It was the wrong thread

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• BY HELEN PETERSON
  and KERRY BURKE
  DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
  
  
  A Brooklyn judge wants a deadbeat dad to choose the law over God - telling him to use his legal degree to make money to support his kids, and postpone plans to become a minister.
  
  The bizarre intersection of church and state was revealed yesterday in a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine.
  
  The judge held the wanna-be clergyman in contempt for being "voluntarily unemployed" and stiffing his ex-wife out of $40,000 in back child support.
  
  The trouble started when Ivy League grad Simon Ajose left his six-figure job as a lawyer, stopped paying child support and enrolled in divinity school.
  
  Sunshine told Ajose, 38, to put down his Bible - for now - and belly up to the state bar and put his Columbia Law School degree to use.
  ..........................
  
  "I love my children more than anything in this world," said Ajose, who lives with his mother in Brooklyn. "I have done the best I possibly can to provide for them. I feel that nonmonetary contributions should be taken into account."
  
  .....................
  
  Saltzman said Sunshine's order will likely help get his support amount raised again, based on his earnings ability - a minimum of $100,000 a year.
  
  The judge did not say what penalty he'd mete out for the contempt, but Ajose could face a fine or jail time or be ordered to pay his ex-wife's legal fees.
  
  "When you have skills you just can't stop doing the work you've done during the marriage," Saltzman said. "This husband is intentionally not practicing law."
  

Daily News, via Steve Gilliard

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• BY HELEN PETERSON
  and KERRY BURKE
  DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
  
  
  A Brooklyn judge wants a deadbeat dad to choose the law over God - telling him to use his legal degree to make money to support his kids, and postpone plans to become a minister.
  
  The bizarre intersection of church and state was revealed yesterday in a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Sunshine.
  
  The judge held the wanna-be clergyman in contempt for being "voluntarily unemployed" and stiffing his ex-wife out of $40,000 in back child support.
  
  The trouble started when Ivy League grad Simon Ajose left his six-figure job as a lawyer, stopped paying child support and enrolled in divinity school.
  
  Sunshine told Ajose, 38, to put down his Bible - for now - and belly up to the state bar and put his Columbia Law School degree to use.
  ..........................
  
  "I love my children more than anything in this world," said Ajose, who lives with his mother in Brooklyn. "I have done the best I possibly can to provide for them. I feel that nonmonetary contributions should be taken into account."
  
  .....................
  
  Saltzman said Sunshine's order will likely help get his support amount raised again, based on his earnings ability - a minimum of $100,000 a year.
  
  The judge did not say what penalty he'd mete out for the contempt, but Ajose could face a fine or jail time or be ordered to pay his ex-wife's legal fees.
  
  "When you have skills you just can't stop doing the work you've done during the marriage," Saltzman said. "This husband is intentionally not practicing law."
  

Daily News, via Steve Gilliard

What is the purpose of this board? Is it purely law topics? Sort of a motherboard to the regionals? Do I need to check it to be informed?

where is penske?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
What is the purpose of this board? Is it purely law topics? Sort of a motherboard to the regionals? Do I need to check it to be informed?

where is penske?

Its more serious and not supposed to be part of any gamesmenship, like the adult board it is intended to serve a narrow purpose and shouldn't be misused/

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its more serious and not supposed to be part of any gamesmenship, like the adult board it is intended to serve a narrow purpose and shouldn't be misused/

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. That feels good.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
What is the purpose of this board? Is it purely law topics?

apolitical law topics.

[robustpuppy]

This idiot was seen by the defense attorney buying newspapers at 7-11 the day of the verdict -- apparently the jury was still fucking deliberating. As a result, a guilty verdict against a wife-killer was thrown out. I hope she gets totally stiffed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr21.html

The juror in the Prince William County murder trial swore to the judge that she had not bought any newspapers. The defense attorney swore that she had.

Then came the videotape.

The attorney produced a surveillance tape from a 7-Eleven in Old Town Manassas showing juror Lindy L. Heaster buying a copy of The Washington Post and the Potomac News -- and the juror suddenly became the accused.

