Questioning the Omnibus Hearing By: Shirley Nonya

All of the names except for "Shirley Nonya's" have been removed and written as "Private."    

Shirley Nonya

8 hrs

I have a question for everyone. Judge Kreamer already granted $kank's motion to be in on the Omnibus Hearing. According to the info that some people have posted via internet, all of the defendants that are in on the Omnibus Hearing will get the same results: Their cases will not be removed as DP cases or they will be removed as being DP cases. My question is: Since $kank's name will be in on that Omnibus Hearing, if Kreamer does drops the DP for the defendants, does that mean that his ruling will override that of these jurors if they come back with a sentence of death for $kank? Understandably, one court sometimes rules against another court's decision, BUT, the cases that Kreamer will be deciding are cases where the defendants haven't even gone to trial yet. $kank has went to trial and was found guilty. In Kreamer's order...it's written that: good cause appearing. (To take the DP off the table for $kank.)

I've never heard so much BS in my life such as what goes on in AZ's Judicial System. (Shady) I find it odd that the AZ media isn't trying to get information, find out the law, about this. (Money wouldn't be there for them to do that.) IMO, if Kreamer's decision overrides the jurors, and Kreamer's already decided to drop the DP for the defendants whose names are on the Omnibus Hearing, then SS should dismiss the jury and stop this trial now. (Again, I think it's got to do with money.)

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/…/…/112014/m6577799.pdf

www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov

COURTMINUTES.MARICOPA.GOV

Like ·  · Share

• 
  
• Private:   I don't understand why it's being done now it's a pretrial before the verdict this is a sentencing phase.

  
  
• Private:  It is my understanding that Judge Stephens approved Nurmi's motion to attach Jodi to the Omnibus hearing, but it is up to Judge Kreamer to decide whether Jodi can participate in the actual trial (or whatever you would call it) to decide whether the defendants involved will get DP removed as a possible sentence. I'm hoping Kreamer gives Jodi a big, fat NO.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya It wasn't ss that approved the DT's motion to attach $kank to the Omnibus Hearing...it was Kreamer that granted the DT's motion to attach $kank to it.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya Kreamer>>>> ORAL ARGUMENT SET The Court has considered Defendant’s Motion for Joinder and for Omnibus Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Death Penalty. Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion

  
  
• Shirley Nonya It's right here...Kreamer granted it  :http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/.../112014/m6577799.pdf

  
  
• Private:  Well if she gets the DP before this does she still get to go

  
  
• Private:   that's bogus...... so what's that mean......" the hell with the victims family"?

  
  
• Private:  ...its my understanding that if she gets DP, she can't be part of this...I am only quoting what I read some where else...it also said they think Kraemer cancelled yesterday's meeting , which was not good for the DT, cause if she get sentenced she can't be part of it...she shouldn't be part of this to begin with as it was for pre trial defendants, and she has already been convicted

  
  
• Private:   Yes that's what I wanted to hear thx Private:  

  
  
• Private:   It says that oral argument has been granted, that was my understanding of what I read.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya , besides what the media or "talk" that is going around about this, I'd like to know the "legal facts" about this. Right now this is one of the most discussed cases going on, so it seems. One would think that Kreamer, living in AZ, being a Judge in AZ, would have known that $kank had already been tried and convicted when he granted the motion for her. Why did Kreamer cancel yesterday's "Status Conference?" Does anyone really know for a fact that he did it because of his failure to deny $kank's motion, months later realizing that he made a mistake? I know that he canceled yesterday, but not for what reason(s). There are people making "guesses" about this mess. Why isn't the media all over this? One would "think" that the media would have been on top of this.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya  Private Name....it clearly says: The Court has considered Defendant’s Motion for Joinder and for Omnibus Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Death Penalty. That goes beyond $kank just being allowed to join in on the "oral argument."

  
  
• Private:  Your right Shirley Nonya..no reason for the cancellation yesterday but ppl speculating...I did read on the court document next meeting to be determined , and no new date mentioned...media aren't talking about it as they probably don't know either...I am sure once something concrete is confirmed we will hear about it..everything about this trial is so so frustrating...
• Shirley Nonya "and" means Motion for Joinder "and" for the Omnibus Hearing...have been GRANTED. I'm not reading more into this mess...just what this order says. I don't understand HOW $kank already haven been tried and convicted has "slipped" by Kreamer.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya I pray to God that this Judge Kreamer can undo what he's already put into motion. WHY he even granted this in the first place is just BS on his part.

  
  
• Private:  Kreamer and ss have something going lol j/k

  
  
• Shirley Nonya When I read where Kreamer added "Good cause appearing," I about fell off of my chair. $kank doesn't have any mitigating factors, let alone "good cause" to get the DP removed.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya Yesterday's "Status Conference" related to ALL of the defendants that he already GRANTED motions to be a part of the Omnibus Hearing to. >>> MINUTE ENTRY The Court previously set a January 23, 2015 Status Conference in this Division to discuss the February 6, 2015 oral argument on the Defendants’ omnibus Motion to Dismiss the Death Penalty. Unless a formal Waiver of Presence is filed, each Defendant who has joined the Motion will be transported for the January 23 Status Conference.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya That is telling me that $kank's name is ON the list of the defendants.

  
  
• Private: so, what Juan has been fighting for just gets thrown out the window? how can this be an option......sounds crazy.

  
  
• Shirley Nonya It is a crazy mess Private name
•   ! Is why I'm trying to get legal answers for this BS.
• Private:  Lets ask this question on Joey Jackson's page , he is a lawyer.

  
  
• Private:  .m m.

  
  
• Private:  We need to ask JOEY himself NOT the admins as they answer the questions.