Re: IMPRISONED FOR "DRIVING A NICE CAR IN A BAD NEIGHBORHOOD

More | Report Post

On 7/26/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
> That must have been one fine car you were driving if they sent you
> to prison for it. It's a d*amn good thing they didn't find drugs or
> a gun on you or you would have REALLY been in trouble.
>
> On 7/25/08, JAP wrote:
>> On 7/25/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
>>> You're not going to be able to find much help on this board or
>>> any sympathy from any court if you're not truthful. In your
>>> original post you said, "The trial attorney was "told not to
>>>>> defend" as per direct testimony." Now you're saying there
>>> was no testimony--direct or otherwise. So, which is it? Why
>>> don't you share that relevant part of the trial transcript? Or,
>>> are you saying that the attorney did not challenge any exhibits,
>>> cross-examine any witnesses, or make any arguments on your
>>> behalf?
>>>
>>> On 7/25/08, JAP wrote:
>>>> On 7/25/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
>>>>> And just who was it that gave direct testimony that he/she
>>>>> personally told your attorney not to defend you? And why
>>>>> was your attorney taking directions from anyone except you?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/25/08, JAP wrote:
>>>>>> Accoeding to police testimony I was initially pulled over
>>>>>> because of "driving a nice car in a bad neighborhood".
>>>>>> The evidence used was not turned in until three (3) days
>>>>>> after incarceration. The trial attorney was "told not to
>>>>>> defend" as per direct testimony. Soooo...what is the
>>>>>> problem here?
>>>>
>>>> The attorney did not say exactly who told him not to defend.
>>>> However there is recorded testimony of the admission. There
>>>> are also two witnesses. Is this someone who can help?
>>>> I have filed an application for writ of habeas corpus.
>>
>> I am saying that he was "told not to defend" according to his (the
>> attorney) testimony. I am not aware of who told him not to defend.
>> When the testimony of the police officers came into the trial of
>> stopping me because of "driving a nice car in a bad
>> neighborhood". He did nothing to challenge with no probable
>> cause. Thus making this whole episode a gross miscarrage of
>> american justice, which can be proven through the trial
>> transcripts. The appointed attorney testified, after the trial was
>> over, with two agents present. of him being told not to
>> defend...recorded on cassette tapes. Could this be conspiracy or
>> even railroading???

Well!!! Lets handle the first part of the arrest. In order to pull a
person over, for any kind of violation, in the first place, there has
to be probable cause. Correct or incorrect??? If the initial
inclination is to stop a vehicle is it not appropreiate to have more
than just someone "driving a nice car"??? Regardless of what happens
after that point it is void. It is not criminal to drive a nice
car...anywhere in America. Obviously the ends justify means and some
attorneys are upholding the oath of a hipocrite. What kind of law is
being practiced? The just give me a conviction and never mind the
constitution...just show me the money trail. Are attorney's afraid to
stand for the youthfulness of freedom and cut at the very core of the
grain. Did you not know that the law does not walk on two feet, nor
sit on the fleshly cushion of a rear end...knowing that the rules
where broken (first blood drawn) by the upholders of a dual sociaty.
Is the Constitution for some people and not others??? Maybe the movie
First Blood has more meaning when watched from a different vantage
point!!