Good Old Boys still at work?

[Eddie Bennett]

A good case was not presented, I think!

 

I think it was murder. Forensics is liying, due to human neglect.

 

The forensic science was as good as Dexter Morgan's

 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by The Postman

[mojo413]

Isn't it peculiar that the very ones that say government doesn't work and privatize everything, are the very same that say have faith in your government? "Let the appropriate authority's do their jobs?" If you don't pay attention, how do you know they are doing their jobs?

You are good at what you do. I have to admit that.

 

"I don't trust words. I even question actions. I never doubt patterns of conduct."-??

I'm assuming you are implying that I am in the "very ones that say government doesn't work and privatize everything" group?

I've been studying on this comment and best I can remember the last 2 privation issues locally were the Airport Terminal Operations & BOE Housekeeping contract. I solidly publicly opposed both. So maybe you can refresh my memory of other local or state privatization issues that I might have supported.

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

I'm assuming you are implying that I am in the "very ones that say government doesn't work and privatize everything" group?

I've been studying on this comment and best I can remember the last 2 privation issues locally were the Airport Terminal Operations & BOE Housekeeping contract. I solidly publicly opposed both. So maybe you can refresh my memory of other local or state privatization issues that I might have supported.

My apologies I wasn't referencing local privatization efforts, I was more so addressing all privatization. If I'm mistaken, about your views on privatization, my bad.

 

Now lets go back to post 80

[gpatt0n]

What if you are a judge that ignores V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed (Attachement Based-Parental Alienation) for unsavory reasons?

 

Many people discount psychological abuse because the wounds are invisible. Many psychiatrists and psychologists will tell you this is no better than ignoring physical abuse because the brain has the same chemical reaction to both forms of abuse. Therefore the brain cannot tell the difference between psychological and physical abuse.

 

As my signature currently says, A judge that violates the law, cannot uphold the law.

 

Injustice of any kind is a threat to justice of every kind.

 

Let's return to the subject of this thread. A woman was killed and the charges were thrown out. Was this done sua sponte?

 

A woman claims her son was jailed for 10yrs for breaking someone's jaw but the accused in this case bonds out for $150? Many people believe it's not what you know but who you know.

 

Are you saying that an unjustifiable killing is not worthy of justice? It's an acceptable loss in your opinion? What if this happened to your adult child? If someone can be killed with little consequence, under such troubling circumstances, are any of us safe?

 

No but the mere assertion that an injustice occurred is not proof that an injustice occurred.

 

Allegedly, Jonathan Bates, foster son of Judge Foster, beat his wife...she was placed on life support and she later died. Allegedly, after the incident, he went to his foster Dad's houses and when authorities came to arrest him, Judge Foster required a warrant that delayed the arrest and investigation. Allegedly, the crime scene was cleaned. Jonathan Bates was charged with malice murder, among other charges. Their kids were placed in state custody much to the dismay of Judge Foster. Today, Bates went before another judge (not sure which one) and his charge was reduced and he was released on $1500 bond. Something stinks about this case. I know there are many sides to an investigation but I'm praying someone digs deep into this investigation and uncovers the truth. A young mother is dead....

 

What we have here is report that has been followed up by the big city media. As for the assertion of one's constitutional rights demanding a search warrant be obtained before allowing entry, I would encourage everyone to demand such before allowing entry for any search. Beyond that, it is pure conjecture and the unfounded allegation that a former superior court judge participated in obstruction of justice by allegedly allowing or participating in the destruction of evidence at a crime scene.

 

Just saw the report too, it was Beavers that reduced the charges to the dismay of law enforcement and prosecutor.

 

That was obviously a preliminary hearing and one might expect such an outcome if the DA had not prepared a case that warrants the charges. The really important thing to know is there is nothing in that reduction of charges that would prohibit the DA from getting an indictment for murder charges from a grand jury when and if he gathers the evidence to justify that charge. I'm suspecting that the DA just didn't have the goods on the guy and if you don't have the goods, then if you're represented by competent counsel, you walk ... until the state has the goods- the proof of your guilt.

 

Rather than blaming this on the good old boy system, I'm more inclined to say that unless or until the DA, the SO etc. has better, more solid evidence, the only 'good ole' involved here is the 'good ole Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Georgia' which prohibits holding folks for crimes they can't prove they committed.

