“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#42 Oct 9, 2011
In these courtsit goes like this, prosecutor to the defense attorny, "you give me a conviction on so and so and I will give you this client in exchange"! And the deal is done and then you so-called attorney comes to you and tells you that he just cannot get you off or any better deal than whatever the prosecutor has given him for the exchange, and sends your ass down the river!
What about an attorney who takes narcotics in exchange for attorney fees then turns you into the Feds? is that the kind of attorney you want to defend you? Especially in a serious felony case? If it is you're sick!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#43 Oct 9, 2011
Or what about a prosecutor that promises to dismiss all your other charges if you will just plead to 10 years in the state, all the while knowing he has already turned you over to the Feds instead, trying to get you to cop a plea inthe state and have to serve state time then go the theFeds and seve more time?
Is that the kind of shyster attorney you want to represent you? Then I say, GO FOR IT STUPID!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#44 Oct 9, 2011
Now for what started this bullshit read the following:

On March 25, 2008, Mr. Wade served Amanda Kay Evans, Mr. Smith’s secretary,with a grand jury subpoena. App. 296-97. The subpoena required Ms. Evans to bring her 2006 notary logbook and any item evidencing notary work performed on behalf of
Ron Jarrett. App. 296-97. The subpoena had Mr. Wade’s handwriting on it along with his secretary’s handwriting who prepared part of the form and the handwriting of the deputy sheriff who served the subpoena. App. 87 (Tr. 279-80).
Mr. Smith filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena. App. 293-347. Attached to the motion was his March 12, 2008, Motion to Disqualify Prosecuting Attorney (Chris Wade) with the Pam Brayfield and Janice Calvert affidavits. App. 293-347. In the
Motion to Quash, Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Wade had called the grand jury to falsely criminally charge Mr. Smith and/or as retribution for Mr. Smith filing his March 12, 2008, Motion to Disqualify Mr. Wade. App. 293-347. Mr. Smith claimed that the subpoena had been tampered with because it had Dan Wade’s handwriting on it.
continued....

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#45 Oct 9, 2011
Approximately 15 minutes after the Court impaneled grand jury, Chris Wade received a phone call from the West Plains Daily Quill asking about the grand jury. App.88-89 (Tr. 286-88). When Mr. Wade called the newspaper back, he learned that Mr. Smith had issued a press release to the Quill regarding his Motion to Quash. App. 348- 00; (Ex. 63). In his press release, Mr. Smith had included a portion of his Motion to Quash and his Motion to Disqualify Chris Wade with the attached Brayfield and Calvert affidavits. App. 348-400. In addition to sending his press release to the Quill, Mr. Smith
provided copies to local television stations, KY3, KOLR 10, KSPR 33, and FOX 27.
(Ex. 61). He also provided copies to the Springfield News Leader, and the Douglas
County Herald.(Ex. 61).
On March 31, 2008, Judge Carter held an oral argument on Mr. Smith’s Motion to
Quash. App. 88 (Tr. 284); 106 (Tr. 355). At the hearing, Mr. Smith asked Judge Carter
and Chris Wade whether he was a target of the grand jury. App. 88 (Tr. 284). Mr. Wade
did not say anything as grand jury proceedings are secret and he is not permitted by law
to disclose information about the proceedings while they are ongoing. App. 88 (Tr. 284).
Judge Carter did not know whether Mr. Smith was a target of the grand jury and could
not have answered the question even if the law permitted him to do so. App. 106 (Tr.
356-57). At the end of the argument, Judge Carter denied Mr. Smith’s motion. He
reasoned Mr. Wade should have access to the log, as the law does not provide that the log
is confidential and a notary is required to keep such log. App. 106 (Tr. 356). When
Judge Carter denied Mr. Smith’s motion, he granted Mr. Smith seven days to file a writ
of prohibition with the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Mr. Smith filed a writ of prohibition, captioned State ex rel. v. Amanda Kay Evans and Ron Jarrett vs. The Honorable R. Craig Carter, Case No. SD296061, with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. App. 404. Mr. Smith’s petition for writ of prohibition contained the following statement:

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#46 Oct 9, 2011
“The attached exhibits reflect the personal interest, bias, and purported criminal conduct of Respondent (Judge Carter), Prosecuting Attorney Christopher Wade, and others [sic] members in
the judicial system in the Forty-Fourth Judicial Circuit. Their participation in the convening, overseeing and handling the proceedings of this grand jury are, in the least, an appearance of
impropriety, and at most, a conspiracy by these officers of the court to threaten, instill fear and imprison innocent persons to cover–up
and chill public awareness of their own apparent misconduct using the power of their positions to do so.
When Relators on March 31, 2008 asked Respondent and the prosecuting attorney who were their targets of this grand jury, Relators’ assertion that the targets were Relators and their counsel was [sic] met with the tacit admission of silence. This grand jury, as in the last grand jury in Douglas County, is being used by those in
power in the judicial system as a covert tool to threaten, intimidate and silence any opposition to their personal control - not the laudable common law and statutory purposes for which the grand jury system was created.”

