Bill Richbourg, C’mon Down!

So in the long line of people who cashed in, exploited and turned a blind eye in the Billings case, I want to welcome Bill Richbourg to the cast of characters who should be on the other side of the bars that they put their clients in. Mr. Richbourg could arguably be the most deplorable of the attorneys who rolled over and played dead in this case. Mr. Richbourg was hired by Gary Sumner to represent him. He paid Mr. Richbourg. For 6 weeks seemingly, work was done to further the defense case for Sumner. But on April 25, 2011, the day set for the jury selection, Mr. Richbourg tells Sumner (as they approach the courtroom) that he could not win this case, Sumner had no option but to take a plea. Richbourg strong-armed a disadvantaged young black man. Then the state had the gall to sue Sumner for the time they wasted for trial.

But the best part here is that Richbourg had an agenda from the onset of representing Sumner. He represented Bud Billings in the adoption fraud suit that somehow left the “stolen” child with the captor. Richbourg organized that circa 1989-90.

Can you say CONFLICT???? Representing a man that is being charged with killing a past client and then tanking the representation? Cheryl Barnes, Gary Sumner’s mother, should be suing this man on Gary’s behalf. Not only unethical, but it rises to level of criminal when he forced Gary into signing away his life rather than actually representing him. Any civil rights lawyers out there should be on top of this.

But the people who failed to do their job in this case is so numerous. Richbourg is just ONE of the highly respected attorneys who dropped the ball.

Tony Henderson forced Lenny Gonzalez into his plea and signed off on the man’s legal mental competence, despite the SSI ruling that states the man has brain damage, dementia, and numerous mental health issues. Also his VAN WAS INOPERABLE. That was a defense within itself, but Henderson managed to negotiate Lenny’s fate which led to his death. Shouldn’t that be beyond malpractice as well?

What about the public defenders who handled Florence & Thornton? There was a huge case for coerced confessions but they never represented their clients. They took the money the state paid them and walked those boys into prison. Now their lives are cast in stone. Statistics say that uneducated black men imprisoned early (18-25) build “criminal capital”. They turn prison into a community that they are comfortable with, can network in, to feel a sense of inclusion into SOMETHING. It is the same psycho-social phenomenon that draws people into gangs. That is on Joel M. Cohen (Florence’s public defender), & Cheryl Alverson (Thornton’s public defender).

Richbourg has a great deal of company in his criminality. I hope to see them punished just like Eddins, Geeker & Sir David.

Just Saying….

So after Mike Thomas was convicted of being a sex offender, the 4 or the 5 deputies that testified as to Thomas’s character overall prior this incident have now become the subject of Internal Affairs investigations for different, very random things since their testimony.

The targeted 4 deputies, according to sources, testified that Thomas was a good cop to their knowledge prior to these charges. The 5th deputy was less definitive about any attributes in Thomas’s past. Apparently, his indifference or lack of positive character testimony neither helped nor hurt the case and left him himself free from retaliation by the vindictive ECSO.

Now this could be coincidental but why hold off 4 simultaneous investigations until the couple of days after the case was over? Surely, if there were questions as to these peoples’ character it might be relevant to their testimony or could these 4 people with 4 different situations become suddenly culpable of these 4 acts within one week’s time? The odds must be astronomical.

_______________________________________________

On the same note, a 2 key character witnesses in the most high profile case in Pensacola history got just as lucky. Lonnie Douglas Smith & Tony Eisa testified in Gonzalez Jr’s trial the last week of October, 2010 that Gonzalez Jr. approached them about participating in the robbery. They testified that Gonzalez Jr. was shady and a liar. His character was, in their testimony, that of a person capable of this crime—without a doubt.

Bill Eddins allowed these two men to testify in the trial that took place beginning on 10/25/2010. Strangely enough, Tony Eisa plead guilty to filing a false police report on 10/12/2010 in Santa Rosa County.

ADJUDICATED GUILTY OF FALSE REPORT TO LAW AUTHORITY 10/12/2010

Damn good character witness.

