not the bankruptcy, not the simple assault, not the mis-characterization of Daniel Stouts votes, not the behind-the scenes sabotage of Paulding's Steve Golden campaign, not the indictment on felony insurance fraud - Paulette as a tea-partier is as fresh and innocent as the driven snow.

 

With that imagery, I can't wait for the mailer that is bound to hit next week.

 

I got a sneak view of it. Like most political mailers, it takes liberties with the truth. Here it is:

 

post-2-12875142384_thumb.jpg

 

 

OMGohmy.gif

 

Yeah - speaking of Matlocks, one of our dear family friends and an attorney from my hometown of Summerville, GA is a "Matlock". He could have very well practiced with mulitple state and national firms but he prefers practicing in our little ole hometown. He probably makes more money than everyone in Paulding County combined on an annual basis also. laugh.gif

 

 

Isn't he specialpardon.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
feelip

feelip

Posted
Posted

And, we wonder why so many great people won't run for public office. You put your hat in the ring and the entire world is out to drag all of the trash out of the can.

 

 

Oh yeah! The thing to do is to keep quiet and let the lowlifes take control of our government. Too damn bad we can't get Ted Bundy to represent us, huh? :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
mhparker92

mhparker92

Posted
Posted

I was gonna say that but I was hoping you'd chime in. You have one of those cool uniforms, too don't you!! laugh.gif

 

I think there are several of us here that give our ONE hour per week. ninja.gif

 

 

No, no, it's one hour a week to get dressed for all our time. Let's see - I think I've given my one hour a week until I'm about 80 at this point. :)! Two hours more last night. Another hour today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mhparker92

mhparker92

Posted
Posted

Oh yeah! The thing to do is to keep quiet and let the lowlifes take control of our government. Too damn bad we can't get Ted Bundy to represent us, huh? wacko.gif

 

 

That's not my point. Anything in anyone's past can be drug up and used as fodder in political campaigns. It can be twisted and torn until it somehow becomes a negative for this. It leaves folks not ever wanting to run for office because so many things can be mis construed and then reputations and lives are borderline ruined.

 

For example - let's say that when a young lady was 18 - she had an aboortzion. I'd love to have that splashed all over the local headlines - it may have nothing to do with the job that person is running for. And, there will be people that won't vote for her just becuase of that teenager decision. Does it reflect on that adult's decision making process? Who knows?

 

Let's say that a 17 year old is brought up on rape charges - he got a BJ at school and got caught. Now - does that 50 year old man now have to pay with his public reputation becuase of it?

 

We've lived here for 15 years. And, this is the only thing that I really don't like about being in the south (and I'm southern born, bred, and raised). By gones can never be by gones.

 

And, I'm really not sure what the big deal over the insurance fraud is. Quite frankly, I remember when this happened. There was a big spash about it. And, it died. Why is it being resurrected now? Is it just for the reason of ruining her reputation?

 

The fact is that I've never heard anything about her decisions in the past public offices, what her thought processes are, what kind of logic does she use, etc? All I've heard is whether or not she is guilty, not guilty, or innocent of charges. And, without looking at the entire court proceedings, I'm not completely willing to judge her. A transcript of a statement will never tell us the audible context clues and the visual context clues that we need to have to truly know what was being communicated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
WHITEY

WHITEY

Posted
Posted

That's not my point. Anything in anyone's past can be drug up and used as fodder in political campaigns. It can be twisted and torn until it somehow becomes a negative for this. It leaves folks not ever wanting to run for office because so many things can be mis construed and then reputations and lives are borderline ruined.

 

For example - let's say that when a young lady was 18 - she had an aboortzion. I'd love to have that splashed all over the local headlines - it may have nothing to do with the job that person is running for. And, there will be people that won't vote for her just becuase of that teenager decision. Does it reflect on that adult's decision making process? Who knows?

 

Let's say that a 17 year old is brought up on rape charges - he got a BJ at school and got caught. Now - does that 50 year old man now have to pay with his public reputation becuase of it?

 

We've lived here for 15 years. And, this is the only thing that I really don't like about being in the south (and I'm southern born, bred, and raised). By gones can never be by gones.

 

And, I'm really not sure what the big deal over the insurance fraud is. Quite frankly, I remember when this happened. There was a big spash about it. And, it died. Why is it being resurrected now? Is it just for the reason of ruining her reputation?

 

The fact is that I've never heard anything about her decisions in the past public offices, what her thought processes are, what kind of logic does she use, etc? All I've heard is whether or not she is guilty, not guilty, or innocent of charges. And, without looking at the entire court proceedings, I'm not completely willing to judge her. A transcript of a statement will never tell us the audible context clues and the visual context clues that we need to have to truly know what was being communicated.

If you have not heard about the eight years she served on the school board and her actions and votes while serving there then you must sure be leading a sheltered life?

 

These school board issues have been raised numerous times, During the 2007 Republican primary her tax and spend votes were discussed numerous times.... By other REPUBLICANS who were running against her, And she was soundly defeated in 2007 by another Republican That year, And BTW the only issue that has been raised this election, That was not raised in the 2007 election, Is the arrest for Insurance Fraud.

 

The voters got it right in 2007, And I hope that they vote for Will Avery in 2010.

 

Paulette has a record and it is not consistent with the way a Conservative votes

Link to post
Share on other sites
lotstodo

lotstodo

Posted
Posted

Lets face it folks. The fact is that it is highly unlikely that any person would enter a pre trial diversion program if they didn't believe that there was a serious possibility of a conviction. You can play around the edges of the legal meaning of admission of guilt, but you can not deny that entering such a program implies an acceptance of responsibility.

 

The real question is if this is the best available candidate to represent your interests in Atlanta. We have two races in this state where there are tainted candidates, but only in this race has a court adjudicated or even considered charges against one of them. Only in this race have formal charges been levied against the candidate. In the other race we have as the opposition a former Governor held in very little regard by the citizens based on his past performance in the very job he seeks. He was fired once. In this case we have an opposition candidate whose only negative is the letter behind his name.

 

Those are the realities of the situation. The two races are not identical in respect to the tainted candidates and the alternative, and if you are fine with Paulette's checkered past just to elect a person with an ( R ) behind their name, by all means go for it. But if arguing over the minutia of her run ins with the law is the best defense of her you have, and the other candidate is from all accounts a responsible person deserving of a chance and a person willing to give you his position on the issues rather than playing the politics of party, then I would personally question my own priorities. But as they say, your mileage may vary.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...