 

Would this particular individual be much more likely to be sitting the in slammer today if he wasn't associated with the Foster Family with its wealth and contacts in the legal community? Sure. But we all know from the day that O.J. got off for the murder of his ex and her boyfriend, that money and good lawyers are amazingly good at keeping people out of jail without rock-solid proof; proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That the criminal justice system has two doors; one for the rich and one for the poor is an injustice that is pervasive in society. The fix for that is to guarantee everyone's rights are as well protected as the rights of rich under the constitution; not to ignore the constitution because the person in the crosshairs is too poor to afford a truly competent lawyer.

 

But do know that demanding the that cops get a search warrant before they come in and search or knowing to not talk to the police without your attorney present or demanding the state show cause why you should not be allowed to go on your way is not intended to be protections for the rich ... it is just that being wealthy tends to include the knowledge of these 'rights.'

 

You'll not make me part of a mob to take away those rights; those rights are important. They are available to everyone and rightfully so.

 

pubby

[Eddie Bennett]

Having a forensic scientist as slick as the movie character, Dexter Morgan, and a lawyer as good as Johnnie Cochran can get you away with murder.

Edited August 3, 2017 by The Postman

[mojo413]

No but the mere assertion that an injustice occurred is not proof that an injustice occurred.

 

 

 

What we have here is report that has been followed up by the big city media. As for the assertion of one's constitutional rights demanding a search warrant be obtained before allowing entry, I would encourage everyone to demand such before allowing entry for any search. Beyond that, it is pure conjecture and the unfounded allegation that a former superior court judge participated in obstruction of justice by allegedly allowing or participating in the destruction of evidence at a crime scene.

 

 

 

That was obviously a preliminary hearing and one might expect such an outcome if the DA had not prepared a case that warrants the charges. The really important thing to know is there is nothing in that reduction of charges that would prohibit the DA from getting an indictment for murder charges from a grand jury when and if he gathers the evidence to justify that charge. I'm suspecting that the DA just didn't have the goods on the guy and if you don't have the goods, then if you're represented by competent counsel, you walk ... until the state has the goods- the proof of your guilt.

 

Rather than blaming this on the good old boy system, I'm more inclined to say that unless or until the DA, the SO etc. has better, more solid evidence, the only 'good ole' involved here is the 'good ole Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Georgia' which prohibits holding folks for crimes they can't prove they committed.

 

Would this particular individual be much more likely to be sitting the in slammer today if he wasn't associated with the Foster Family with its wealth and contacts in the legal community? Sure. But we all know from the day that O.J. got off for the murder of his ex and her boyfriend, that money and good lawyers are amazingly good at keeping people out of jail without rock-solid proof; proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That the criminal justice system has two doors; one for the rich and one for the poor is an injustice that is pervasive in society. The fix for that is to guarantee everyone's rights are as well protected as the rights of rich under the constitution; not to ignore the constitution because the person in the crosshairs is too poor to afford a truly competent lawyer.

 

But do know that demanding the that cops get a search warrant before they come in and search or knowing to not talk to the police without your attorney present or demanding the state show cause why you should not be allowed to go on your way is not intended to be protections for the rich ... it is just that being wealthy tends to include the knowledge of these 'rights.'

 

You'll not make me part of a mob to take away those rights; those rights are important. They are available to everyone and rightfully so.

 

pubby

Pubby you said it much better than I did.

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

 

No but the mere assertion that an injustice occurred is not proof that an injustice occurred.

 

 

What we have here is report that has been followed up by the big city media. As for the assertion of one's constitutional rights demanding a search warrant be obtained before allowing entry, I would encourage everyone to demand such before allowing entry for any search. Beyond that, it is pure conjecture and the unfounded allegation that a former superior court judge participated in obstruction of justice by allegedly allowing or participating in the destruction of evidence at a crime scene.

 

 

That was obviously a preliminary hearing and one might expect such an outcome if the DA had not prepared a case that warrants the charges. The really important thing to know is there is nothing in that reduction of charges that would prohibit the DA from getting an indictment for murder charges from a grand jury when and if he gathers the evidence to justify that charge. I'm suspecting that the DA just didn't have the goods on the guy and if you don't have the goods, then if you're represented by competent counsel, you walk ... until the state has the goods- the proof of your guilt.

 

Rather than blaming this on the good old boy system, I'm more inclined to say that unless or until the DA, the SO etc. has better, more solid evidence, the only 'good ole' involved here is the 'good ole Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Georgia' which prohibits holding folks for crimes they can't prove they committed.