Lonnie Smith is even better story. After being arrested 2/24/2010, Smith was arrested for heroin trafficking, oxy possession, crack and cocaine possession.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Now despite the fact there was significant diversity in drugs and the weight of the heroin, after almost 8 months, Eddins decided not to prosecute the upstanding Smith, just in time for him to testify against Gonzalez Jr. Funny, how that works…

Malfeasance Compounded

Chief Deputy Eric Haines disclosed to me in a Facebook conversation a very important detail to me :

10/4, 7:33am

Eric Haines

There are no, as in zero, videos of any deputies, including the two who were arrested with the underage girls. There are not even pictures documenting any illegal activity. No one including the girls themselves have accused any other deputies of any other illegal activity. I know you believe there is and have been told there is but it is not true. This truth will come out in trial.

Now there are a number of problems with these statements.

The probable cause warrant to search the house discussed video and photo evidence.
The evidence was actually seized and people were arrested based on this now, non-existent evidence.
If there was no such evidence, on what grounds did the ECSO destroy 4 adults lives without any evidence? Where is the due diligence? (this is rhetorical because everyone is aware there was initially video/photo evidence that resulted in the arrests of these people)

What Chief is telling me here is this:

There is no longer any evidence, albeit by virtue of incompetence or wrongful acts. These victims will not see justice so that 2 deputies can remain deputies.

The natural question becomes how can the ECSO do something like this? What about the State Attorney’s office? It appears the SAO has climbed into bed with Sir David on this because they are trying to QUIETLY plead this case down to misdemeanors instead of felonies. However, it will not be “quietly” on my watch.

I am a mother (who has never lost custody of my own kids, contrary to anything Mrs. Patterson claims) and a human being who cannot help but feel like it is my duty to jump in when I see something this grossly harmful and hateful done to anyone much less young girls who have no knowledge or understanding of the many ways they are being exploited, abused, and re-victimized. How dare anyone take the liberty to diminish the rights of the innocent over the rights of the sexually deviant.

So here’s what I’m gonna do. I am going to repost all the stuff about these predators who wear badges, including you, Chief, because if you don’t stop the problem, then you are the problem.

What about Ethics?

I was looking over a case Masters vs Gilmore, et.al. It’s a case of a prosecutor’s misconduct. The beginning of the lawsuit cites the ethical canons of the office of prosecutor. I thought they would be interesting food for thought.

Canon 5 of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Canons of Professional Ethics adopted in 1908 provides:
The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, butto see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the secreting of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible.

In turn, Ethical Consideration (“EC”) 7-13 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility
adopted in 1969 provides:

The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate;his duty is to seek justice not merely to convict. … With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice: the prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence, known to him, that tends to negate the guilt of the accused,mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.

These principles have been acknowledged by the Colorado Supreme Court in

People v.District Court, 632 P.2d 1022 (Colo. 1981). The Court stated

Our analysis begins with recognition that the duty of the prosecutor is to seek

justice, not merely convict. As stated in Singer v. United States, “… the (prosecutor) in a criminal prosecution is not an ordinary party to a controversy, but is a ‘servant of the law’ with a‘twofold aim … that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.’”

… But there is more. These principles are enshrined in the jurisprudence of the United

States Supreme Court. See Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.,

481 U.S. 787(1987); Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965). In Young, the Supreme Court said

This distinctive role of the prosecutor is expressed in [EC] 7-13 of Canon 7 of the[ABA] Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1982): “The responsibility ofa public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.”

...These principles even find expression chiseled into the stone of the Robert F. Kennedy Center (Department of Justice Headquarters, Washington, D.C., constructed in 1935)

where it is admonished that “[t]he United States wins its case whenever justice is done one of its citizens in the Courts.”

Implicit in these principles is the notion that justice be done to victims, to their families,and to the United States Constitution. This happens when fundamental fairness applies to convict the truly guilty. Bedrock principles, yes. Fundamental and objectively reasonable
within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,of course. And, these principles long pre-date the events of the case now before this Court.

Now, average citizen, I defy you to look at the Billings’ Murder case and the role of the prosecutor and find any actions within this ethical requirements. If these things are supposed to be the status quo, how can a man be tried, convicted and sentenced to death in 3 days?

Share this:

Like this:

ADJUDICATED GUILTY OF FALSE REPORT TO LAW AUTHORITY 10/12/2010

Share this:

Like this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: