Theft of Store Property Charge Against Wishes of Store Owner

[Harold99]

No, he doesn't but I'm treating you like a misbehaving child, trying to wear you out so you will go to sleep.

Then stop speaking for TM...and stop speaking about things that you have no experience with.

Oh, and are you 'wearing me out' or just filling these pages with your drivel?

[Taxing Matters]

I believe the accused cannot communicate with a judge in any fashion without that communication being shared with both attorneys. You should know that.

I do know that, and you'll note I said as much — his letter would be a prohibited ex parte communication with the court unless he also sent a copy of that letter to the prosecutor.

Then you must really have a problem with TM's comment that "it would likely be tossed in the trash."

I never said what you put in quotes. You need to read a little closer. What I said was that at best the judge just trashes it. A judge can't do much with an angry letter from a defendant. And if the letter is sent ex parte the court cannot even consider it. If the letter is taken into account, the most likely effect will be that the judge will get a bad impression of the defendant. Such letters usually do not come across well.

@Taxing Matters
1. A pedestrian commuter must be considered not wealthy, but destitute (get a civics course on the Konstitushun for clarification).

The Constitution certainly says nothing of the sort. And you've not made clear what wealth has to do with anything here, other than presumably you cannot afford a lawyer and for that reason are defending yourself.

4. You are alleging that the state has the right to GIVE store property away to a robber of that store? Well, you ARE exquisite, aren't you! Can you conjure a public good to ascribe to that act?

I didn't say anything about that, so I don't know where that comment comes from. I get that you have a problem with the charges against you in that you are alleging the store owner gave you the bike and therefore you aren't a thief. That's a valid defense to present. I don't see any angry letter to the judge helping you at all with that defense, and it will likely hurt you. Keep focused on presenting at trial the evidence that is relevant to your defense. That's what will be important because that is what the jury will see.

But what your posts still don't make clear to me is exactly what the police did that you think violates your rights and entitles you to some monetary award.

[Harold99]

I do know that...

Great, we agree.

I never said what you put in quotes. You need to read a little closer. What I said was that at best the judge just trashes it. A judge can't do much with an angry letter from a defendant. And if the letter is sent ex parte the court cannot even consider it. If the letter is taken into account, the most likely effect will be that the judge will get a bad impression of the defendant. Such letters usually do not come across well.

If my quote says something different than what you wrote, please explain the difference between "at best the judge just trashes it" and "it would likely be tossed in the trash?" There is none and I did not misrepresent your quote.

Sound like the same statement to me...but then you look for anything to debate or argue. Maybe it is instinctual?

[Mark47n]

If my quote says something different than what you wrote, please explain the difference between "at best the judge just trashes it" and "it would likely be tossed in the trash?" There is none and I did not misrepresent your quote.

Sound like the same statement to me...but then you look for anything to debate or argue. Maybe it is instinctual?

One is a quote and the other is paraphrasing and the difference is not minor. Paraphrasing can be used to misrepresent the meaning of what was said while a quote is exact. In this case you are saying that it's probable that it will be thrown away while TM is saying that its a best case scenario but doesn't say whether or not it's probable. So, you are NOT saying the same thing that TM is. That it sounds like the same thing to you is perhaps why you struggle with nuance.

[Taxing Matters]

If my quote says something different than what you wrote, please explain the difference between "at best the judge just trashes it" and "it would likely be tossed in the trash?" There is none and I did not misrepresent your quote.

The word "likely" would mean that I was stating which outcome was would be more probable to occur. I expressed no such opinion on that since I don't know exactly what the OP would say in the letter, other than it would be an "angry" letter. I only expressed a best and worst case outcome. Not which was more likely to occur. So yes, your purported quote of me did misrepresent what I said.

And I understated the worst outcome earlier. The worst outcome is that the OP says something in the letter that could be used against him as an admission in his case. As a defendant in a criminal case, there is no upside to sending an angry letter to the judge that is presiding in that case. But there can be downsides to it.

...but then you look for anything to debate or argue.

I'd say the same thing of you.

[Harold99]

One is a quote and the other is paraphrasing and the difference is not minor. Paraphrasing can be used to misrepresent the meaning of what was said while a quote is exact. In this case you are saying that it's probable that it will be thrown away while TM is saying that its a best case scenario but doesn't say whether or not it's probable. So, you are NOT saying the same thing that TM is. That it sounds like the same thing to you is perhaps why you struggle with nuance.

It is a good lawyer's job to imply something without actually saying it. Would you agree? Like what you just did when you said "the difference is not minor." Instead of telling me what something is not, why didn't you say what it is? Like, is it moderate or major? Who knows what you said because you didn't say anything, which leads the reader to assume what you meant, and, it leaves the door wide open for you to deny what was implied by saying "not minor."

To say what something is not, like "not minor" is actually taking no stance on what it is while implying it is major. I guess you would have to experience a lawyer playing with the English language to rip you off for a large sum of money before you became aware of the art a lot of lawyers are highly skilled at. An yes, TM has some of those skills.

[PayrolGuy]

Attention Readers,

Harold99 posts for no other reason than to take shots at senior members of the forum and lawyers in general. *It would be wise to ignore whatever he writes. While the person posting under the name of Harold99 has been banned from this site at least 3 times but, due to the current lack of moderation, he isn’t being banned. Hopefully, that will change in the future but for now, we have to live with it.

For now, I suggest you simply ignore his posts but if you do read them please read any responses posted by the more rational members.

Senior Members,

If we stop engaging him he may go away. That doesn’t mean don’t correct incorrect or misleading information he posts. Just reply to the OP with how Harold99 is incorrect. I think we all know by now that he is never going to change a position he has established.

[Harold99]

Attention Readers,

Harold99 posts for no other reason than to take shots at senior members of the forum and lawyers in general. *It would be wise to ignore whatever he writes. While the person posting under the name of Harold99 has been banned from this site at least 3 times but, due to the current lack of moderation, he isn’t being banned. Hopefully, that will change in the future but for now, we have to live with it.

For now, I suggest you simply ignore his posts but if you do read them please read any responses posted by the more rational members.

Senior Members,

If we stop engaging him he may go away. That doesn’t mean don’t correct incorrect or misleading information he posts. Just reply to the OP with how Harold99 is incorrect. I think we all know by now that he is never going to change a position he has established.

How's your new EL mission going?

The word "likely" would mean that I was stating which outcome was would be more probable to occur. I expressed no such opinion on that since I don't know exactly what the OP would say in the letter, other than it would be an "angry" letter. I only expressed a best and worst case outcome. Not which was more likely to occur. So yes, your purported quote of me did misrepresent what I said.

And I understated the worst outcome earlier. The worst outcome is that the OP says something in the letter that could be used against him as an admission in his case. As a defendant in a criminal case, there is no upside to sending an angry letter to the judge that is presiding in that case. But there can be downsides to it.



I'd say the same thing of you.

If you were really good you might someday be able to argue the meaning of the word "the" like Bill Clinton did to the nation.

Lawyers can bullshit laypeople and juries but they cannot bullshit other professional bullshitters like other lawyers and judges, which makes them very effective when interfacing with the general public. One must avoid verbal sparing with lawyers just as one must avoid physical sparing with a highly trained fighter. Big difference is a lawyer would call it a fair fight when a pro fighter would not.

[Zigner]

How's your new EL mission going?
One must avoid verbal sparing with lawyers just as one must avoid physical sparing with a highly trained fighter.

This sentenece is non-sensical. It does not say what you think it says.

[Harold99]

This sentenece is non-sensical. It does not say what you think it says.

Your two sentences are empty of content.