Fritz: The Tough Guy on Drugs

Clem_Shady

Clem_Shady

New Member
Yesterday's news:

Repeat Offender Charged with Manufacturing Methamphetamine

Repeat Offender Charged with Manufacturing Methamphetamine - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

2008 news:

Same guy busted for a handgun and hundreds of pot plants.

Busy, Up in Smoke - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

What does he get for all the pot plants and gun in a drug free school zone?

48 hours in jail and probation.

This is what you call a "Fritz deal." The lawyer version of a "bubba deal."
 
I

itsrequired

New Member
Clem_Shady said:
Yesterday's news:

Repeat Offender Charged with Manufacturing Methamphetamine

Repeat Offender Charged with Manufacturing Methamphetamine - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

2008 news:

Same guy busted for a handgun and hundreds of pot plants.

Busy, Up in Smoke - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News

What does he get for all the pot plants and gun in a drug free school zone?

48 hours in jail and probation.

This is what you call a "Fritz deal." The lawyer version of a "bubba deal."
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? When I look the guy up on case search he has open indictments. Shouldn't you wait till the case gets moved through before you start throwing stones? Do you base all your knowledge on the St. Mary's Today?

Here's that guy.

Maryland Judiciary Case Search
 
L

Libertarian

Guest
itsrequired said:
What are you talking about? When I look the guy up on case search he has open indictments. Shouldn't you wait till the case gets moved through before you start throwing stones? Do you base all your knowledge on the St. Mary's Today?

Here's that guy.

Maryland Judiciary Case Search
Click to expand...
The only reason he has open indictments is because he just got busted again, this time for meth. In addition to his 2 days that he was sentenced to in jail, he was sentenced to 2 years of probation. So, when he got busted for meth, the marijuana case was re-opened as a result of a violation of his probation. So, the case was already "moved through"...and was reopened due to his meth arrest. I am surprised you didn't realize that as a police officer...but then again, police officers are not really the most fluent in law. (And I don't mean any disrespect with that statement...it is just my honest observation.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I

itsrequired

New Member
Libertarian said:
The only reason he has open indictments is because he just got busted again, this time for meth. In addition to his 2 days that he was sentenced to in jail, he was sentenced to 2 years of probation. So, when he got busted for meth, the marijuana case was re-opened as a result of a violation of his probation. So, the case was already "moved through"...and was reopened due to his meth arrest. I am surprised you didn't realize that as a police officer...but then again, police officers are not really the most fluent in law. (And I don't mean any disrespect with that statement...it is just my honest observation.)
Click to expand...

I was looking at this long criminal history this guy stated he had, and didn't see it. While I would agree, meth is bad, the judges in this county or other counties don't give harsh sentences to people who commit these sort of crimes. Prosecutors are forced to take the best pleas they can.
 
L

Libertarian

Guest
itsrequired said:
Prosecutors are forced to take the best pleas they can.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I don't have a dog in this race because I don't live in St. Mary's County, but I realize there are a number of factors which influence what kind of plea agreement the prosecutor is willing to accept. Generally, all else being equal, the weaker the evidence, the better the plea deal for the defendant. For all we know in that 2-day-sentence deal, there may have been an issue with the search warrant that the prosecutor was concerned may have gotten successfully thrown out of court by the defense, or there may have been another issue that made him uncertain about how a 12-member jury would decide the case if it had gone to trial. Going to trial is always a roll of the dice. However, I will say that this case illustrates why I am against plea bargaining and against minimum mandatory sentencing: because they fail! However, I'll save that issue for another thread. Am I sticking up for Fritz? Absolutely not. I don't know enough information to decide about him one way or another, and since I don't vote in St. Mary's, I am not going to take the time to decide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clem_Shady

Clem_Shady

New Member
Libertarian said:
The only reason he has open indictments is because he just got busted again, this time for meth. In addition to his 2 days that he was sentenced to in jail, he was sentenced to 2 years of probation. So, when he got busted for meth, the marijuana case was re-opened as a result of a violation of his probation. So, the case was already "moved through"...and was reopened due to his meth arrest. I am surprised you didn't realize that as a police officer...but then again, police officers are not really the most fluent in law. (And I don't mean any disrespect with that statement...it is just my honest observation.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, which Mr. "pretend to be officer nice guy" intentionally chose to overlook and distort. So is he a dumb cop or a liar?

But of course after you busted him out, then he changed his tune and it was everyone's fault but Fritz.

