What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Timothy Miller and Philip Zodhiates sentencing updates

Thanks again to this blog spot, I have an update on Timothy Miller and Philip Zodhiates, who were both sentenced in the last two days. The Department of Justice website wasn't nearly so helpful, as I was able only to find there this post about Philip Zodhiates and nothing new about Timothy Miller.

The biggest good news (according to this source, which has proven accurate in other sentencing matters on these cases) is that Timothy Miller is (more or less) free. After his plea bargain, he was sentenced to time served and one year of parole in Pennsylvania, plus a $100 fine. Let's not forget, though, that the vindictive Janet Jenkins is still planning to bring a massive RICO suit against all of these people, which is independent of the criminal charges. So he's not out of the woods yet. But for the moment I'm sure he's rejoicing just to be reunited with his family.

Philip Zodhiates was sentenced to 36 months in prison, but he's appealing and is free pending the appeals. I don't hold out much hope for the appeals (it didn't work in the case of Kenneth Miller), but he's able to be with his family meanwhile.

Continue to pray for Kenneth Miller (see here for occasional updates) and pray that Jenkins's malice will be thwarted in the attempted RICO suit. Pray also, as always, for the continued safety of Lisa and Isabella, probably in Nicaragua.

Comments (11)

Good news indeed. Granted, I can't imagine nor want to know what 8 months in prison is like, but seeing that most kidnapping sentences will rate several years to many, it's not hard to imagine a judge sensing the vindictiveness and absurdity of it all and ruling accordingly.

I'm guessing a RICO indictment would have to come from the feds rather than Jenkins herself. Hopefully in this current climate there are reluctant functionaries as well.

It was interesting though that the *very same* judge sentenced Philip Zodhiates to 3 years only the day before in the same case. I think in Timothy Miller's case it was a combo of his having agreed to a plea bargain (the government gets a lot less vindictive if you plea bargain) and some faint sense of the evil of his having been in the Nicaraguan prison held virtually incommunicado under terrible conditions for 6 weeks or so, possibly because of a lie told by the U.S. govt. to the Nicaraguan govt.

Somehow Jenkins was able to trigger a RICO suit, and it was somehow "her" suit against a whole slew of people and entities, including Liberty Legal who had represented Lisa Miller in the first place. I don't fully understand how that works, but it was only put on hold because a federal judge said that he didn't want a concurrent civil suit to prejudice the several (at that time) ongoing criminal cases.

Here's a link that seems to be saying that Congress did include a private cause of action under RICO. "A private plaintiff may sue in state or federal court to recover treble damages and attorney's fees caused by a RICO violation."

https://jenner.com/system/assets/assets/9961/original/Civil%20RICO%202014.pdf

The fact that three people have now been found guilty of (or in Timothy's case pled guilty to) criminal actions in this case would (I would think) only help Jenkins in bringing a private action under RICO.

It is still alarming that the original judge did not take into account that Lisa is Isabella's biological mother nor that Isabella had grown up with and bonded with Lisa and not Janet. I am now a parent and if my biological relationship nor my bond with my child counts, what does? Whatever that judge was thinking, they threw a big fat wrench in whatever assumptions there had been prior on who counts as a parent.

I also cannot help but wonder how it would have played out had instead Isabella had grown up with Janet and knew Janet as her mother, and it was Lisa who had sued for custody after Janet stopped letting Isabella visit her. This assuming Lisa had still repented of her homosexual life and was Isabella's biological mother.

As far as the present goes, that RICO suit will be something to pay attention to. I have no idea how those things work, but does the fact that there are now multiple criminal convictions not just merely mean it is likely to move forward, but that it is likely a slam dunk for Janet?

Whatever that judge was thinking, they threw a big fat wrench in whatever assumptions there had been prior on who counts as a parent.

Blame "civil unions." I know I sound like a broken record, but that was what civil unions did before even homosexual "marriage" came along. It was always a marriage-imitating state, and that's why a baby born to one of the partners during it was treated as the child of both.

I also cannot help but wonder how it would have played out had instead Isabella had grown up with Janet and knew Janet as her mother, and it was Lisa who had sued for custody after Janet stopped letting Isabella visit her.

Family law judges have a tendency to try to act like nothing specific about the individual partners matters. I think what happened in this case was that the judge got ticked off that Lisa stopped letting Janet have overnight visitation with Isabella after he ordered it, so he decided to punish her by ordering full custody to Janet. I've seen people defend this, along the lines of, "If a judge doesn't order full custody in a case like that, one parent can always get along with thwarting a court order." So it's basically a background assumption, I gather, that the child can be used as a way of punishing a recalcitrant parent who won't cooperate with the decisions of a family law judge about how custody is to be divided up in the first place. So, yes, I think it would have gone the same way. Judges don't allow themselves to be defied.

I have no idea how those things work, but does the fact that there are now multiple criminal convictions not just merely mean it is likely to move forward, but that it is likely a slam dunk for Janet?

I don't think it's quite that bad, but I'm sure it depends on how everyone involved interprets "organized crime." And probably a few other legal nitpicks that I don't know enough about. In any event, I think Janet has overreached by including Liberty Legal in her suit. I think she may have included some other people against whom no charges have been filed, as well. I don't think she'll get them.

Unfortunately, being part of the instant news cycle pretty much guarantees that one will have to tweak the details with each update. Mindful, however, of my reputation for accuracy, I'm having to take my time compiling a full report of the two sentencing hearings, which will likely be available, with full commentary, at this post within the week.
But yes, the RICO lawsuit re-commenced immediately following Timo's sentencing, even with Philip's appeal and the prosecutor admitting that the government is still on the hunt for Lisa Miller--the implication being that the government doesn't expect much progress on either of those fronts any time soon. Chillingly, Lisa's lawyers are now being added as defendants.

Lisa's lawyers have been defendants, and her church (Thomas Road Baptist) in the RICO suit all along, since 2012 at least. We will see how and whether it develops.

Thanks. I think her *lawyers* (Liberty Legal) have never been taken off, but the *university* has been off-again-on-again. This is all very disappointing and makes it clear that the RICO suit is going full steam ahead. I have heard a rumor (can't give the source) that the sentencing judge actually told Philip Z. that he was fining him minimally because he would need money to settle the civil case. This sounds ominous, though I don't know that the sentencing judge would really have any special inside insight on the probability of the success of the civil case. Perhaps it could be successful against Zodhiates, who has been convicted of a crime, but not against other defendants such as Liberty Legal and Liberty University.

The rumor is right. Judge Arcara's words were, "The court has sincere sympathy for the effect this has had on his business . . . he may be facing a considerable expense in Vermont."
That doesn't necessarily mean he expects Philip to loose or settle; just fighting a lawsuit against someone with an entire movement funding their side is exorbitantly expensive, and there's no chance of the defendant being awarded legal costs.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.