[farmer_giles_of_ham]

As usual Lawdog shows some of the hijinks that go on out there, with the choice of newspost or court case. Shall we parse this one a bit?

An affidavit is an affidavit. It serves a purpose. It doesnt "work", or "not work". Its an affidavit. Writing on a piece of paper.

But what on earth is all this about:

Edward Royal Martin Jr. was also found guilty of possessing a vehicle whose identification number had been removed — a felony; and possession of a concealed weapon, driving without a license, and operating a vehicle without tags, all three misdemeanors.

So the goofy, esoteric, lame, attorney-priest question is:

was the device a vehicle? See, the problem is these cultists have a weird religion where if you "fail to properly plead", they will rule on fiction. Not just fictional people, but fictional events, fictional characters, fictional acts, anything that is taken as "without rebuttal"

He was found not guilty of a misdemeanor of driving without a vehicle inspection because he was charged under a law against riding electric bicycles on a sidewalk.

WTF??? Was the charge "no inspection", or "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk"?


I cant make heads or tails of that one...suffice it to say more evidence of psychosis, like they like to impute to the common folk.

But this serves a purpose, to degrade the mind with contradictions. Good Job, Lawdog!

Martin also refused to answer “guilty” or “not guilty” to the charges...

“I’m not guilty of any of the accused crimes...” Martin said.

Now my head has fallen off and is spinning like a top on the floor. Musta been that "commercial affidavit" i took yesterday...

During a search of the car, Lawhorn said, he found a loaded .45-caliber Heckler & Koch pistol under the front seat and a spare magazine in the driver’s side door.

Martin contended Wednesday that a state trooper, not Lawhorn, searched the car without cause when the gun was found. He didn’t press the issue with the deputy or the judge, or testify in his defense.

But somehow...

He told the court he was at the school for his daughter’s class ring ceremony and that he didn’t know the gun was in his truck at the time.

So he did plead "not guilty", appeared as "defendant" and even testified.

possession of a concealed weapon

Dollars to donuts the state actor's testimony showed otherwise. The gun was under the seat of the ruck, not on his body. Judge couldnt care less, they just keep the railroad going. Can Lawdog spell "no subject matter jurisdiction"?


According to the TEMPLE, this dude "Ed Royal"

refused to plead, and plead

didnt testify, but "told the judge"

was charged with "no inspection", and found "not guilty of bicycle"

accused of keeping a gun in his truck, and charged with "carrying concealed"

charged with "vehicle", without collateral.

I would have thought the contradictions were deliberate but they are more likely unconscious- the dumbed down american with fried chicken on the brain.

Lucky Ed. I think what Lawdog is trying to say, is "see what happens when you are difficult and dont pay my fee?"

Shoonra is just dying for some more prison stories...all that guy-on-guy action...maybe when "Ed" gets out you two can get together and compare notes.

Dont drink the kool-aid, drink the kool-aid. Lawdog says: "Fee Me!"