|
By Janet Evans
Saturday, Aug 16 2008, 12:45 AM
Update ~
When Eddie Lynn Keck plead Guilty on June 23rd, his sentencing date was scheduled for July 24, 2008.
That sentencing has since been postponed twice. Sentencing is now scheduled for September 3rd.
|
23 |
07-17-2008 |
Motion |
|
|
 |
Additional Text: |
|
Defense motion to adjourn sentencing date received and filed. ls | |
|
|
24 |
07-23-2008 |
Notes |
|
|
|
Additional Text: |
|
Attorney Hartley and ADA Molitor appear to request an adjournment of the sentencing set for 7-24-2008. Court will adjourn sentencing to 7-30-2008. ls | |
|
|
25 |
07-23-2008 |
Report |
|
|
|
Additional Text: |
|
PSI received. Additional statement to be filed if obtained by sentencing date. ls | |
|
|
26 |
07-28-2008 |
Notes |
|
|
|
Additional Text: |
|
Parties contact the court and advise that private PSI will not be completed by sentencing date of 7-30-2008. Sentencing adjourned to 9-3-2008 at 8:15 in Branch 38. Court will retain case post-rotation. ls | |
|
|
27 |
08-04-2008 |
Judicial transfer |
Franke-25, John |
|
|
|
28 |
08-04-2008 |
Responsible court official changed |
Wagner - 38, Jeffery A. |
This was brought to our attention by a comment left on this post 8/15 by reader Scott Thinnes. He has some interesting observations (see below).
When will our Common Council bring the Buckhorn issue back into the Common Council Chambers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
June 23rd. 2008:
Eddie Lynn Keck Pleads GUILTY to two counts of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle.
|
06-23-2008 |
Plea hearing |
Wagner - 38, Jeffery A. |
|
 |
Event Party |
|
|
Keck, Eddie Lynn |
| |
|
Additional Text: |
|
Defendant Eddie Lynn Keck in court with attorney Christopher Hartley. Defendant Eddie Lynn Keck in custody. William J Molitor appeared for the State of Wisconsin. As to counts 1 and 3: Defendant was advised of constitutional rights and maximum penalties, waived all rights, plead GUILTY and was examined as to the plea. Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights and Addendum received and filed. Parties stipulate to the complaint as a factual basis for the plea. Court found defendant guilty as charged in the Information.
As to counts 2 and 4: Pursuant to plea negotiations and on motion of State, Court ordered counts dismissed.
Court will order a PSI and remand the defendant. Defense counsel is also having a sentencing memorandum done by Cedar Creek Counseling. Court orders case adjourned to 7-24-2008 in Branch 38 at 8:15a.m. for SENTENCING. ls Sentencing hearing scheduled for 07-24-2008 at 08:15 am.
~~~~~~~~~~
Charge(s)
|
Count No. |
Statute |
Description |
Severity |
Disposition |
|
1 |
940.09(1)(a) |
Homicide by Intox Use of Vehicle |
Felony C |
|
|
2 |
346.67(1) |
Hit and Run-Involve Death |
Felony D |
|
|
3 |
940.09(1)(a) |
Homicide by Intox Use of Vehicle |
Felony C |
|
|
4 |
346.67(1) |
Hit and Run-Involve Death |
Felony D |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
By Janet Evans
Friday, Mar 28 2008, 06:30 PM
Hopefully, being the good parent that you are, you know where your teen is spending his or her evenings.
And you know his or her friends and their parents.
And, like most parents, you would never host an underage drinking party at your home.
But, what if your teen ends up at a home where a parent allows such a party?
A group of teens obtained alcohol somewhere, somehow, and brought it home, and the parent allows it.
What if your teen, arrives at this home, sees what is going on, knows s/he should leave, makes the wrong choice and decides to stay?
After all, so and so’s parent is there…
Your teen stays, drinks too much, and leaves, driving drunk.
Your teen has an accident and hurts, or unimaginably, kills someone.
Your teen made the decision to drink and drive.
That parent knew your child had alcohol, but didn’t know your teen was intoxicated or driving drunk.
