Facebook threads that are removed Re: Plea Deals

I want to apologize to anyone who attempts to access the link I showed for Peter St. Cyr's facebook page regarding Judge Murdoch. He has blocked access to those discussions/comments. I couldn't find the exact email he sent as to why he blocked access to that thread, since the fb posting, many were exchanged but I remember him saying something about the Richard case was over and everyone should move on. Sorry, Peter, but that wasn't the issue.

Here is the content of an email that I sent in response to his mis-stated version of my concerns. I cc'd this same email to Senator Adair who was involved in the exchange as well. However, Senator Adair seemed to understand and value my concerns that judges should be bound by law regarding plea deals and not able to exercise arbitrary discretion. See as follows:

Peter: You are forgetting about the 11(c)(1)(C) federal rule regarding plea agreements. Did you ask your attorney friends about that and what would prevent it from being applied at the state level?

Show me the questions you asked of your attorney friends, otherwise, the answers as relayed second hard are not only hearsay but they are suspect. I appreciate your candor but you don't seem to be able to provide accurate reflective feedback for what I am saying. I would not expect that a restatement or rephrasing to others would be anymore accurate. I really don't think you understand what I see as the REAL issue.

1. You keep saying I am dealing with Richard and that case is dead. That is untrue. I know that case is over so please stop saying that.

2. You keep saying that Judges (state) in NM are not required to be bound by plea deals. That is not what I am saying, I believe the the federal 11(c)(1)(C) rule should have a similar counterpart in state law & our current laws should be corrected to require all elements of a plea to be known, disclosed and agreed to by all parties.

3. If someone violates the plea deal/agreement then the consequences should be spelled out in detail for both parties. I want state judges to be bound by law not free to run roughshod over citizens by exercising arbitrary discretion as did Murdoch. There was no precedent for what Murdoch did (saying remorse is a requirement for a plea deal when it was not known, disclosed or agreed to) based upon Murdoch's now proven faulty discretion & poor discernment.

4. I showed you the link that was written by licensed attorney's, & law professors from all over the country they advocate the position I have taken quite clearly. Did you read or look over the link I sent you?
http://www.cicchinilaw.com/PDFs/5-new-Ciicchini.pdf

If you did read the link then your comment that no licensed lawyer would agree with me is false because I got that information from lawyers who are advocates for judges to abide by plea deals as per contract law.

4. Did you send the link to your attorney friends? If so, what did they say?

5. Contract law is contract law. Whether is applied or used is another matter. There are lots of issues that require changes in public policy and law. This (plea deals to abide by contract law) is one of the issues.

6. Please stop saying I want to insert facts into the case. I am not. I am asking questions to you and Joline and not getting any answers. Did she know or was she aware of any elements of the plea deal that involved being remorseful? There were many other similar questions that have gone unanswered.

7. I am quite positive that only of the issue I discussed that WAS part of the court record was that Judge Murdoch "by his actions" in effect, added a requirement to a plea deal that was not known, disclosed or agreed to in advance. I cannot believe you do not see this.

8. The name of the defendant is irrelevant at this point. This is a stock issues case, not a comparative advantage case. The issue (Judge Murdoch adding a requirement that was not known, disclosed or agreed to) can stand on its own regardless of what name appears on the pleading.

9. If the plea deal is voided, fine, then the plea should have been allowed to be withdrawn and the case should have gone to trial or be heard on appeal.

Please deal with each element by number in the future so I can track your responses. I will do the same for you if you feel/believe I am not hearing you or understanding you.