The negative spin-doctors here certainly know how to write inflammatory statements and make non-responsive responses to well-thought-out posts, yet they apparently aren't too well versed in simple reading skills.
For those of you that can't seem to remember, or never got it in the first place, for the umpteenth time, Cheryl:
1. Did not plead guilty to anything;
2. Plead "no contest" to 4 "class C" misdemeanor charges of "attempted hazing";
3. The pleas were "held in abeyance", meaning they were NEVER actually legally entered as pleas in the criminal case, and no judgment of conviction nor sentence were ever imposed;
4. The "plea in abeyance" agreement provided that the case, along with the charges and her pleas, would all be dismissed after one year if she followed the terms to which she had agreed;
5. One year having now passed, the terms of the plea in abeyance agreement having been met, the case, all charges and her pleas, are now in the process of being dismissed; and
6. The "no contest' pleas in abeyance cannot legally ever be used against Cheryl or The Whitmore in the (now going nowehere fast) civil case.*
* Which is why the plaintiffs' civil attorney had such a conniption fit at the hearing in the criminal case where the judge accepted her pleas. Fortunately for the taxpaying citizens of Juab County, as well as for Cheryl, the Juab County Attorney was smarter than the plaintiffs' attorney had hoped, it being made increasingly more obvious that he was simply being used to do the plaintiffs' dirty work, and having done much of it, seeing that there was less than bupkis evidence against Cheryl, let alone hope to convict her.