Well, guess what?
“Wisconsin adults who allow underage drinking parties on their properties cannot be held liable if guests later get into drunken driving accidents, the state Supreme Court ruled.”
Now, this law is specifically in regards to adults who are not providing/serving alcohol to the minor. Wisconsin does have a law regarding responsibility in that case. This law was imposed regarding minors who brought the alcohol into the home where the parent did not know the minor left the home intoxicated. It also would apply if the parent was out of town and a minor held a party on the property.
What do you think about this?
Fair?
Especially if you are away and the teen throws a party?
Or, dead wrong?
It’s still your house, your kid, you are responsible for what goes on there. And, where there is alcohol and teens, there will be intoxication…it’s just a fact.
What say you?
Read about the case and the ruling on TwinCities.com
Supreme Court ruling prevents extension of alcohol liability å here
|
By Janet Evans
Thursday, Jan 31 2008, 11:45 AM
One of our regular readers, Scott Thinnes, left the following comment on my "Instant Replay" blog today:
|
By Janet Evans
Thursday, Jan 17 2008, 05:16 PM
Waukesha County Circuit Judge Ralph Ramirez, who could have sentenced
Matthew L. Kucharski, 22, to up to 10 years of prison for driving drunk with his month-old baby in his sport-utility vehicle and speeding at more than 100 mph, took the easy road and gave Kucharski 30 days....with work release privileges!
Ramirez said this sentence was "to make sure you never do this again" and send a message to others that there will be a loss of freedom for such crimes.
WHAT?
This is one tough judge!
I'm sure "others" will get his message loud and clear!
Crystal clear!
If you are lucky enough to go before Judge Ralph Ramirez.....you get a slap on the wrist.
Read the article in on JS OnlineDriving drunk with child draws 30 days ç here
Advocating Mom thinks this is outrageous....so do I.
What do you think?
|
By Janet Evans
Tuesday, Jan 8 2008, 08:32 PM
I recently returned from attending a portion of the Common Council meeting.
During the Citizen Comment Period, two Franklin citizens spoke. Here is a summary of what they said:
Orville Seymer spoke first and told the Council he lives just around the corner from where the incident occurred and has family and friends who have been involved in accidents and death related to drunk drivers. He said, "I am opposed to taking the liquor license away from the Buckhorn because that simply will not solve the problem. In my opinion, what will solve the problem is tavern owners and bar tenders who take more responsibility for their actions. In other words, they simply cannot refill a patron glass just because it is empty and they have money laying on the bar."
"I am willing to go with any person who is willing to go with me and speak to every bar owner along 27th St. and exert a little peer pressure on them in a nice way so that they understand the consequences of these senseless deaths".
Sheri Hanneman spoke and said she disagrees with Orville Seymer.
This also happened in her neighborhood. She is a Mother Against Drunk Driving.
She believes the Buckhorn's license should be revoked.
She said the employees admitted that Eddie Lynn Keck had repeatedly been over served.
The Buckhorn should lose the privilege of having a license.
Mayor Tom Taylor said "Something needs to be done. If it's Franklin that starts it; then it's Franklin that starts it."
He said he and many from the Council attended the funerals of Mr. and Mrs. Kitchen. They were good people.
The Mayor said the family commended our Police and Fire departments.
He said he would consider going with Orville to the bars on 27th Street.
But we have to follow "due process."
That was the theme for the rest of the discussion.
Alderman Sohns said "we must follow due process."
"Hear the facts".
"We are not ready to judge yet."
"We need to be educated."
"We can't rush to judgment; rush to error."
"The bartenders are an important issue."
"It turned his stomach to read the police report."
Alderman Kosovich said "The incident happened in my District."
He wishes we could "shut the bar down tomorrow. But we can't...we have to follow due process."
Alderman Kosovich made the formal motion to investigate the incident, which was seconded, and approved.
Alderman Solomon said he "was upset when he received the call that night from the Mayor".
"We are the judge and jury on this case."
"We have to follow due process."
