My monthly rant....

[macerico]

Well, my boss went and did his bit before the appeals court for a client of his.

For those who don't know, we had a court-appointed defendent who was convicted of felon in possession of a handgun.

Very brief story....

Client took ride in cab and bought beer. Rode cab home.

Cab driver gets more than one call to return to drop off because "something" was left in cab. Reward is offered. On subsequent call, reward is raised.

Cab driver, a convicted felon himself, decides to search his cab (why?) and finds a gun hidden under the seat in a place he did not search when he normally sweeps out his cab at the start of the shift.

Cab driver turns gun into police station. No prints recovered (no surprise), serial number indicates it is not registered, stolen, or used in any known crime.

Two hours later, cops go to where cab was asked to go. Our client is out on the porch with a drink in his hand. Cops tell him to "stop" and he goes inside.

Cops enter via force, admit later that it was because of the gun that they were there at all, and after all that charge our client for public intoxication NOW that they can tell he has been drinking something alcoholic.

Taken downtown, they run his record, find out he's a convicted felon, and CHARGE HIM for possession of the gun.

My boss through all of this protested the whole case as one of NO PROBABLE CAUSE. To enter a house by force, it must be to pursue a fleeing felon (often violent) and never for a misdemeanor. A cab ride and a gun is not criminal in any concept. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor. No probable cause means no lawful entry. Without the lawful entry, there was no lawful arrest. Without a lawful arrest, the running of our client's record was an illegal search. Most of all, at no time, ever, is there a singe shred of evidence that puts the gun in the possession of our client. Hell, there was a 1,000 X better case proving the cab driver had possession.

So, our client is in prison as we appeal. The appeal court did nothing to try and uphold that there was probable cause. The facts speak for themselves.

Instead, they seemed to bend over backwards to assert that my boss FAILED to assert a timely objection to the issue of being arrested for public intoxication due to lack of probable cause.

???

My boss objected throught the trial record on every issue of probable cause.

If the appeals court goes with the prosecution on this, they will go (likely) with the avenue that my boss was "incompetent."

Needless to say, my boss is P.O. over all of this (and I don't mean Post Office). If we don't prevail on appeal, we MUST appeal it higher or risk our client suing us for malpractice just because the court system wants to uphold a conviction that should never have happened.

More ironic is that another appeal court in the same state with even more damning evidence against the convicted OVERTURNED the case for never proving "constructive" possession.

All in all, I told my boss that at this point in the game, if someone is ever accused of a serious crime, they're probably better off running for the border over going to court. This is such lop-sided justice that it isn't even close to funny.

This is not even an "I told you so," because I didn't tell you so.

But I have told lawyers and law enforcement some of what I believe, and I never get an objection from them when I say:


"You know that the law is crooked and unbalanced."


They will either say "you're right" or nod their head up and down.

I'd suggest getting Adventures in Legal Land for your boss.

You may get a raise for doing it.

Henry Franklin

And keep moving towards the true light.

[suijuris]

Thanks for sharing macerico, an interesting story and I can understand that your boss is pissed.

I observe that most bar members that speak up here or elsewhere regarding the folks on this site and "pro se" attempts at justice have nothing good to say regarding said efforts, and take the approach that retaining an attorney is the only way to get justice.

It would appear to me that they don't want to face reality, and that is that a system that makes a habit of turning a blind eye to facts and common sense will just as quickly turn a blind eye to its own precedents and procedures.

The end result is that regardless of the race, religion, learning, or title, justice may be equally out of reach.

Did any note that personal wealth was not listed in the prior list?

At any rate, thanks again for sharing and keep on keeping on!

[macerico]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

....I'd suggest getting Adventures in Legal Land for your boss....

Got the book. Loved it.

My boss knows of it, but he told me straight out that if he tried that or advised people to try what's in the book, he'd be disbarred. :(

[idknow]

Originally Posted by macerico

Well, my boss went and did his bit before the appeals court for a client of his.

For those who don't know, we had a court-appointed defendent who was convicted of felon in possession of a handgun.

Very brief story....

Client took ride in cab and bought beer. Rode cab home.

Cab driver gets more than one call to return to drop off because "something" was left in cab. Reward is offered. On subsequent call, reward is raised.

