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

More | Report Post

On 7/29/08, JAP to C wrote:
> 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.

Well, C.

If you look at the response under your last you will find an answer
to your question.