I'll also point out there are other clear cases in that St. Mary's Today story of the same nature.

And, how you can be rolling the dice with a jury when you've got a guy with over a 100 pot plants and a handgun in a drug free school zone?

This is the epitome example of the Fritz regime and it's defenders.
 
L

Libertarian

Guest
Clem_Shady said:
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, which Mr. "pretend to be officer nice guy" intentionally chose to overlook and distort. So is he a dumb cop or a liar?

But of course after you busted him out, then he changed his tune and it was everyone's fault but Fritz.

I'll also point out there are other clear cases in that St. Mary's Today story of the same nature.

And, how you can be rolling the dice with a jury when you've got a guy with over a 100 pot plants and a handgun in a drug free school zone?
This is the epitome example of the Fritz regime and it's defenders.
Click to expand...
Plain and simple: The defense would have scrutinized the search warrant, the information that led up to obtain that search warrant, and done everything under the sun to get the evidence thrown out on the grounds that it was an illegal search or because of some other technicality. If the defense would have succeeded in this, the evidence would have been disqualified and there would have been no case. I don't know the details in the case, but let's say that the search warrant was obtained on nothing but evidence of high electric bills and an accusation by the defendant's ex-gf that he grew marijuana. The defense would claim this was not sufficient grounds for the search warrant to be issued, because the ex-gf had a bone to pick and many other things could have caused high electric bills. The fact that marijuana was seized is irrelevant to whether there was grounds for the search and seizure in the first place. If the trial judge would have ruled the search should not have been done, and the evidence was thus "fruit of the poisoned tree," there would be no case. Anyway, I think you get the point. A conviction is never a slam dunk, and I don't know the details in this case. Perhaps Fritz is soft on drugs; or perhaps there is more to this case that we don't know.
 
Clem_Shady

Clem_Shady

New Member
Libertarian said:
Plain and simple: The defense would have scrutinized the search warrant, the information that led up to obtain that search warrant, and done everything under the sun to get the evidence thrown out on the grounds that it was an illegal search or because of some other technicality. If the defense would have succeeded in this, the evidence would have been disqualified and there would have been no case. I don't know the details in the case, but let's say that the search warrant was obtained on nothing but evidence of high electric bills and an accusation by the defendant's ex-gf that he grew marijuana. The defense would claim this was not sufficient grounds for the search warrant to be issued, because the ex-gf had a bone to pick and many other things could have caused high electric bills. The fact that marijuana was seized is irrelevant to whether there was grounds for the search and seizure in the first place. If the trial judge would have ruled the search should not have been done, and the evidence was thus "fruit of the poisoned tree," there would be no case. Anyway, I think you get the point. A conviction is never a slam dunk, and I don't know the details in this case. Perhaps Fritz is soft on drugs; or perhaps there is more to this case that we don't know.
Click to expand...

How would you rate Fritz on prosecuting counterfeiters?

:popcorn:
 
L

Libertarian

Guest
Clem_Shady said:
How would you rate Fritz on prosecuting counterfeiters?

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
That is a loaded question. First, I am only going to spend a certain amount of time on Fritz since I live in Calvert and cannot even vote in St. Mary's County (Would I vote for him if I lived in St. Mary's? Probably not...he just seems too shady to me, and I hate politicians that go around boasting about being "tough on drugs" to snow the voters [no pun intended].) Second, I have no idea how he is on prosecuting counterfeiters, because I have heard no such stories in the news. (Besides, wouldn't Federal authorities take over the investigation and prosecution of a counterfieting crime? I don't know.) Finally, you seem so hell-bent on getting Fritz voted out of office that I can almost see the venom spewing from the words you type, and it is making all of your "facts" seem like biased information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clem_Shady

Clem_Shady

New Member
minuteman76 said:
The Enterprise article said that the Secret Service took part in the investigation and decided to let the local authorities handle the case because of the small number of bills involved. I can't remember reading that the young men charged had attempted to pass any of the bills.
Eric Mckay doesn't seem to have had any other serious run ins with the law and I think most people would attribute this to nothing more than a youthful indescretion that he didnt deserve to have his reputation smeared with for the rest of his life.
If Tom McKay did use his influence to aide his son then i think he did what most parents would do to protect their children,
After all, Eric McKay has gone on to be the only respected publisher of a small newspaper published in St. Mary's Today.
I don't intend to vote for Tom McKay in the Primary, but not because he may, or may not have come to the aide of his son.
Click to expand...