Cab driver, a convicted felon himself, decides to search his cab (why?) and finds a gun hidden under the seat in a place he did not search when he normally sweeps out his cab at the start of the shift.

Cab driver turns gun into police station. No prints recovered (no surprise), serial number indicates it is not registered, stolen, or used in any known crime.

Two hours later, cops go to where cab was asked to go. Our client is out on the porch with a drink in his hand. Cops tell him to "stop" and he goes inside.

Cops enter via force, admit later that it was because of the gun that they were there at all, and after all that charge our client for public intoxication NOW that they can tell he has been drinking something alcoholic.

Taken downtown, they run his record, find out he's a convicted felon, and CHARGE HIM for possession of the gun.

My boss through all of this protested the whole case as one of NO PROBABLE CAUSE. To enter a house by force, it must be to pursue a fleeing felon (often violent) and never for a misdemeanor. A cab ride and a gun is not criminal in any concept. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor. No probable cause means no lawful entry. Without the lawful entry, there was no lawful arrest. Without a lawful arrest, the running of our client's record was an illegal search. Most of all, at no time, ever, is there a singe shred of evidence that puts the gun in the possession of our client. Hell, there was a 1,000 X better case proving the cab driver had possession.

So, our client is in prison as we appeal. The appeal court did nothing to try and uphold that there was probable cause. The facts speak for themselves.

Instead, they seemed to bend over backwards to assert that my boss FAILED to assert a timely objection to the issue of being arrested for public intoxication due to lack of probable cause.

???

My boss objected throught the trial record on every issue of probable cause.

If the appeals court goes with the prosecution on this, they will go (likely) with the avenue that my boss was "incompetent."

Needless to say, my boss is P.O. over all of this (and I don't mean Post Office). If we don't prevail on appeal, we MUST appeal it higher or risk our client suing us for malpractice just because the court system wants to uphold a conviction that should never have happened.

More ironic is that another appeal court in the same state with even more damning evidence against the convicted OVERTURNED the case for never proving "constructive" possession.

All in all, I told my boss that at this point in the game, if someone is ever accused of a serious crime, they're probably better off running for the border over going to court. This is such lop-sided justice that it isn't even close to funny.

-

Re, hi, Hullew, Greets from the Most High!

wow that really <bytes>! Insert your own adjective at will.

i can see how it's all an endeavour in Commerce

be strong in the lord and seek him in this matter.

wow.

your anointed brother idknow.

[BOBT12]

macerico, thanks for being so forthright and on point. Your information is coherent and of great value, in my humble opinon.

Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the Rant macerico, I do find your posts interesting.

Originally Posted by macerico

Got the book [Adventures In Legalland]. Loved it.

My boss knows of it, but he told me straight out that if he tried that or advised people to try what's in the book, he'd be disbarred. :(

Yep,

The first order of business, protect the system at all costs, so all lawyers, even good ones, cannot ever competently represent their clients. Just another straw on the cammel. . . . What . . . your boss can't ask questions without fear that he will loose his ability to earn a living? Sounds like "the best system in the world" to me.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by macerico

Got the book. Loved it.

My boss knows of it, but he told me straight out that if he tried that or advised people to try what's in the book, he'd be disbarred. :(

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Consider that in the light of these lyrics:

"Hey...teacher..leave those kids alone..."

[idknow]

Originally Posted by macerico

Got the book. Loved it.

My boss knows of it, but he told me straight out that if he tried that or advised people to try what's in the book, he'd be disbarred. :(

--
If your Bar-member-boss were disbarred, I submit to you and all here that he would be lossed from a corrupt system of rules that we all know are meant to enslave us. As a former member of the bar, He would be in the best position to then be a Great Help to his clients as a most knowledgable agent for them IN law rather than an AGENT and slave of both the judicial system and black-robed pharisees who lay upon us rules and regulations of man that make the word [of god] of none effect.

It would be a very good thing for your employer to depart from the bar to more even more effective to his clients.

I'm sure God would bless him greatly.

Perhaps you might discuss this with him?

[macerico]

He's not very religious....just very libertarian.

If you are outside the bar, the courts will look to silence you pretty fast. They'd charge him with practicing law without a license so fast it wouldn't be funny.

You and I could get away with more just because they don't know who many of us are in real life. He'd never be able to help people locally because he'd be watched.