Alderman Hammelman said "we are used to things happening quickly."
"But we have to follow due process when you serve as an elected official."
He's on the Licensing Committee and at first he thought it was s "pretty lame committee."
He has "trust in his cohorts." "Justice will be served."
Alderman Olson first commended the Police and Fire officers saying "Franklin has the finest."
He will use all of his past experience and knowledge regarding the bar industry to
help follow "due process."
Alderman Skowronski said we must "follow due process" with the authority of Council.
Alderman Kosovich spoke again saying "in the future ALL bars are going to be watched more
closely in order to keep something like this from happening again."
There you have it.
Due process...
|
By Janet Evans
Tuesday, Dec 25 2007, 10:35 PM
WBAY-TV - Green Bay
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops
|
coreAdsCreate('wnsz_20', 'loc', '100', 'wnsz_20', 'News');
|
|
| |
By Sarah Thomsen
If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.
If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine.
Police say it's meant to protect you -- in case the person they're citing isn't who they claim to be. But not everyone is sold on that explanation.
"What we've seen happen for the last couple of years [is] increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents," Captain Greg Urban said.
Police say they want to prevent the identity theft problem that Milwaukee has, where 13 percent of all violators give a false name.
But in Green Bay, where police say they only average about five cases in a year, drivers we talked with think the new policy is extreme.
"That's going too far," Ken Scherer from Oconto said. "You look at the ID, that's what they're there for. Either it's you or it's not. I don't think that's a valid excuse."
"I would feel uncomfortable but I would do it," Carol Pilgrim of Green Bay said.
Citizens do have the right to say no. "They could say no and not have to worry about getting arrested," defense attorney Jackson Main said. "On the other hand, I'm like everybody else. When a police officer tells me to do something, I'm going to do it whether I have the right to say no or not."
That's exactly why many drivers are uneasy about the fine print in this fingerprinting policy.
Police stress that the prints are just to make sure you are who you claim to be and do not go into any kind of database; they simply stay on the ticket for future reference if the identity is challenged.
__________________
Too extreme?
I think so....
More Big Brother....
|
By Janet Evans
Friday, Nov 30 2007, 07:35 PM
Updated 12/01/07 from error in original information regarding Mr. Patel’s profession
Well, first we had the "Mother of the Year," Amy Smalley, from Portage, she's the one who taught her own children about oral sex and showed them sex toys. And now we have "Father of the Year." It seems, a married Appleton, Wisconsin man has been charged with causing a woman to have two miscarriages by slipping her the abortion pill.
That's right, I'm talking about Manishkumar Patel, a prominent gas station owner. He's now charged with "attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child; second-degree reckless endangerment; placing foreign objects in edibles; possession of prescription drugs; stalking; burglary; possession of burglary tools and two counts of violating a restraining order. The burglary charge stems from his allegedly entering the woman's residence while she was out."
I guess Mr. Patel can't find a condom to use, or get a vasectomy. Instead, he drives to a local ice cream shop, buys a smoothie, places an illegally obtained prescription drug abortion pill RU-486 into the smoothie, and then gives it to his pregnant girlfriend! Here you go sweetie, I bought you a treat!
She became suspicious because he lingered in the store, and later she found a white powder on the rim of the glass. She decided to have the smoothie tested by a California lab, which confirmed the presence of the abortion pill RU-486. She then contacted the police. Too late, by then she had already suffered a miscarriages, her second in less than a year.
"These allegations are devious, diabolical and disturbing," Outagamie County Court Commissioner Brian Figy told Manishkumar Patel at a hearing, according to the Appleton Post-Crescent newspaper.
Patel's attorney said he expects him to plead . . . you guessed it . . . not guilty.
Patel faces up to 94 years in prison and extended supervision if convicted.
How much you want to bet he gets a slap on the wrist compared to the 94 years he deserves?
Read the complete story from the MSNBC
Appleton man accused of slipping woman drug to make her miscarry
"Unglued" because this man, gave his girlfriend a drug rather than than just using birth control himself? TWICE! He takes the lives of two innocent babies!