Circuit Court Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. threw out a murder conviction against Gerardo N. Lara Sr., the man Heaster had helped convict of killing his estranged wife. Alston found Heaster in contempt of court this week and indicated that she could be forced to pay the cost of the five-day trial. And yesterday, prosecutors said they are considering perjury charges against Heaster.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
This idiot was seen by the defense attorney buying newspapers at 7-11 the day of the verdict -- apparently the jury was still fucking deliberating. As a result, a guilty verdict against a wife-killer was thrown out. I hope she gets totally stiffed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr21.html

It's a jackass move by a juror. But, really, did it matter? Who says she read teh paper? And was there even an article about the case? (in fact, a quick search of the Post archives shows two articles about the case--one from the first day of trial and one from the day the verdict was reached.)

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's a jackass move by a juror. But, really, did it matter? Who says she read teh paper? And was there even an article about the case? (in fact, a quick search of the Post archives shows two articles about the case--one from the first day of trial and one from the day the verdict was reached.)

I'm not opining on whether it mattered to the verdict. The point is she was instructed not to read the paper and then asked whether she had, and she lied. Whether or not there was an article is more an issue for the judge in his decision to throw out the verdict or not on that basis. I don't know the standard, so I can't say whether he made the right call. But it's certainly not for a juror to decide in her discretion that it's not a heavily covered case and therefore it's okay to defy the judge's orders. Did she think the instructions were meaningless? The fact is that (i) it could have mattered, hence the prophylactic instructions, and (ii) because of her actions, the judge threw out the verdict and the county has to pay for another trial.


Really, it was the last day -- she couldn't hold out for her horoscope for one more day?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by robustpuppy

Really, it was the last day -- she couldn't hold out for her horoscope for one more day?

I'm not defending her perjury, but the instruction was to avoid media coverage of the trial. If she bought a people magazine there's no problem. If she bought the wall street journal there's no problem. So why is there a problem if she buys the post if it has no articles about the trial?

I'm chapped at two people:

1) The defendant for necessitating a trial, and taking a life, not to mention preventing twelve jurors from reading Ziggy.

2) The judge, for granting a mistrial soley on the basis of a juror's perjury, when that perjury may not have had any relationship to the verdict itself.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not defending her perjury, but the instruction was to avoid media coverage of the trial. If she bought a people magazine there's no problem. If she bought the wall street journal there's no problem. So why is there a problem if she buys the post if it has no articles about the trial?

I'm chapped at two people:

1) The defendant for necessitating a trial, and taking a life, not to mention preventing twelve jurors from reading Ziggy.

2) The judge, for granting a mistrial soley on the basis of a juror's perjury, when that perjury may not have had any relationship to the verdict itself.

Good points. Was there a story about the trial in the Potomac Weekly, or whatever the hell else she bought?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Good points. Was there a story about the trial in the Potomac Weekly, or whatever the hell else she bought?

Because I'm so fucking anal, I searched for one there too, and did not find anything on Apr. 15.

It seems like the perjury superceded any rational inquiry.

Then again, newspapers suck at legal reporting, so it may have been that the front page of yet another paper she bought said "Fry the wife-killer".

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm chapped at two people:

1) The defendant for necessitating a trial, and taking a life, not to mention preventing twelve jurors from reading Ziggy.

2) The judge, for granting a mistrial soley on the basis of a juror's perjury, when that perjury may not have had any relationship to the verdict itself.

I'm chapped at them, too, but save some outrage for the juror. Judges have to show some responsiveness to this supposed "stealth juror" problem. Judges don't particularly like mistrial motions and they routinely get denied even by pro-defense judges. When they go into chambers with a juror and the juror gets caught in a lie (when it's rare to have any basis to impeach), the Judge could have concluded she lied about other things affecting the trial on which there was no direct impeachment evidence. She might have sworn up and down that she hadn't seen anything about the trial on TV, too, and there would have been no videotape.

OTOH, remember the stealth Peterson juror who got dinged because Geragos said he had a witness who sat next to her on a bus to Reno in which she said she was planning to get on the jury to get Peterson to fry? It turns out Geragos's tipster had doubled up on his medications and slept the entire way to Reno. He refused to say any of what Geragos had profferred he would say under any kind of perjury penalty of his own. That part didn't get as much media play.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
What is the purpose of this board? Is it purely law topics? Sort of a motherboard to the regionals? Do I need to check it to be informed?

where is penske?

Hi. I propose that I should be the topic of this board. Like the Big Board on Infirm.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Hi. I propose that I should be the topic of this board. Like the Big Board on Infirm.

2!

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
2!

Clever! I like the cut of your jib bro!