Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Digging through court records, News Editor Thadeus Greenson learned that Bullock had been deemed "ineligible" by the court back in 2012 for a plea bargain agreement that was the result of a previous brush with the law. Why was he ineligible?


Publisher: Court docs unsealed - Judy Hodgson/The Journal

"There was reference to a probation report (under seal by the court)," Greenson said. "I read the law. ... I'm no lawyer, but it seemed to me it should be a public document."

Three months later, Bullock's old probation report — along with similar reports for Bodhi Tree and Vincent Earnest Sanchez, two more men awaiting trial for unrelated high-profile crimes — have been unsealed.

UNSEALED - THE JOURNAL ONLINE
__________________

And, BTW, Plea deals.

12 comments:

  1. It's both simpler and more complex than stated above. His 2012 arrest was a traffic stop, he had a gram of cocaine, transporting cocaine is a felony. He was ineligible for the Penal Code section 1000drug diversion program because of a 2005 federal drug felony. So another deal was cut, he got a misdemeanor and, for reasons not stated in the article the DA's office and the court ignored probation's recommendation for drug terms. No assessment, no treatment, was required as part of his three year probation. One really needs to read this article, it is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Excellent job by Thaddeus.

      Delete
  2. You're right arose, Élan loves the plea deals

    ReplyDelete
  3. She likes to over look the reality of her skills. On her campaign page she is blaming other candidates for missing campaign signs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. She should have came right out and said Flemings buddies were stealing them.

      Delete
  4. 823, you do not lie. She is actually accusing "an opponent", as if she knows who it is. Either she knows, in which case she should say, or she doesn't in, so she's blowing smoke. Kind of like her "resume" and her "management experience", the details of which she has never revealed . . . . Wonder what the resume she submitted to Paul in 2009 said about her work history?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting point 8:57, actually a couple interesting points

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rose I thought both the front and back door were locked.

    There go the paid trolls again moving from post to post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excellent. Then she could be sued for libel.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous 10:34 most of you could and should be sued for libel with your logic. Is that why you do not use your names?

    I will use mine when there are no anonymous comments allowed and you use yours. Best way to clean up cyberspace.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Libel does not hold up when it is actually truth that is being spoken. So continue to blindly follow.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.