And endangers the mother. She had two miscarriages . . .
Your thoughts?
|
By Janet Evans
Tuesday, Nov 13 2007, 06:00 AM
Amy Smalley agreed to plead
guilty after telling her children
about her own sexual experiences
and showing them a sex toy.
Woman prosecuted for giving her children too much information about sex
By Mallory Simon, Court TV November 12, 2007
Amy Smalley thought she was being a good parent when she taught
her children about sex.
Smalley told her children, ages 11 and 15, about her own sexual experiences, explained how to perform oral sex and even showed them a sex toy she owned.
Smalley called it education. Prosecutors called it a crime.
Prosecutors in Columbia County, Wis., charged Smalley Feb. 19 with exposing children to harmful descriptions, a felony crime that carries a penalty of up to three years in prison.
Smalley's lawyer attempted to get the case thrown out, saying that sex education was protected free speech, but a Columbia County judge disagreed and sent the case to trial.
On Thursday, Smalley pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation and ordered to attend counseling. She agreed to the plea to prevent her children from having to testify, Smalley told the Portage Daily Register.
In a motion to dismiss the case, Columbia County Public Defender Mark Gumz claimed that "Smalley's discussion with her children fell under the umbrella of parental free speech."
Ms. Smalley would be within her rights as a parent to educate her children in such a manner as she sees fit ... even if the state feels it improper," Gumz wrote.
The state, Gumz said, does not have the right to decide what parents can teach their children about sex."
Health classes are a part of modern school curriculum, and President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have forever changed the vernacular of the American public," he wrote.
Columbia County Assistant District Attorney Crystal Long could not be reached for comment.
Gumz argued that, because Smalley's children were 11 and 15, they were near or at the age of puberty, making it acceptable for their mother to explain sex to them. But, according to the criminal complaint, the younger son objected.
The boy told a counselor about the discussion and, when asked by police, said he preferred that his mother "keep that kind of information personal," according to the criminal complaint."
"This whole thing's been like a nightmare for me and I can't understand it," Smalley told the Daily Register after the plea. Rev. Debra Haffner, a sexuality educator and director of the The Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, said she was surprised to learn that Smalley had spoken to her son about specific sexual history, calling it "highly unusual.""It's not smart parenting, but certainly not actionable," she said.
Haffner, the former president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, reinforced the importance of parents speaking with their children about sex, saying children need to hear the information from their parents, but she said the level of detail makes a difference."Parents may say, 'Oral sex is when you put your mouth on another person's genitals,'" Haffner said. "But, if you go into technique with your kids, saying 'Sometimes it feels good if you do this' ... I think there is a level of description that could be too much." A main point made by Smalley's attorneys in arguing for the case to be dropped was that the law used to prosecute her was intended to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, and not meant for parents talking about sex with their kids.
"This was not some stranger who was telling children sordid stories for sexual gratification and titillation," Gumz said in his motion.
_______________________________________________________
Ewe …
Ick …
What is the matter with this woman?
"This whole thing's been like a nightmare for me and I can't understand it,"
Smalley told the Daily Register after the plea.”
Oh, really, Ms. Smalley?
A nightmare FOR YOU?
What about for your children?
Just what was your point in the first place?
And we wonder why there are 8, 9, 10, 11 year old “children”
committing sexual crimes in our country?
They are seeing it on T.V you say?
No, they are learning it from parents like SMALLEY!
And the Defense lawyer?
Well, we’ve seen and heard about THAT kind of defense lawyer
before, haven’t we?
Another wonderful story to come out of Wisconsin and hit the national news.
Thanks for being Mother of the Year, Ms. Smalley.
I sure wouldn't want my children coming over to your house to play after school ...
And maybe you can wipe that little smirk off your face in your mug shot too ...
Well … What do YOU think about this?
And the argument, "President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have forever changed the vernacular of the American public."
Well, "they" said all along, all these years, that that would be the case. I certainly don't have problem with that argument.
I’m “unglued” about this whole thing and I’m sure you are too!
|
More Posts
|
|