 

Would this particular individual be much more likely to be sitting the in slammer today if he wasn't associated with the Foster Family with its wealth and contacts in the legal community? Sure. But we all know from the day that O.J. got off for the murder of his ex and her boyfriend, that money and good lawyers are amazingly good at keeping people out of jail without rock-solid proof; proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That the criminal justice system has two doors; one for the rich and one for the poor is an injustice that is pervasive in society. The fix for that is to guarantee everyone's rights are as well protected as the rights of rich under the constitution; not to ignore the constitution because the person in the crosshairs is too poor to afford a truly competent lawyer.

 

But do know that demanding the that cops get a search warrant before they come in and search or knowing to not talk to the police without your attorney present or demanding the state show cause why you should not be allowed to go on your way is not intended to be protections for the rich ... it is just that being wealthy tends to include the knowledge of these 'rights.'

 

You'll not make me part of a mob to take away those rights; those rights are important. They are available to everyone and rightfully so.

 

pubby

 

Not so fast, Pubby. No one is saying the accused should be convicted of anything without a trial. But should the charges have been dismissed without a trial? Were the charges dismissed sua sponte?

Does this ruling say that if a person hurts someone else, they are better off killing that other person so that only one voice is heard?

 

The deceased cannot speak but are her remains talking?

 

Let's say person A was to suffer blunt force trauma from being pushed on a couch, what amount of force would have to be used to cause person A to be on life support, if no other reasonable cause or suspicion for injury is given?

What you say is absolutely true. Now is that how the judge conducts himself on every case? Does the judge cherry pick the facts to fit a predetermined outcome? Are there hidden influences that we don't know about? Did the judge do everything in his power to eliminate the mere appearance of impropriety to ease public concerns?

Hell, you oughta sit in on a few of his protective order hearings after 2PM or on a special set hearing. If you did, would you say Judge Beavers proverbially wipes his feet on the constitution? I'll concede there is a big difference between legal remedies and equitable remedies but there is also a not so fine line between broad discretion and abuse of discretion.

Do you remember the Dallas Salon Killer? The judge originally set bail at a questionably low amount even though the wife/victim was shot in broad daylight in front of witnesses. Judge Beavers denied the ex-wife a protective order though the accused had cleared probable cause for the charge of murder of his then current wife. The ex-wife was concerned because she considered the bail to be manageable enough for him to bond out. Would broad discretion say the ex-wife was reasonable in her request?

Integrity says interpret the laws the same way no matter who is presenting the argument. Would you say the judge is consistent or would you even know? I've seen the good judge perform in a courtroom many times over, I'm not so sure he does.

Interpretation of laws doesn't change because there is a moron presenting the case. It's not the judge's job to litigate cases but should he serve the public interest based upon an unmalleable application of the law? Does he do this?

With the given track record and history of that household, are you saying the police and or the DA are incompetent? That the police bungled the collection of evidence? That the police don't have the appropriate resources needed to investigate this matter?

Certainly if there was any cleanup of the crime seen then the charge of obstruction of justice should have been included, should it not?

Despite the reported track record of the accused, I don't know if this was a first instance of family violence battery but clearly a spouse/parent is a member of a protected class.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16-5-23. Simple battery

(a) A person commits the offense of simple battery when he or she either:

(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or

(2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another.

(f) If the offense of simple battery is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(1) Upon a first conviction of family violence battery, the defendant shall be guilty of and punished for a misdemeanor; and

 

(2) Upon a second or subsequent conviction of family violence battery against the same or another victim, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to reasonable corporal punishment administered by parent to child.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited August 3, 2017 by Domestic Violence by Proxy

[gpatt0n]

Not so fast, Pubby. No one is saying the accused should be convicted of anything without a trial. But should the charges have been dismissed without a trial? Were the charges dismissed sua sponte?

 

Does this ruling say that if a person hurts someone else, they are better off killing that other person so that only one voice is heard?

 

The deceased cannot speak but are her remains talking?

 

Let's say person A was to suffer blunt force trauma from being pushed on a couch, what amount of force would have to be used to cause person A to be on life support, if no other reasonable cause or suspicion for injury is given?

 

What you say is absolutely true. Now is that how the judge conducts himself on every case? Does the judge cherry pick the facts to fit a predetermined outcome? Are there hidden influences that we don't know about? Did the judge do everything in his power to eliminate the mere appearance of impropriety to ease public concerns?

 

Hell, you oughta sit in on a few of his protective order hearings after 2PM or on a special set hearing. If you did, would you say Judge Beavers proverbially wipes his feet on the constitution? I'll concede there is a big difference between legal remedies and equitable remedies but there is also a not so fine line between broad discretion and abuse of discretion.

