Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
Here is another poor son-of-a-gun with almost the exact same story. Close enough one might think he is the same guy:
http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topi...e/page__st__60
http://wacojames.wix.com/fundin-for-defence
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Write a book, start a blog, talk to the media. But, be careful when you start naming names because you could find yourself sued for libel.
Not bad, maybe a novel so I can change the outcome.
But ... uh ... you pled no contest! And you still haven't mentioned what it was that this witness observed and how they came to observe it. If this so-called "CI" was the sole witness against you, then you should have insisted on a trial because a confidential informant could not be used to convict you for flippin' out your willie.
She claimed I was masterbating. She didn't see anything. That's part of the problem; everyone want to think I must have been doing something. I was just there, that's all. Did I mention she lied.
Oh, and do you have proof of any kind of an arrest quota? I suspect not, so I would recommend you avoid making such accusations in public (see my above comment on libel).
If APD is not making arrests, they are not doing there jobs, according to the chief. There are quotas.
Did a child witness your exposure?
Sigh....THERE WAS NO EXPOSURE!!!!!!!
Then how did YOU get involved? Were you supposed to be involved in a drug deal but ended up whipping it out?
@#$%&
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
So are you saying that she completely fabricated what she told the police that got you arrested?
She was doing as instructed. The police were behind it; she was just a pawn wanting out of a theft charge. But I didn't know that until just recently.
Regardless of what you learned afterward, you had the option to fight it in court and chose not to.
Fought it for 14 months. They never came to court prepared to go to trial, just kept escalating the threats of more serious punishment. I couldn't see an end in sight. They had never offered deferred before. My lawyer wanted me to take it.
- - - Updated - - -
All I want is for the truth to come out. If the posters to this forum are the typical jury pool, this is why you don't want to go in front of a jury. People trying to fill in the gaps in their mind about probably went in a bathroom, or waved a willy. Bottom line it was fraud, premeditated fraud by the police. Then, failure to disclose, failure to receive a speedy trial, false arrest, false imprisonment, and witness tampering. Not a single idea about how to expose it. Thanks anyway, law experts not.
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
It seems, then, that this alleged CI was not a CI but a witness. Had you gone to trial, and they only had the witness's testimony against you, you should have been permitted to cross examine her. Unfortunately for you, you pled no contest and thus lost out on your ability to confront your accuser.
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
Quote:
Quoting
wacojames
All I want is for the truth to come out. If the posters to this forum are the typical jury pool, this is why you don't want to go in front of a jury.
No one wants to go in front of a jury.
Quote:
People trying to fill in the gaps in their mind about probably went in a bathroom, or waved a willy.
You were arrested for indecent exposure on the complaint of two people. You choose to not give the details of what they said. We know the police would not have arrested you if they said you were doing cannonballs in the water. Without you giving their claim, we must imagine what was said that would case you to be arrested.
Quote:
Bottom line it was fraud, premeditated fraud by the police.
You have produced or even alleged anything resembling this here. When you make silly and outrageous claims, the rest of your story goes into a worse category than a minor shoplifter.
Quote:
Then, failure to disclose,
I believe this is your only valid issue. I told you the potential results of this issue being proven true in my first post.
Quote:
failure to receive a speedy trial,
Al laws were complied with and at least one continuance was requested by your attorney. Were you in negotiations or no?
There was clearly probable cause based on the report of two witnesses. There is absolutely NO possibility of false arrest by the police. None. Not only would that possibility be foreclosed by the outcome your chose, but also be foreclosed by the small amount of facts required to reach the probable cause requirement for immunity.
Quote:
the false imprisonment,
Same as before. Also, the time you were imprisoned was because of your inability to make bail and not for imprisonment.
Quote:
and witness tampering.
While you have alleged this, it is a naked allegation with no facts. Even if it were true the DA gave a deferral on her testimony, something that may very well not be true, that does not reach the concept of witness tampering.
Quote:
Not a single idea about how to expose it.
Since there is little here to expose, no one thinks it important. You tried a lawyer, you tried letters, you've tried blogs and advice forums, you had some access to news organizations, you've tried to bring in federal authorities and EVERYONE, including your own attorney, thinks you are wasting your time and that no one cares.
