Since no illegal immigrants have stepped up this week to claim the award, we will hand it to a swine who is using his foreign citizenship to manipulate the courts into letting him off the hook for raping two little girls.

By now, you’ve probably h….

I bet this judge gets re-elected!

In fact, by looking at the judge’s picture, she seems to be infected by PC.

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

1. CO2 causes global warming.
2. Mahamu Kanneh exhales CO2 daily.
3. Judge Katherine D. Savage exhales CO2 daily.

If Montgomery Countians were serious about reducing their carbon footprint …

The question is whether he understood English well enough to assist his lawyer in cross-examining witnesses, following the trial proceedings, etc. The psychiatrist said he didn’t.

The judge is a fool.

The prosecutor did a poor job protecting the community.

The psychiatrist is not qualified to give an expert opinion concerning the defendant’s ability to understand English.

After all, I’d almost rather see this guy walk on a technicality, knowing that our justice system called him for the human filth he is. Recidivism with these kinds of offenses is almost a given, and you know when he ends up violently killing someone in a fit of mollestation, the first question that conservatives are going to ask is, How the hell did this guy get off?

After all, in my homestate, the definition of “speedy trial” is something that a judge can play fast-and-loose with. I’ve been through the system, and it ain’t pretty.

Everytime I turn around Tancredo is doing something right.

Astonishing! You would think such an excuse would be worthless – does AZ not have a driving test to get a license?
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Well, consider the other circumstances – a foreign student enrolled fulltime at AU on a student visa, with an international license. If the cop had been able to travel abroad as much as this “poor” student, he’d have known it was a crock, but the cop wasn’t familiar with the state of traffic lights in desert realms, and with all the sincere acting to link the disparate pieces together, the guy bluffed and won.
Think of the theatrics possible if one was facing even more serious charges. Perhaps one could drop the American accent and slather on the Pidgin riff and act like one didn’t understand even what the EXIT sign meant.

Color me disturbed.

Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM

The plot thickens, dramatically…

Court records, meanwhile, show that an interpreter was “sworn” by a Maryland court on the same day Savage dismissed the case, FOXNews.com has learned.

Loretta Knight, a clerk with the court system in Montgomery County, Md., claimed she had been unable to find an interpreter to stay on the case, even after an exhaustive search that included the Liberian Embassy and courts in 47 states.

But a look at the court docket for July 17, the day the case was dismissed, shows the entry “Interpreter sworn.” Several items below in the docket, Judge Savage “grants defendant’s oral motion to dismiss case based on a speedy trial violation.”

A review by FOX News of the audio from that hearing shows, however, that an interpreter was present throughout the entire court proceeding, during which time Kanneh’s lawyer, Theresa Chernosky, argued that her client had not been able to get a good job because of unresolved rape charges.

Chernosky is heard also telling Savage that her client works at a gas station, and has not signed up for school because of the uncertainty about his future.

The translator can be heard throughout the entire hearing.

Savage, however, notes to that the events in the case were “unforeseeable, truly difficult in terms of the interpreter issue.”

She then tells the court that “in spite of herculean efforts on the part of the state’s attorney … time has become the enemy.”

“What we come back to, then … too much time has passed, is that it’s the defendant who hold speedy trial rights.”

The Washington Post reported, however, that Kanneh had waived his rights to a speedy trial.

Why Savage dismissed the case when records indicate an interpreter had been sworn (the same day) is just one of several questions raised by an examination of records by FOXNews.com.

Records from a case-worker report dated Oct. 31, 2006, show that the case worker visited Kanneh’s residence to check on him and instead found another sex offender, Sehkou Massaquoi, at the home along with two male children who shared the last name of the defendant.

Massaquoi is currently on probation and “was associated with the same victim” as the defendant.

Kanneh’s mother, Florence, was the subject of separate charges last year, FOXNews.com has learned.

(Detective) Hasan arrested Florence Kanneh on two charges of witness intimidation and two child abuse counts on April 5, 2006, according to court records.

Florence Kanneh was given probation before judgment on one of the child abuse charges of which she pleaded guilty on September 14, 2006. She also was ordered to have no contact with either of the witnesses.

The witnesses said, according to the charging documents from interviews taken on February 9, 2006, that “Florence Kanneh wanted to them retract their earlier statements” made to authorities.

In those statements, one of the witnesses said Florence Kanneh had threatened to send him back to Africa as well as threatened to use Voodoo on him if he didn’t change his story to police.

According to the charging documents, one of the witnesses told authorities that Florence said, “She was going to use Voodoo on anyone that had lied about either Edward Massaquoi or Mahamu Kanneh.”

The other witness said Florence Kanneh put him into an institutional home and said she would only release him if he changed his story. The witness also claimed that he “had been deprived of food” by Kanneh.

The witnesses at one time lived with Florence Kanneh, but no longer live with her.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290300,00.html

Click here to read indictment, docket (pdf)

progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Roger that. Enjoyed the conversation.

I’ll catch you on the next interesting thread. Good discussion, all.

Knew a Mauritanian guy who ran through five red lights in Tuscon, AZ and got off with the cop ’cause he claimed in his country there were no lights and he didn’t know what they were.
naliaka on July 23, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Astonishing! You would think such an excuse would be worthless – does AZ not have a driving test to get a license?

The police, prosecutors, and defense are ready to proceed, and have been for quite some time. They found a suitable interpreter but then the judge suddenly dismisses the case because too much time had already passed after he waived his right to a speedy trial?
SilverStar830 on July 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Color me disturbed.

progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 4:50 PM

As to the foundation, the intent and derivation of our legal system, I refer back to the previous statement about the Declaration of Independence. I am content to rest on that illustration.

As to the other parts of your excellent argument, I would say two things. First, the execution of the law is not always the intent.

Second, when charges are brought against someone, the functional reality is that the state assumes control of the accused. Only the state has the authority to legally take life and every thing up to it. Hence Lincoln’s admonition to resolve complaints outside the legal system whenever possible, because the gravity of the situation once entered is great.

Taking a citizen to jail is not a assumption of guilt, it is the state taking control over the outcome of the citizen’s future.

We have, over the years, made those lines hazy, but it is still the distinction point. If it were about fairness, speed need not necessarily be considered. Go about your life, we’ll call you when we have sorted it all out. But it’s not just that. It’s the fact that the accusation puts the citizen’s life, his rights and property under the power of the state. Hence the need for speed.

Cognizant of the dangers of a tyrannical state, they set this whole system up to (first) limit the power of the state over the citizen while (second) not abdicating the responsibility of the execution of justice.