 

Do you remember the Dallas Salon Killer? The judge originally set bail at a questionably low amount even though the wife/victim was shot in broad daylight in front of witnesses. Judge Beavers denied the ex-wife a protective order though the accused had cleared probable cause for the charge of murder of his then current wife. The ex-wife was concerned because she considered the bail to be manageable enough for him to bond out. Would broad discretion say the ex-wife was reasonable in her request?

 

Integrity says interpret the laws the same way no matter who is presenting the argument. Would you say the judge is consistent or would you even know? I've seen the good judge perform in a courtroom many times over, I'm not so sure he does.

 

Interpretation of laws doesn't change because there is a moron presenting the case. It's not the judge's job to litigate cases but should he serve the public interest based upon an unmalleable application of the law? Does he do this?

 

With the given track record and history of that household, are you saying the police and or the DA are incompetent? That the police bungled the collection of evidence? That the police don't have the appropriate resources needed to investigate this matter?

 

Certainly if there was any cleanup of the crime seen then the charge of obstruction of justice should have been included, should it not?

 

Despite the reported track record of the accused, I don't know if this was a first instance of family violence battery but clearly a spouse/parent is a member of a protected class.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16-5-23. Simple battery

 

(a) A person commits the offense of simple battery when he or she either:

 

(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or

 

(2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another.

 

(f) If the offense of simple battery is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

 

(1) Upon a first conviction of family violence battery, the defendant shall be guilty of and punished for a misdemeanor; and

 

(2) Upon a second or subsequent conviction of family violence battery against the same or another victim, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to reasonable corporal punishment administered by parent to child.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I would think that if the DA thought he had a strong case, he would be making noise that there has been a miscarriage of justice far and wide.

 

Of course the DA may be waiting for more solid evidence to surface that would guarantee a conviction or he may have concurred with the judge that there was insufficient evidence to hold the boy.

 

As far as my knowledge of the judge, I know the man but I have not sat in on many of his hearings. Some attorney's I know and trust say good things about him.

 

That said, you are known to be dismissive of the man and presumably your comments are based on direct observation. Still, there is no cross examination in this forum and as many of the criticisms are based on specific comments, it is hard for me or anyone not immediately aware of the circumstances to rebut them. I think most everyone would recognize that there are two sides to most stories and the absence of a defense does not mean your comments should be taken as gospel.

 

I do think that criminals are dumb and if this was a crime (murder) and the guilty person is an arrogant bully, he'll confess his crime to the wrong person who may be wearing a wire and the evidence will drive the prosecution and ultimately a conviction. Sometimes it just takes longer to get the goods on folks who know the law. That is one of the main frustrations I've heard from my friends in law enforcement for literally decades.

 

Still, I'm not willing to cut corners on constitutional rights to make it easy to railroad folks into prison because an understanding of how things work suggests to me that just opens the door on a great multitude more injustice.

 

pubby

[Eddie Bennett]

A little coercio, a little collusion, and a little malfeasance, more or less, took place before court.

 

Judge Beavers had to decide what was before him.

Edited August 7, 2017 by The Postman

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

 

I would think that if the DA thought he had a strong case, he would be making noise that there has been a miscarriage of justice far and wide.

 

Of course the DA may be waiting for more solid evidence to surface that would guarantee a conviction or he may have concurred with the judge that there was insufficient evidence to hold the boy.

 

As far as my knowledge of the judge, I know the man but I have not sat in on many of his hearings. Some attorney's I know and trust say good things about him.

 

That said, you are known to be dismissive of the man and presumably your comments are based on direct observation. Still, there is no cross examination in this forum and as many of the criticisms are based on specific comments, it is hard for me or anyone not immediately aware of the circumstances to rebut them. I think most everyone would recognize that there are two sides to most stories and the absence of a defense does not mean your comments should be taken as gospel.

 

I do think that criminals are dumb and if this was a crime (murder) and the guilty person is an arrogant bully, he'll confess his crime to the wrong person who may be wearing a wire and the evidence will drive the prosecution and ultimately a conviction. Sometimes it just takes longer to get the goods on folks who know the law. That is one of the main frustrations I've heard from my friends in law enforcement for literally decades.

 

Still, I'm not willing to cut corners on constitutional rights to make it easy to railroad folks into prison because an understanding of how things work suggests to me that just opens the door on a great multitude more injustice.

 

pubby

This isn't rocket science, Pubby. Attend hearings after 2pm or the ones that are special set. Especially the last hearings of the day during civil motions court.

