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

More | Report Post

On 7/29/08, C wrote:
> An officer of the law may pull you over for pretty much any reason
> he wants. This applies to most every state. In a nice neighborhood
a
> car that is less than desirable or say for example a van that says
> "free candy" on the side may illicit some concern or at least some
> checking into, at minimum a double take. If you are doing something
> illegal you may want to remain as inconspicuous as possible. This
> means knowing and understanding your surroundings and if you are in
> the ghetto, a Carrera GT may be a bad choice to delve out drugs
with.
>
> My point here is there must have been some other factors we are not
> hearing here. If the arrest was solely based on the car you were
> driving, well then it should be over already w/ half competent
> counsel. On the other hand if the nice car was a means to an end it
> will probably be more difficult to prove.
>
> GL either way,
>
> C

Proving this is the easy part...getting help in litigating it is the
difficult fence to jump. The police officers admitted to this
during trial...on the record. Yes, they can pull you over for
pretty much anything...probable cause must be the prevailing
objective though. The trial should have stopped right there!! True,
I did have a court appointed attorney...fact is I have had 5 (five)
appointed attorney's...2 (two) of which claim to have been TOLD not
to defend. Call it what you want....I call it conspiracy,
railroading just for a start. I submitted an 11.07...no answer
yet! Filed with the State Bar...of course the cloak was laid over
it!! Everything after the admission of stopping someone
for "driving a nice car in a bad neighborhood" does not matter.
Listen, Elmer Fudd stopped laughing when??? That's right when the
rabbit had his turn. I have all the proof transcripts,
documentation, from start to finish. All I want is for the law to
apply accross the counter just as it does when I am wrong. Ever
heard of proper perspective or the haves and the have not's? I need
a real chance at setting the record straight...you just can't break
the law and call yourself upholding is at the same time, while
expecting right to come from dirty deeds.

Anyway thanks for the chat...
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/26/08, -- wrote:
>>
>>> Hey!! That has been done already. Do the ends justify the
>>> means? Where are the attorney's that actually look at what
>>> took place to get the conviction? It is far more criminal to
>>> break the law, in order to uphold the law, than to outright
>>> break the law and get caught. One who breaks the law in order
>>> the catch a law breaker, breaks the law first and foremost.
>>> The law does not walk on two feet, nor sit on the fleshly
>>> cushion of a rear end...does it? Since when does a person get
>>> sent to prison for "driving a nice car" that rightfully
>>> belongs to them? Since when does chronological order of
>>> events not matter?
>>
>> It is impossible to know what the actual legal situation you
>> faced was from your postng. I gather you do not claim "actual
>> innocence" rather "procedural" innocence because of improper
>> police work and prosecutorial misconduct.
>>
>> You indicate that a direct appeal has already been done,
>> apparently it was unsuccessful.
>>
>> One last type of "appeal" process is called "post-conviction
>> relief." Most states have enacted their own form of habeas
>> corpus and coram nobis relief statutes. If you are still under
>> the terms of your conviction -- that is you are incarcerated or
>> on probation/parole -- you may be able to seek relief under
>> the "post-conviction" statute of your state. It is always a long
>> shot and a last resort. A majority of states place a time limit
>> on when you may seek "post-conviction" relief. You will need to
>> find out if you are still eligible to file a petition for relief
>> or if the time has run out. Each state's "post-conviction"
>> petition process is different.