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.

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).

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

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

“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.

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.

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.

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?

lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:44 PM

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

It has been known to happen.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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