 

You can rely on the hearsay of friends, you can play devil's advocate or you can get off your duff and see for yourself. I know you have responsibilities but it's a couple of hours on Wednesdays 3 weeks apart.

 

I give references. I have yet to see anyone counter my pov with references of their own. I have yet to find anyone support their position with references of their own.

 

When you get it right 60, 70 even 80% of the time, that is not good enough for me when children's lives hang in the balance. May be you find there are acceptable losses but my standard is a bit higher. A half truth is still a whole lie.

 

The difference between me and anyone that sings his praises- I can't afford to be wrong. I am at risk for what I say. You risk nothing for what you say. I don't place myself at risk for any reason other than it is the right thing to do. I gain nothing for putting my @ss on the line. It's a thankless job, holding those with power accountable, but you're welcome.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Domestic Violence by Proxy

[gpatt0n]

I'm not singing his praises; I just haven't convicted him. Fact is, even with your courtroom visits, you don't have enough information to convict him. I've not seen even enough to indict him although it is obvious you have.

 

And despite illusions to the contrary, this is no courtroom at all.

 

pubby

 

PS: Presumably there is an ethics body in the state that would have the people/resources to have folks sit in the courtroom and make the judgments you suggest should be made. If there aren't - and I suspect ethics boards and judicial commissions get short shrift under Republican rule - then there is a lot of work needed to get oversight bodies with teeth in their law as a first step.

 

Lone voices are much like coyotes baying at the moon.

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

I'm not singing his praises; I just haven't convicted him. Fact is, even with your courtroom visits, you don't have enough information to convict him. I've not seen even enough to indict him although it is obvious you have.

 

And despite illusions to the contrary, this is no courtroom at all.

 

pubby

 

PS: Presumably there is an ethics body in the state that would have the people/resources to have folks sit in the courtroom and make the judgments you suggest should be made. If there aren't - and I suspect ethics boards and judicial commissions get short shrift under Republican rule - then there is a lot of work needed to get oversight bodies with teeth in their law as a first step.

 

Lone voices are much like coyotes baying at the moon.

 

I'm not trying to convict anyone. I'm wondering why someone, with a troubled past, who the police suspect has killed another is out on the streets. And for $150 bond is it?

 

The JQC is overworked, understaffed and underfunded. And that was before Lester Tate quit. You can't ask members of the bar to provide oversight to police themselves anymore than you can ask the police union to oversee law enforcement. With the new amendment, the JQC won't have a mouth much less teeth.

 

If all we needed was oversight agencies, we wouldn't need the "4th Estate". Which I though you were a part of.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll buy a biz membership or possibly an ad if you sit with me for the end of the day in Beavers' civil motions court. I'll call you and tell you what time and days to show. Or we can come to some other agreement that makes it worth your while.

 

Change throughout history begins with a lone voice. That voice may become a pack of voices over time. That is why it is important for the status quo to snuff out the lone voice before the situation becomes unmanageable.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Domestic Violence by Proxy

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

 

I'm not trying to convict anyone. I'm wondering why someone, with a troubled past, who the police suspect has killed another is out on the streets. And for $150 bond is it?

 

The JQC is overworked, understaffed and underfunded. And that was before Lester Tate quit. You can't ask members of the bar to provide oversight to police themselves anymore than you can ask the police union to oversee law enforcement. With the new amendment, the JQC won't have a mouth much less teeth.

 

If all we needed was oversight agencies, we wouldn't need the "4th Estate". Which I though you were a part of.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll buy a biz membership or possibly an ad if you sit with me for the end of the day in Beavers' civil motions court. I'll call you and tell you what time and days to show. Or we can come to some other agreement that makes it worth your while.

 

Change throughout history begins with a lone voice. That voice may become a pack of voices over time. That is why it is important for the status quo to snuff out the lone voice before the situation becomes unmanageable.

 

Your silence speaks volumes, Pubby. If you need me to help with obligations during those hours, the offer stands. I'll do what I can to help.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Domestic Violence by Proxy

[gpatt0n]

I was actually thinking you might contact another news organization. TP posted The Young Turks bit where they just got funded for $20 million.

 

You need to know that injustices abound. You see and live the injustice of which you feel you are the victim. Surepip, God rest his soul, saw another injustice right here in Paulding. There are other injustices from short shrifts given customers to stories involving excessive force or incompetence by police here and in other places. Allowing folks to express these injustices have had their cost to pcom.

 

Just as you have been afforded the opportunity to speak of your injustice here, I've made the site available to others to express their feelings of injustice regardless of the cost.

