Hot Air » Blog Archive » Quote of the day

Quote of the day

posted at 11:10 pm on September 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

“I’ve done this for 18 years now. Not only has it never happened to me personally — a judge dismissing after a guilty verdict — I’ve never heard of it being done.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Upon leaving the courthouse, he was asked what were his plans. He said, “I’m going to buy a van tricked out like an ice cream truck … and a puppy – just to be sure.”

lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:15 PM

This stinks to high heaven.

infidel4life on September 13, 2007 at 11:19 PM

All those…people…have that look in their eyes.

baldilocks on September 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM

OK, let me see here. Scooter Libby is convicted for lying to the FBI about something that wasn’t a crime (and probably wasn’t a lie either), and has to do time. But a known, convicted child molester, who is found guilty yet again by a jury of his peers, has his conviction overturned by a lib judge.

What the hell is going on in this country?

stonemeister on September 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Or…

Where are you going now that you’ve gotten out of sexual abuse case? Disney World!

Here was the best part:

Pask was previously convicted of having sexual contact with a 12-year-old girl in March 1991 and has spent 11 of the last 20 years in prison on a variety of charges, officials said

It’s not like he had a history or anything.

lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 PM

I was unaware that a jury’s verdict is not final, and is subject to a veto from a judge. Never heard of that. If that is the case, why then is a jury chosen to judge a defendant, if it is the judge that has the final say?

jihadwatcher on September 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM

“From his perspective, it was probably a courageous move,”

We need fewer judges out to be a legend in their own minds. Like none.

TexasDan on September 13, 2007 at 11:26 PM

This is insane. Hopefully Bill O’Reilly will cover this story.

SoulGlo on September 13, 2007 at 11:27 PM

All I’d say is it would be high time to investigate the judges free time activities. The prosecutor should hire a PI to really dig into the judge.

Do they do that already?

Editor on September 13, 2007 at 11:33 PM

I would think he would give the legal definition of private area or shelter before the Jury deliberated. Of course that may have proven the defense.

Not a lawyer, but I’ve seen every Law and Order episode, ever.

sunny on September 13, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Here is a judge that should lose his job immediately and face serious penalties. If this idiot was going to aquit the dirt bag in the first place, why bother with a trial?

DAT60A3 on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 PM

jihadwatcher on September 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Yep. Judge can vacate a decision if he thinks it violated law. Most commonly happens when damage awards are way out of line; this is beyond the pale though.

lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:44 PM

“Activist judges?!”

ColtsFan on September 13, 2007 at 11:58 PM

The Judge probably let him off easy because of his nice, sane, innocent looks.

abinitioadinfinitum on September 14, 2007 at 12:05 AM

It’s been all over the Cheddarsphere. The best commentary I’ve seen thus far comes from Badger Blogger.

The picnic shelter in question, which the jury did visit, included bathrooms according to radio reports (I’ll have to make a road trip tomorrow with my camera to confirm this, as print media says that it is an open-air shelter without any mention of bathrooms). If I needed to answer nature’s call in that park, I would certainly hope that the bathrooms in that shelter were secluded.

The good news, if there is any, is that the perp in question is still being held on a separate charge.

steveegg on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 AM

All those…people…have that look in their eyes.

baldilocks on September 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Yeah, that demon possessed look.

- The Cat

MirCat on September 14, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Dude’s got Betty Davis eyes.

km on September 14, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Let’s not drag Betty Davis into this… or Marty Feldman. I think his eyes look much more like Nancy Pelosi’s.

Buzzy on September 14, 2007 at 12:23 AM

I AM THE LAW

Judge Timothy Van Akkeren

Kini on September 14, 2007 at 12:27 AM

They need to change the wording on that statute. “secluded area”? Why wouldn’t trying to lure a nine year-old ANYWHERE be a crime?! Judge shoulda let the verdict stand and keep this creep off the streets even if the verdict didn’t follow the letter of the law. Certainly this case fit the spirit of the law. Unfortunately this guy will be before a judge again. Hopefully no one gets hurt in the meantime.

Ordinary1 on September 14, 2007 at 12:32 AM

The good news, if there is any, is that the perp in question is still being held on a separate charge.

steveegg on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 AM

That IS good news!

Ordinary1 on September 14, 2007 at 12:33 AM

That IS good news!

Ordinary1 on September 14, 2007 at 12:33 AM

True; however, I don’t know if Lawgiver-In-Black and friend to criminals and illegal aliens in Sheboygan County Timothy M. Van Akkeren has that case as well.

steveegg on September 14, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Perhaps the judge is himself far too familiar with activities in ’secluded areas.’

infidel4life on September 14, 2007 at 12:49 AM

Where the hell does this judge get off on overturning a jury’s verdict?