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#47 Oct 9, 2011
They wanted to SILENCE Ron Jarrett so hewould not TELL on them!
And just for the record, Jarrett;s conviction was overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court so all the efforts to silenc him and improson him, failed!!!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#48 Oct 9, 2011
On April 16, 2008, Judge Carter filed an order finding that Mr. Smith’s filing of
the petition for writ of prohibition defamed the Douglas County Prosecuting Attorney,
and several members of the bar and that the affidavit and exhibits attached to Mr. Smith’s
petition were scurrilous, defamatory, and a venomous attack on the Judicial System.
App. 176; 198. Judge Carter directed the Circuit Clerk to file a copy of his order as well
as the Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Court as a Contempt Proceeding and for
the Clerk to request that the presiding judge request an assignment of judge to the
contempt proceeding. App. 176; 198. Prosecutor Chris Wade recused himself and an
Assistant Attorney General was appointed to represent the State. App. 176; 198.
On August 5, 2009, the Court held a trial on the contempt charges and a jury found
Mr. Smith guilty of misdemeanor in direct contempt of court.(Ex. G). The Honorable
Gary Witt sentenced Mr. Smith to 120 days in jail.(Ex. G). Before Mr. Smith had served
his full 120 days in jail, this Court issued a preliminary writ of Habeas Corpus and then
ultimately discharged Mr. Smith.(Ex. G).
DISCIPLINARY HEARING

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#49 Oct 9, 2011
Now , those of you that know anything about the law can figure out who the real liars are here and maybe you'll shed a different light on Carl!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#50 Oct 9, 2011
Pam Brayfield wrote:
Now for what started this bullshit read the following:
On March 25, 2008, Mr. Wade served Amanda Kay Evans, Mr. Smith’s secretary,with a grand jury subpoena. App. 296-97. The subpoena required Ms. Evans to bring her 2006 notary logbook and any item evidencing notary work performed on behalf of
Ron Jarrett. App. 296-97. The subpoena had Mr. Wade’s handwriting on it along with his secretary’s handwriting who prepared part of the form and the handwriting of the deputy sheriff who served the subpoena. App. 87 (Tr. 279-80).
Mr. Smith filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena. App. 293-347. Attached to the motion was his March 12, 2008, Motion to Disqualify Prosecuting Attorney (Chris Wade) with the Pam Brayfield and Janice Calvert affidavits. App. 293-347. In the
Motion to Quash, Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Wade had called the grand jury to falsely criminally charge Mr. Smith and/or as retribution for Mr. Smith filing his March 12, 2008, Motion to Disqualify Mr. Wade. App. 293-347. Mr. Smith claimed that the subpoena had been tampered with because it had Dan Wade’s handwriting on it.
continued....
Hw anted this information Jarrett had given to Carl's office on behalf of his defense in his alleged crime! Becasue they couldn't get the documents from Carl dur to the attorney-client priviledge, they wanted to get them from Amanda, his secretary. In short, Wade was trying to get records against Jarrett to help Jason MacPherson make a prosecution case agauinst Mr. Jarret, and instead of him gathering in his own information to prosecute him with, he was trying to get attorney-client privileged information from Carl's office, Jarrett's defense attorney, to use against Jarret.
Now I say, if the prosecutor can get all documents you have given your defense attorney to help build his case to prosecute you with, then we are all in a very bad illegal situation! There would be no reason for a defense if your defense attorney gav the prosecutor what you give him to help him prosecute you with RIGHT? This is the kind of underhanded bullshit that goes on in Douglad County and when you do nor go along wit their antics and illegal practices, they work to get you disbarred!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#51 Oct 9, 2011
If you are accused of a crime in this county,you better hope you have Carl Smith as an attorney, or Bruffet who is honest and trustworthy as well and will not throw you documents over to the prosecutor to help him in you prosecution!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#52 Oct 9, 2011
Zombie Ronald Reagan wrote:
Chief Disciplinary Counsel's brief:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/sup/index.nsf/fe8fef... $FILE/SC91696_Office_of_Chief_ Disciplinary_Counsel_brief.pdf
Pam Brayfield is a convicted felon. App. 115 (Tr. 390). Ms. Brayfield does not
remember how many convictions she has had but believes that it is somewhere between
eight and ten. App. 115 (Tr. 390). A Highway Patrol Criminal History Record shows
that she received a twenty-year sentence for the distribution of drugs, a two year sentence
for forgery, another two year sentence for forgery, a two year sentence for first degree
assault, a four year sentence for receiving stolen property, and a four year sentence for
stealing. App. 92 (Tr. 301-02); 265-278. She has 27 aliases. App. 92 (Tr. 301-02); 265-278. She has been in prison or on parole from 1982 until 2010. App. 93 (Tr. 303). She
has had several parole violations and was last incarcerated in 2006. App. 115 (Tr. 391-
92); 265-278. She was also charged, but acquitted, of manslaughter after she shot and
killed her husband at the Cox Medical Center. App. 117 (Tr. 399-400). Ms. Brayfield
has a very bad reputation in the community for being truthful. App. 27 (Tr. 46). Dan
Wade describes her as “one of those people in Ava that’s always in trouble and just one
of our low-lifes.” App. 75 (Tr. 233)...
Ms. Brayfield’s credibility was very suspect. Ms. Brayfield has numerous felony
convictions and was prosecuted or sentenced by many of the individuals she mentioned
in her affidavit. App. 27 (Tr. 45-46); 75 (Tr. 233); 115 (Tr. 390); 265-78. Respondent
even admits that he prosecuted her for forgery – a crime that goes to her veracity. App.
115 (Tr. 390). There was testimony that Ms. Brayfield was upset with Chris Wade, the
Douglas County Prosecutor, when he declined to prosecute Ms. Brayfield’s daughter-inlaw
for violation of a child custody order and when he declined to bring drug charges
against the daughter-in-law. App. 84 (Tr. 267-29); 119 (Tr. 408). Her dislike for Mr. Wade gave her reason to lie.
And as for you you fucking idiot. I see NOWHERE IN THESE COURT PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT ME:

Ms. Brayfield
has a very bad reputation in the community for being truthful. App. 27 (Tr. 46). Dan
Wade describes her as “one of those people in Ava that’s always in trouble and just one
of our low-lifes.” App. 75 (Tr. 233)...

SO I GUESS YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THE LOCAL LIARS HUH?
June

Chicago, IL

#53 Oct 9, 2011
Keep it up Pammie and you will be back in the whammie.

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#54 Oct 9, 2011
What I am waiting to see is how the Federal Court rules on the Missouri Supreme Court for tring to disbar Carl after they gave this conclusion on the case:

Supreme Court of Missouri,En Banc.

IN RE: Carl SMITH

IN RE: Carl SMITH, Petitioner, v. Sheriff Raymond Pace and The Honorable Gary Witt, Respondents.

No. SC 90425.
-- May 11, 2010

Conclusion

In a prosecution for indirect criminal contempt of court, initiated by a judge who cites a lawyer for contempt for the lawyer's statements, the essential elements are:

(1) The lawyer's statements were false;

(2) The lawyer knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether the statements were true or false;

(3) The effect of the statements constituted an actual or imminent impediment or threat to the administration of justice.

Limiting cases of indirect criminal contempt to those where these elements are proved will satisfy constitutional protections for lawyer speech and will help to ensure that the courts of this state will use contempt powers “sparingly, wisely, temperately and with judicial self-restraint.” In re Estate of Dothage, 727 S.W.2d at 928.

In addition to the deficient jury instruction and the lack of evidence as to the essential elements of indirect criminal contempt, the trial court's judgment fails to recite any findings of fact as to the three essential elements listed above. In contempt proceedings “the facts and circumstances constituting the offense, not mere legal conclusions, must be recited in both the judgment of contempt and the order of commitment.” Ex parte Brown, 530 S.W.2d 228, 230 (Mo. banc 1975); see section 476.140, RSMo 2000. Neither the judgment of contempt nor the order of commitment contained the necessary factual findings.

Smith is ordered discharged.

They overturned his criminal case then are using the very same ponts they overturned his criminal case on to try and disbar him! You cannot have it both ways!

“Kirsten's MiMi”

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#55 Oct 9, 2011
June wrote:
Keep it up Pammie and you will be back in the whammie.
I can guarantee you none of these lying bastards can get me there! The truth is the truth, and they know if they fuck with me, I have documented evidence to back up what I say, if they think they got it over on Carl, let them try me!
The law states:

Criticism by non-lawyers

Comments regarding pending court cases-when made by non-lawyers-are protected by the First Amendment. In Bridges v. California, the United States Supreme Court established that the First Amendment requires there to be “a clear and present danger” of a substantive evil before newspaper publishers can be charged with contempt for publishing criticism of a judge regarding a pending case. 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941). Moreover, the evil itself must be “extremely serious” and the imminence of danger “extremely high before utterances can be punished.” Id. In holding the publishers could not be charged with contempt, the Supreme Court said it was not enough for the published statements to have either an “inherent tendency” or a “reasonable tendency” to affect the administration of justice. Id. at 273.
I have the First Ammendment Right to Freedom of Speech and just because I speak the TRUTH on these bastatrds gives then no right to condemn me!