 

Those costs came whether or not I chose to champion the causes or even if opposed the cause.

 

Maybe my hesitation is a sign of imperfection but then I've never said that I'm perfect. Indeed, one of my more common sayings is that perfection eludes us all.

 

FYI, I don't like being publicly shamed. I suppose that is another one of my other imperfections.

 

pubby

[mojo413]

It is unlikely you would be satisfied with any of the answers. Never waste time trying to explain something to someone you believe is committed to misunderstanding. I believe you are insistent upon casting doubt where there is little.

 

I believe if it were me or many others, Judge Beavers would not interpret and or apply the law in the same manner. And I don't have a troubling track record of similar sorts to the accused.

 

All we can do is go on the information that is available. The woman is dead. She died of blunt force trauma. There were two adults and two children in the house from what I've read. The children are still in the care of DFCS according to someone who knows the deceased. There is a history of medical reports and domestic abuse coming from that household according to police reports. If the accused was released for $150 bond given his track record of legal problems (the ones that we know of), that worries me.

 

The deceased cannot tell her story but the autopsy says blunt force trauma. Nothing points to her causing her own injuries from any story I've heard.

 

You seem to have selective faith in law enforcement's ability to present a good case. Captain Bill Gorman of Dallas Police says he believes they presented a good case.

Just recently we've had 2 more recent deaths that sound like murder based on social media reports.

 

1) the County Sheriff's Department used social media to alert the public to be on the lookout for a suspect. That person was spotted, brought in for questioning, charged and booked for 4 felonies including Murder the next day.

 

1) the Dallas Police investigated. There had been very little mentioned. Some say there's are some people of interest. There's no postings or mention of who to be on the look out for, or who to avoid.

 

I'm wondering if the Sheriff's Department is better equipped to investigate serious crimes or if the City Police are unfairly handed the tough cases?

 

I'm still thinking the Judge is limited to set bond based on the evidence presented to him.

[Eddie Bennett]

I was actually thinking you might contact another news organization. TP posted The Young Turks bit where they just got funded for $20 million.

 

You need to know that injustices abound. You see and live the injustice of which you feel you are the victim. Surepip, God rest his soul, saw another injustice right here in Paulding. There are other injustices from short shrifts given customers to stories involving excessive force or incompetence by police here and in other places. Allowing folks to express these injustices have had their cost to pcom.

 

Just as you have been afforded the opportunity to speak of your injustice here, I've made the site available to others to express their feelings of injustice regardless of the cost.

 

Those costs came whether or not I chose to champion the causes or even if opposed the cause.

 

Maybe my hesitation is a sign of imperfection but then I've never said that I'm perfect. Indeed, one of my more common sayings is that perfection eludes us all.

 

FYI, I don't like being publicly shamed. I suppose that is another one of my other imperfections.

 

pubby

 

 

Money is the main thing that eludes us all, Pubby!

 

But, money just can't buy you love. Some of the most hated people in the world have the money. They can buy so much sex that they can make themselves exausted, but buying love is only a figment of their imagination. It gives them a grandiose feeling, along with other elusions.

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

Just recently we've had 2 more recent deaths that sound like murder based on social media reports.

 

1) the County Sheriff's Department used social media to alert the public to be on the lookout for a suspect. That person was spotted, brought in for questioning, charged and booked for 4 felonies including Murder the next day.

 

1) the Dallas Police investigated. There had been very little mentioned. Some say there's are some people of interest. There's no postings or mention of who to be on the look out for, or who to avoid.

 

I'm wondering if the Sheriff's Department is better equipped to investigate serious crimes or if the City Police are unfairly handed the tough cases?

 

I'm still thinking the Judge is limited to set bond based on the evidence presented to him.

 

Admittedly I have been very busy with an upcoming situation of my own and haven't heard of the cases you speak of. Can you offer a link?

 

You can make excuses all you want. But at the end of the day I reference troubling cases and you have referenced nothing.

 

I really can't go into it now. If you aren't willing to put in the time, all of your speculation is worthless. Put in the time and attend special set hearings and civil motions court after 2pm. Particularly the last 2 cases of the day when the court room is cleared out and there are few witnesses. Or you can browse through the cases on the computer in the deeds room. Or you can look at cases for attorneys that consistently do well in the judge's court.

 

If what you say is the case then there should be no observable anomalies.

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

Don Rufty offers a "Family Court Orientation". May Cynde's family find comfort and justice.