What about Case Number: 2Q00027197 ?

Maryland Judiciary Case Search

:whistle:
 
L

Libertarian

Guest
Clem_Shady said:
What about Case Number: 2Q00027197 ?

Maryland Judiciary Case Search

:whistle:
Click to expand...
Mmm...okay...he was charged for an offense of "malicious destruction of property" that allegedly happened when he was 18 years old, and the case was "nolle pros'd." So, what's your point? That he already used his "get-out-of-jail-free-pass" for "youthful indiscretion" and thus should have been prosecuted for the counterfeiting charge?
 
T

tigerbug

New Member
The whole truth

It seems as though you don't have any idea what your talking about - lets try the truth for a change - first, it was mama's gun. You can't send the guy to jail for mama owning a gun in her own house. Second, he entered up a plea of guilty to a felony. Third, he was sentenced to 18 months suspended to 90 days incarceration. Fourth, the sentence imposed was according to the Maryland Sentencing Guidelines. Fifth, it is the judge that imposes a sentence, not the State's Attorney. Sixth, the reason we need a jail is because Fritz has them sleeping on top of each other. Seventh - try telling the whole truth. Here is one for you that you never have gotten correct - Judge Raley does not accept plea bargains - all sentences imposed by him are his - the State's Attorney has no control over Raley, nor does anyone else when it comes to sentences; again, try telling the whole truth. Your obsessive and ungovernable frenzy over our good State's Attorney shows a certain disorganization of behavior that may require professional help
 
Clem_Shady

Clem_Shady

New Member
tigerbug said:
It seems as though you don't have any idea what your talking about - lets try the truth for a change - first, it was mama's gun. You can't send the guy to jail for mama owning a gun in her own house. Second, he entered up a plea of guilty to a felony. Third, he was sentenced to 18 months suspended to 90 days incarceration. Fourth, the sentence imposed was according to the Maryland Sentencing Guidelines. Fifth, it is the judge that imposes a sentence, not the State's Attorney. Sixth, the reason we need a jail is because Fritz has them sleeping on top of each other. Seventh - try telling the whole truth. Here is one for you that you never have gotten correct - Judge Raley does not accept plea bargains - all sentences imposed by him are his - the State's Attorney has no control over Raley, nor does anyone else when it comes to sentences; again, try telling the whole truth. Your obsessive and ungovernable frenzy over our good State's Attorney shows a certain disorganization of behavior that may require professional help
Click to expand...

"A review of those convicted by Fritz for drug dealing reveals that a man, who lives in a basement apartment in a house rented by his parents from a local real estate firm, got just two days in jail for distribution and manufacturing of marijuana."

"Represented by attorney Shane Mattingly, Newland was indicted by a Grand Jury following a presentation by States Attorney Richard Fritz who then on Feb. 19, 2010, agreed to a plea bargain in which Newland was to report to jail on March 1, 2010 to serve the long, tough sentence of 48 hours in jail which really ought to teach him not to be a drug dealer."

"Last November, Newland’s attorney, Mattingly, quit the case and in spite of his thriving drug operation, he was assigned a public defender, paid for by the taxpayers, to provide him the amazing terms of the plea bargain approved by Fritz and the Circuit Court Judge in the case."

Article

Thanks for the advice on the professional help, but I believe the news personally...
 
T

tigerbug

New Member
tell the whole truth

There you go again - do you care about the truth or do you just make things up? Go to the courthouse and look it up. You remind me of ken -just make it up and put it out there and hope every one buys it ; again - Tell The Truth !!.
 
Clem_Shady

Clem_Shady

New Member
tigerbug said:
There you go again - do you care about the truth or do you just make things up? Go to the courthouse and look it up. You remind me of ken -just make it up and put it out there and hope every one buys it ; again - Tell The Truth !!.
Click to expand...

No, there you go again, coming in here, running your mouth and screaming lies, but offering no proof to back up your rhetoric. It's in print on the St. Mary's Today website, so put-up or shut-up.

If you say it's wrong, then go get the court docs and post them in this thread.

:whistle:
 
Merlin99

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Clem_Shady said:
No, there you go again, coming in here, running your mouth and screaming lies, but offering no proof to back up your rhetoric. It's in print on the St. Mary's Today website, so put-up or shut-up.

If you say it's wrong, then go get the court docs and post them in this thread.

:whistle:
Click to expand...
Must be the truth if it's on there, all 14 readers of the paper can't be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top