Perhaps the kindly judge would like to hire Mr. Pask to do some gardening work, like when his grandchildren are visiting,

Kimmer on September 14, 2007 at 12:49 AM

But Pask’s attorney, George Limbeck, defended the decision Thursday while criticizing DeCecco for commenting on a case he didn’t prosecute. The case was handled by Assistant District Attorney Christopher Stock.

“Joe DeCecco was not involved in that decision, he did not sit through the jury trial, he did not hear the evidence,” Limbeck said. “(Van Akkeren) was right, and anyone that sat through the trial expressed the same opinion and were just as shocked that the jury returned a guilty verdict.”

Limbeck — who did not present any defense witnesses during the trial — said a citizen witness called by the state was the only person to address whether the shelter was a secluded area. That person said the shelter was within clear view of the playground, the street and the rest of the area, Limbeck said.

“I told the jury up front, I said, ‘The evidence that you’re going to hear is going to establish that what my client did was disgusting, it was a proposition to a 9-year-old girl,’” Limbeck said. “‘But no matter how much that disgusts you, no matter how much you find that revolting — and what parent wouldn’t — that is not the issue today, the issue is whether or not it is a crime … and even though you’re not going to like it, the evidence is going to be clear that this was not a secluded area.’”

This, my friends, is where we have come to in America, in a nutshell.

Once I am done vomiting, I will try to come up with the vilest words possible to describe this.

And then I will be left with none.

Hawkins1701 on September 14, 2007 at 12:59 AM

This is ridiculous. I’m all for the courts following the law whether I like it or not. It’s the legislatures job to fix the laws if they’re broken, not the courts. But the jury did visit the location and could make up their own minds if it was “secluded”.

I’ll have to make a road trip tomorrow with my camera to confirm this,
steveegg on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 AM

Please link to photos after you have them. If this place even comes close to “secluded” I’m going to be getting out the pen and paper.

FireDrake on September 14, 2007 at 1:00 AM

I checked another news article, because different ones can have different details. The Sheboygan Press soft pedaled it compared with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which included a few salient facts:

“I think they (the jury) were angry and upset with what he said to this girl. That’s an issue of morality. But this is not about what’s moral, or what’s ethical, but whether there were sufficient facts as defined by law to convict him of the charge,” Limbeck said.

Van Akkeren said in court that DeCecco overcharged Pask and that a disorderly conduct charge would have been more appropriate.

“The only people who are shocked by the dismissal are those who did not hear all the evidence,” Limbeck said.

But that opinion isn’t shared by at least one of the jurors.

Juror Gerald Dempski, 64, said he was stunned when he heard of Van Akkeren’s decision.

He said jurors felt there were several places in the immediate vicinity of the shelter that would have provided enough seclusion for Pask to harm the girl without anyone seeing him.

He was also upset that the verdict was overturned despite the ordeal the two girls had to go through by testifying…

Pask was convicted in 1992 of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy. In February 2004, he was convicted of misdemeanor fourth-degree sexual assault; and in October 2005, he was convicted of a felony sex offender registry violation.

He also has numerous convictions for disorderly conduct and other misdemeanors and municipal citations going back to 1991, according to online court records…

Pask has appeared before Van Akkeren in six other cases, online court records show. Those include the current misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge and others for disorderly conduct, resisting an officer and bail jumping.

What’s wrong with that judge? What’s wrong with their local paper?

I also did a search on the defense attorney. Evidently he has defended those charged with sexual offenses before now. He sounds like the dregs. He’s also been publicly and privately reprimanded by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

INC on September 14, 2007 at 1:30 AM

If it wasn’t secluded there was no crime. Bad on the legislature. I guess “secluded” is rather subjective, apparently, which is again, the legislature’s fault. I’m sure there was a lesser charge the DA could have got him with, but who knew “secluded” had so many interpretations.

Free Constitution on September 14, 2007 at 2:05 AM

If it was not secluded, per the law this scumbag was charged with breaking, the judge did his job.

Free Constitution on September 14, 2007 at 2:08 AM

How about attempted freaking kidnapping, is there a law against that?!?

Did you know judges can be impeached? Hope someone in that district gets on that project right quick.

Merovign on September 14, 2007 at 3:42 AM

The judge might have been bribed.

It has been known to happen.

georgej on September 14, 2007 at 4:09 AM

lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Isn’t that usually a job for the appellate court?

jaime on September 14, 2007 at 4:11 AM

the judge did his job.
Free Constitution on September 14, 2007 at 2:08 AM

Don’t you mean the judge did the job of the appellate court?

jaime on September 14, 2007 at 4:23 AM

When I first read the quote I thought the article was going to be about Larry Craig. I guess there’s some hope for Larry after all.

jaime on September 14, 2007 at 4:26 AM

Oh please, we (Vermonters) can beat that pedophile case… Look what was on my local news tonight (luckily for you, they only have the mugshot on the web, not the diaper photo
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=7068029&nav=menu183_2_5

A White River Junction man has been arrested for allegedly sending disturbing pictures to a teenager.

