Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TXcarlosTX
i already looked up PI in texas penal code, and it doesnt describe me at that time.
|
Good- but be careful! The question is not "were you described" in reality, but does the 1st hand witness claim you were so described. It's not your judgment (stop judging yourself), nor the accusers, but the actual judge who decides BETWEEN claims. So first, claim "no jurisdiction"- for "failure to state an offense"!
(actually first pay attention to the other posters and defeat this for no personal jurisdiction, misnomer and no oath. My bit here is secondary, but should be well understood anyway, imho)
The adversary needs to establish that there is a case, and then prove it. It only takes one (!) witness, but someone somewhere somehow needs to represent this "cause of action"- if they can't even be bothered to do this then there is no case to begin with, nothing to settle or judge, just grounds to dismiss the complaint.
The whole point of a legal process is to establish a controversy and settle the argument. So someone has to first ARGUE- that you were indeed, "PI", based on what that person knows 1st hand. Not what they think, or feel or conclude, or would like to believe, but what they claim to have witnessed.
The argument is never, "was I", it's:
1. "is it properly claimed" (acts which properly describe the statutory definition)
2. "is that true" (but thats the basis for an actual trial, the merits of the case.
The common mistake we make sometimes is imagining a "GREAT EYE IN THE SKY", that knows all, sees all, and determines all. Nothing could be further from the truth- its your word against theirs, and theirs has to state legal claim first, to even CREATE a controversy, in the first place. The judge just has whatever pleading are made, information duly presented (but they will go haywire and assume anything if you let them!)