You are such an idiot

Atoka, TN

#56 Oct 9, 2011
Give it up, Pammy. You have proven once again that you are definitely an idiot. Had you behaved yourself as most of us try to do, you would not have had any reason to associate with any of the law officers of Douglas County. As it is, you have chosen your path. Now, shut up and go to your room. Once again, you have proven your idiocy. With friends like you Carl Smith did not need enemies. You helped seal his fate.
June

United States

#57 Oct 9, 2011
Pam Brayfield wrote:
<quoted text>I can guarantee you none of these lying bastards can get me there! The truth is the truth, and they know if they fuck with me, I have documented evidence to back up what I say, if they think they got it over on Carl, let them try me!
The law states:
Criticism by non-lawyers
Comments regarding pending court cases-when made by non-lawyers-are protected by the First Amendment. In Bridges v. California, the United States Supreme Court established that the First Amendment requires there to be “a clear and present danger” of a substantive evil before newspaper publishers can be charged with contempt for publishing criticism of a judge regarding a pending case. 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941). Moreover, the evil itself must be “extremely serious” and the imminence of danger “extremely high before utterances can be punished.” Id. In holding the publishers could not be charged with contempt, the Supreme Court said it was not enough for the published statements to have either an “inherent tendency” or a “reasonable tendency” to affect the administration of justice. Id. at 273.
I have the First Ammendment Right to Freedom of Speech and just because I speak the TRUTH on these bastatrds gives then no right to condemn me!
Sounds like they are talking more about newspaper publishers to me. Can't wait until they get tired of you and they decide to put you away in the whammie.
You are such an idiot

United States

#58 Oct 9, 2011
Yes, Pammy. You are correct, you do have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have the right to lie under oath or on a legal affidavit. Seems as though that would be perjury. But, you might get Carl to defend you on that.
Bad Dream

United States

#59 Oct 9, 2011
Pam Brayfield wrote:
<quoted text>I can guarantee you none of these lying bastards can get me there! The truth is the truth, and they know if they fuck with me, I have documented evidence to back up what I say, if they think they got it over on Carl, let them try me!
The law states:
Criticism by non-lawyers
Comments regarding pending court cases-when made by non-lawyers-are protected by the First Amendment. In Bridges v. California, the United States Supreme Court established that the First Amendment requires there to be “a clear and present danger” of a substantive evil before newspaper publishers can be charged with contempt for publishing criticism of a judge regarding a pending case. 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941). Moreover, the evil itself must be “extremely serious” and the imminence of danger “extremely high before utterances can be punished.” Id. In holding the publishers could not be charged with contempt, the Supreme Court said it was not enough for the published statements to have either an “inherent tendency” or a “reasonable tendency” to affect the administration of justice. Id. at 273.
I have the First Ammendment Right to Freedom of Speech and just because I speak the TRUTH on these bastatrds gives then no right to condemn me!
WE SHALL SEE!!!!!!!
someone

Springfield, MO

#60 Oct 10, 2011
It sounds to me like we have a few jealous idotd out there, what is it, you can't stand it cause you didn't know any dirt on these so-called officials to tell it? One thing about Pam, she has the heart of a gun slinger and to be able to remember all the facts of things from so long ago, evidently it is the truth. You don't remember lies after so long a period of time.When you lie you do not remember your lies so distinctly! I for one in Ava, am very proud that she has the nerve to stand up and speak the truth on these individuals so that everybody sees they are not lily-whit as they profess to be! J. Miller
really

Ava, MO

#61 Oct 10, 2011
Ms Pam if you don't like Douglas County why live here. Move to anywhere you want. I have a cousin who made up problems with law enforcement but he was smart and moved to Kansas City. But those problems followed him there also what a coinsidence now he is moving somewhere else. Maybe people should just not break the law. As for Mr. Smith if you can't face the music don't play with the band.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ava Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MO Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 2 hr Abdurratln 2,880
Robbie turner 4 hr Abcdefgh 12
MO Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 4 hr Yellow Dawg Democrat 97,086
Matt Thill is Peter Rolfe's secret pedephile son! 9 hr HateYouMore 28
Kelly Quirk drama queen 9 hr Black Bean Brenda 3
CD Cantrell 9 hr Gassy Girl 9
MO Ferguson Police Chief Just Shocked Everyone Wit... 17 hr Obama Bitches 530
•••
•••
Ava Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Ava Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Ava People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Ava News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Ava
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••