Police say 48-year-old Lawrence Robarge used his cell phone to send photographs of himself wearing a diaper to a female teen in Enfield, New Hampshire. He had never met her and reportedly got her number by just typing numbers. Police say Robarge also sent vulgar messages and tried to arrange for the two to meet.

He is charged with stalking and harassment.

In fairness, he was probably just getting ready for space camp.

RightWinged on September 14, 2007 at 4:55 AM

sick

trailortrash on September 14, 2007 at 7:33 AM

That’s why our legal system has a perfectly well known,
(but secret and unwritten) law allowing vigilante justice by execution.
Which could be applied to both perpetrators in this case with out delay.

TheSitRep on September 14, 2007 at 7:34 AM

The entire defense was, “It’s not a secluded area, which the statue demands.”(emphasis added) Wow. Just, wow. What a clever defense lawyer. This is the definition of a technicality. Unbelievable.

Troy Rasmussen on September 14, 2007 at 8:40 AM

I was unaware that a jury’s verdict is not final, and is subject to a veto from a judge. Never heard of that. If that is the case, why then is a jury chosen to judge a defendant, if it is the judge that has the final say?

jihadwatcher on September 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM

There is such a thing as a JNOV, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It’s rare but can happen.

From dictionary.law.com:
judgment notwithstanding the verdict–
reversal of a jury’s verdict by the trial judge when the judge believes there was no factual basis for the verdict or it was contrary to law. The judge will then enter a different verdict as “a matter of law.” Essentially the judge should have required a “directed verdict” (instruction to the jury to return with a particular verdict since the facts allowed no other conclusion), and when the jury “went wrong,” the judge uses the power to reverse the verdict instead of approving it, to prevent injustice. This process is commonly called “judgment N.O.V.” or simply “N.O.V.,” for Latin non obstante veredicto.

Troy Rasmussen on September 14, 2007 at 8:48 AM

“I’ve done this for 18 years now. Not only has it never happened to me personally — a judge dismissing after a guilty verdict — I’ve never heard of it being done.”

The real question is whether the judge actually dismissed the case, as this prosecutor seems to think, or did he actually just replace the “guilty” verdict with a “not guilty” verdict, which is within the power of the court. Furthermore, if the judge replaced guilty with not guilty, then this prosecutor needs to get into a CLE course and brush up on his legal education.

Troy Rasmussen on September 14, 2007 at 8:55 AM

I’m talking to myself on this thread.

Troy Rasmussen on September 14, 2007 at 8:56 AM

HELLO, Hello, hello? . . . Is there anybody in there?

Troy Rasmussen on September 14, 2007 at 9:01 AM

If this perv had been arrested by Augustus McCrae and Woodrow F. Call, we wouldn’t be hearing about crackpot judges turning pedophiles loose on society.

Nothing gives vigilantism a better name than a moron in a robe.

thejackal on September 14, 2007 at 10:24 AM

This dirtbag served time for this behavior before? So much for rehabilitation. I wonder how long it will be before this guy molests another child? So what if the area wasn’t secluded? Tell that to the next victim.

Dork B. on September 14, 2007 at 10:40 AM

This whole thing rests upon the language of the law in question. The judge and jury have to try the law, not the evilness of the pedophile.

I’d rather have a justice system prone to differences in “secluded” rather than be prone to differences in one’s perceived evilness.

Free Constitution on September 14, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Another judge for Jesse Waters (sp?) to confront…..
He’s been on lots of road trips lately.

dbdiva on September 14, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Did you know judges can be impeached? Hope someone in that district gets on that project right quick.

Merovign on September 14, 2007 at 3:42 AM
There is no such thing as “impeachment” of judges in Wisconsin. There is a recall process; however, since Van Akkeren was just re-elected in April (unopposed, BTW), he cannot be recalled until a year after his current term began (roughly the end of April).

steveegg on September 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Please link to photos after you have them. If this place even comes close to “secluded” I’m going to be getting out the pen and paper.

FireDrake on September 14, 2007 at 1:00 AM

I’ll do better than that. Since the old digital camera took a crap, I bought a shiny black new one, which has full A/V capability. I put the results up on my blog (I’m no Michelle or Bryan behind or in front of the camera, so don’t expect many videos out of me :-) .

Let’s just say that Van Akkeren was looking for any excuse, no matter how poor and disprovable, to let yet another perp walk.

steveegg on September 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Comment pages:

You must be logged in to post a comment.