 

Edited September 7, 2017 by Domestic Violence by Proxy

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

I don't have all of the details at this time but it is my understanding there has been an update in this case. Does anyone have any more information?

Edited October 26, 2017 by Domestic Violence by Proxy

[Lady Raider]

Sandy Dement

6 hrs ·

Jonathan's been indicted on malice murder aggravated battery child cruelty as of today. THANK YOU GOD! IT DOESNT TAKE THE PAIN AWAY OF JONATHAN TAKING CYNDE AWAY FROM US BUT IT DOES HELP EASE OUR HEARTS THINKING HE WAS GOING TO GET AWAY WITH TAKING HER FROM US AND NOT CARING. I AM SO THANKFUL THAT CYNDE IS GETTING THE JUSTICE SHE DESERVES. MY HEART WILL NEVER BE THE SAME WITHOUT YOU MY SWEET DEAR SISTER AND I MISS YOU MORE WITH EACH DAY. I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING TO HAVE YOU HERE WITH US. I LOVE U FOREVER AND A DAY. WE WONT STOP UNTIL HE IS PUT AWAY AND U CAN REST AT EASE KNOWING NO ONE EVER GAVE UP AND HE DOESNT GET AWAY WITH TAKING U AWAY FROM THIS WORLD AND ALL OF US THAT LOVE YOU SO. THANK YOU ALL THAT HAVE BEEN PRAYING FOR CYNDE AND OUR FAMILY. GOD BLESS YOU ALL ALWAYS. SENDING OUR LOVE TO YOU ALL. R.I.P. CYNDE.

[mojo413]

Sandy Dement

6 hrs ·

Jonathan's been indicted on malice murder aggravated battery child cruelty as of today. THANK YOU GOD! IT DOESNT TAKE THE PAIN AWAY OF JONATHAN TAKING CYNDE AWAY FROM US BUT IT DOES HELP EASE OUR HEARTS THINKING HE WAS GOING TO GET AWAY WITH TAKING HER FROM US AND NOT CARING. I AM SO THANKFUL THAT CYNDE IS GETTING THE JUSTICE SHE DESERVES. MY HEART WILL NEVER BE THE SAME WITHOUT YOU MY SWEET DEAR SISTER AND I MISS YOU MORE WITH EACH DAY. I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING TO HAVE YOU HERE WITH US. I LOVE U FOREVER AND A DAY. WE WONT STOP UNTIL HE IS PUT AWAY AND U CAN REST AT EASE KNOWING NO ONE EVER GAVE UP AND HE DOESNT GET AWAY WITH TAKING U AWAY FROM THIS WORLD AND ALL OF US THAT LOVE YOU SO. THANK YOU ALL THAT HAVE BEEN PRAYING FOR CYNDE AND OUR FAMILY. GOD BLESS YOU ALL ALWAYS. SENDING OUR LOVE TO YOU ALL. R.I.P. CYNDE.

 

post.jpg

I saw this on Facebook last night. I then have kept an eye on the jail website and as of a few minutes ago no one with the last name Bates has been booked in since May. Since I don't have any experience with this process I didn't mention anything. My thinking was anyone can post anything about anybody on Facebook. Hopefully the Facebook post is correct.

Edited October 26, 2017 by mojo413

[glassdogs]

I saw this on Facebook last night. I then have kept an eye on the jail website and as of a few minutes ago no one with the last name Bates has been booked in since May. Since I don't have any experience with this process I didn't mention anything. My thinking was anyone can post anything about anybody on Facebook. Hopefully the Facebook post is correct.

 

An indictment does not mean arrest. He could be anywhere, and an arrest warrant is out, probably. He could be in Paulding, or in TN, or AL. And if he's arrested out of state, it will likely take an extradition to get him back here.

[icare]

Beavers has not signed the warrant...I wonder why hes taking his time?

[Lady Raider]

I did not know that Tony Beavers was Johnathan Bates Godfather...... I did know that Jonathan was Judge Fosters Foster son..... Tony Beavers needs to step away from this case completely.. he should have never been involved to start with.

[icare]

Judge Beavers needs to step away from the bench completely!

[Eddie Bennett]

The law is for the good old boys; not for women.

[Lady Raider]

Tony Beavers still has not signed warrant

[Lady Raider]

Wednesday (10-25) a Grand Jury found Jonathan Bates guilty on 1 count malice murder, 1 count felony murder, 2 counts cruelty to children, and aggravated assault

Paulding County Judge Beavers is the judge that has to sign off on the true bill and as of 9pm tonight Friday (10-27) he has still not!!!!! .

