![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/snoopy-happy-dance.jpeg.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Note: News broke just now that Kim Gardner has resigned. I’ll have a post on that soon. A\/W<\/em><\/p>\n A judge hearing the case has determined that she will stand trial on seven counts. Three counts were dropped. If Gardner is convicted, she will be removed from her position. Since this isn\u2019t a criminal trial, she isn\u2019t in jeopardy of going to prison…darn it! Here are the details from the St. Louis Business Journal<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner<\/a> will be tried for willfully neglecting her duties, and her various motions to quash subpoenas of current and former employees have been denied, a judge ruled Tuesday. <\/b><\/p>\n In a six-page ruling entered Tuesday evening, Judge John Torbitzky<\/a> determined there is enough evidence to proceed to trial on seven of the 10 counts of willful neglect Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey<\/a> filed against her earlier this year<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n “What is required to prove willful neglect, therefore, is that the public official was aware of an official duty, yet made a conscious decision not to act in accordance with the duty,” Torbitsky wrote. “In other words, if a public official has refused to perform their official duties, then that official would be guilty of willful neglect whether their refusal to do so is the result of corruption, indifference or simply inattention. <\/b><\/p>\n “If, on the other hand, a public official is attempting to meet their duties, but does so poorly, then no willful neglect may be found.” <\/b><\/p>\n So, if I understand this correctly, If Gardner refused to do her job, she is guilty and will be removed. On the other hand, if she\u2019s just an incompetent blithering idiot, then she can keep her job. Considering all the things that have come out regarding Kim Gardner\u2019s antics over the years, I think she might want to start polishing her resume.<\/p>\n The judge dismissed three counts without prejudice, stating Bailey can refile those allegations in an amended petition with further evidence. <\/b><\/p>\n Those counts include an allegation about disposing of crime lab evidence in a timely manner, failing to comply with the Sunshine Law in a case that cost the office more than $27,000 in penalties and that she mismanaged the finances of her office by failing to turn in bills on time. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cAlthough those allegations are troubling, they do not state a claim under the (quo warranto law),\u201d Torbitzky wrote.<\/b><\/p>\n Basically, the judge said that on those three counts, Gardner came across as an incompetent moron and not someone deliberately refusing to do what she was supposed to do.<\/p>\n The judge also explained his role in the civil lawsuit requires he assume all allegations to be true, and his job is to determine whether they are applicable to the quo warranto law. <\/b><\/p>\n “In fairness to (Gardner), there is also an inference to be made that these are isolated incidents, divorced from one another, simply strung together in an attempt to make a case against (Gardner),” he wrote. <\/b><\/p>\n Now we are getting into all the deep legal theories and niceties that I flat out don\u2019t know or understand. It appears that, unlike a criminal case, Gardner is assumed guilty and must prove she isn\u2019t. I\u2019ll let someone who understands the laws out there comment. Unfortunately, it looks like the trial won\u2019t happen until September, and who knows what damage Gardner will do between now and then. I suspect we will find out.<\/p>\n Thatisall<\/p>\n ~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n<\/p>\n (2<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n