Quote:
Thanks anyway, law experts not.
Even though you have been living this and thinking about this for a long time, you still do not have a clue of the actual legal issues involved. You complain about the burdens of the state, but do not seem to realize that many crimes have no physical evidence. You focus on the terrible character of the other person who was willing to testify (although a subpoena might have convinced the second), but think about how hypocritical that is. A person ACCUSED of a crime cannot be a victim?
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
It seems, then, that this alleged CI was not a CI but a witness. Had you gone to trial, and they only had the witness's testimony against you, you should have been permitted to cross examine her. Unfortunately for you, you pled no contest and thus lost out on your ability to confront your accuser.
Part of that right includes the right to know who they are so the cross examination can be better planned. I posted the supreme court case showing this. My error in that post was that before I looked it up I though the right came from the 6th amendment. The court noted they have not made the specific holding the right to identity of the witnesses was through the 6th but held that since the same right comes from due process (14th amendment) they did not need to reach the question in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
Quote:
Quoting
wacojames
If the posters to this forum are the typical jury pool, this is why you don't want to go in front of a jury.
What you want to present to a jury is a valid defense. If you are on trial and your theory depends upon a lunatic theory of a conspiracy that includes your own defense lawyer, the judge, the prosecutor's office, the police department, all of the witnesses... who did I leave out... oh yes, the local Democratic Party... does that about cover it? All that does is send the message that you don't actually have a defense.
If you planned to take the stand and go off on your wild-eyed conspiracy theories, it's perfectly understandable why your lawyer urged you to take the deferral.
[QUOTE=wacojames]People trying to fill in the gaps in their mind about probably went in a bathroom, or waved a willy.[quote]
Only because you were playing "hide the ball" with the facts. No pun intended. When you choose not to tell people what happened, you force them to guess.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
Bottom line it was fraud, premeditated fraud by the police.
You have no evidence of that.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
Then, failure to disclose...
You admitted that claim was false when you disclosed that you were able to obtain the witness's juvenile record and attempted to get the court to authorize you to use it in court.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
...failure to receive a speedy trial...
That's a new one. You chose not to take the case to trial, you've not indicated that you tried to exercise your speedy trial rights, and you've shared no reason why your case was adjourned. I expect that if there actually was a speedy trial violation your lawyer would have filed a motion on that basis, but... maybe we're being introduced to yet another element of your conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
...false arrest...
When witnesses report you publicly masturbating in the presence of children, it's not unreasonable for the police to accept that eyewitness testimony as probable cause for arrest. Even if the witnesses are wrong.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
...false imprisonment...
No, there was no false imprisonment. You were charged based on probable cause, and bond was set.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
...and witness tampering.
You have no evidence of witness tampering.
Quote:
Quoting wacojames
Not a single idea about how to expose it.
You can't "expose" things that exist only in your imagination.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
It seems, then, that this alleged CI was not a CI but a witness. Had you gone to trial, and they only had the witness's testimony against you, you should have been permitted to cross examine her. Unfortunately for you, you pled no contest and thus lost out on your ability to confront your accuser.
Had he gone to trial, he would have been able to cross-examine his accuser, and to try to make the case that she was mistaken.
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
Quote:
We need to have some facts.
Right. So, where did he say anything about going into a bathroom? Hint: He didn't.
Quote:
What do you think happened?
Exactly what he said happened: he got arrested for indecent exposure. Then, as he said, he pled out. Now he's mad that he got punished. Who pleads out to something the absolutely didn't do?
Quote:
Mr. Knowitall, please don't respond further.
Oh, sweetie, no. You don't get a say in who responds, nor in what fashion. I'm mildly amused that you're moaning in the Admin box that this attorney who offered advice is a troll, but not amused enough to let you stay.
Off you go now.
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
I can't see why OP took the plea if his web site story is true. Apparently the testimony was he splashed himself with water.
Re: Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime
Quote:
Quoting
LawResearcherMissy
Who pleads out to something the absolutely didn't do?
Sometimes a deferral is simply too good to pass up. But if you are contending that the case against you is paper thin, it would be odd.