Why wasn't this expedited Wednesday ?! Jonathan Bates should have been behind bars Wednesday!!

ISSUE THE ARREST ORDER ALREADY!!! LOCK HIM UP!!!

From what I've been told - There is WAY TOO MUCH conflict of interest between Judge Beavers and retired paulding Judge Bill Foster who are very good friends. Bill Foster took Jonathan Bates in years ago to raise him.

They are taking to "Good Ole Boy System" too damn far when a young Mother is beaten and murdered!

I think it's time for Judge Beavers to resign!!

.

[lowrider]

IS there anyone to report judges to?

[Lady Raider]

IS there anyone to report judges to?

I think someone is looking in to that, and I do know the news has been contacted on this issue.

[CitizenCain]

I don't know Judge Beavers, I wouldn't recognize him if we passed on the street but an honest judge, an honorable judge that had his kind of relationship with a defendant would have recused himself from this case from the start. JMHO

[Eddie Bennett]

I'm wondering how far should a "Good Old Boy" system go?

 

Here is a shining example of how a good old boy system works. But, it's important to have the law involved in a good old boy system. If not it just will not work. Good old boys can laugh law off like it is a joke.

 

Law officers can break all kind of laws. They can be jacked up drunk driving the wrong way on a street, and just gets taken home to keep him from hurting himself.

 

Example: Listen to the details.

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by The Postman

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

IS there anyone to report judges to?

 

Regrettably, no. You can report them to the JQC but they are underfunded, understaffed and in the process of restructuring. In November's election, an amendment to the GA Constitution abolished the JQC and it was reformed to gut transparency. I have never filed a complaint with the JQC because it is a toothless tiger and now doesn't even have a mouth.

 

Also, if you mention that you filed a complaint to the JQC before any formal charges are filed, you will be charged with a misdemeanor. Even if you don't mention the complaint but someone says you did, you risk conviction.

 

Filing with the FBI is no better. Especially with a DOJ lead by Jeff Sessions. The only thing you can do is raise public awareness and hope that emboldens someone to run against the judge.

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

IS there anyone to report judges to?

 

The amendment gutting the JQC passed last November was written in such a way as to mislead voters to believe it would improve an already worthless JQC.

 

 

[DomesticViolenceByProxy]

I've seen a lot of cases not get followed up. Usually they drag out complaints against judges until the public loses interest.

 

Just in case anyone wants to try:

 

Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission

http://www.gajqc.com/default.cfm

FBI Atlanta

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/atlanta

[Eddie Bennett]

It is like being trumped every time you play your card.

[lowrider]

Regrettably, no. You can report them to the JQC but they are underfunded, understaffed and in the process of restructuring. In November's election, an amendment to the GA Constitution abolished the JQC and it was reformed to gut transparency. I have never filed a complaint with the JQC because it is a toothless tiger and now doesn't even have a mouth.

Also, if you mention that you filed a complaint to the JQC before any formal charges are filed, you will be charged with a misdemeanor. Even if you don't mention the complaint but someone says you did, you risk conviction.

Filing with the FBI is no better. Especially with a DOJ lead by Jeff Sessions. The only thing you can do is raise public awareness and hope that emboldens someone to run against the judge.

 

Nobody in this county is going to run against a sitting judge.

 

I came here in 1980 and you wouldn’t believe the things I heard about Foster. And it was probably true but for all the fine upstanding people in this county he was like a god.

[Eddie Bennett]

Nobody in this county is going to run against a sitting judge.

 

I came here in 1980 and you wouldn’t believe the things I heard about Foster. And it was probably true but for all the fine upstanding people in this county he was like a god.

 

What about The Good Old Boys, Lo, were they the so-called fine upstanding people or were they just a part of the fine upstanding people?

 

When I lived there, from the 1980's up until about mid-2010's the fine upstanding people were controlled by the Good Old Boy system.

Edited October 28, 2017 by The Postman

[october]

Nobody in this county is going to run against a sitting judge.

 

I came here in 1980 and you wouldn’t believe the things I heard about Foster. And it was probably true but for all the fine upstanding people in this county he was like a god.

All Judges in Paulding are related. Things will not change until some new blood comes along.

 

What about The Good Old Boys, Lo, were they the so-called fine upstanding people or were they just a part of the fine upstanding people?

 

When I lived there, from the 1980's up until about mid-2010's the fine upstanding people were controlled by the Good Old Boy system.

It will not happen until old blood dies out.

[Lady Raider]

looks like Cynde's family had a visitor today: