Generaldet
Regular Member
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
autosurgeon wrote:
I agree, only not maybe, definitely! This can't stand.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Just Watched a Judge Give Police Permission to Stop OCer's
- Thread starter T Vance
- Start date
Michigander
Regular Member
imported post
autosurgeon wrote:
autosurgeon wrote:
I think a law suit would probably be better. Followed up only after that with a color of law complaint. For something this serious, donations from a nation wide level could probably easily be arranged. It is actually crazy enough for a judge to do these things that you might be able to get big timers like the NRA involved.
blairellis
Regular Member
imported post
Something needs to be done. I hope you appealed right after your trial as well. If not I'd try and go do that today.
Something needs to be done. I hope you appealed right after your trial as well. If not I'd try and go do that today.
ghostrider
Regular Member
imported post
Kimberguy wrote:
Also, it sounds like you represented yourself, correct? Did you consult with a lawyer on any of this? I don't know a way around a courtroom, but I would imagine that your lawyer would have filed something to suppress any evidence found during the unlawful stop, and then filed a motion to dismiss.
I've heard that there are certain procedures to go through in court, and that not doing so can prove ineffective. I'm just wondering if that might have happened in your case.
I'll understand if you can't comment. If you want to shoot me a PM, or just keep quite about it that's fine.
Kimberguy wrote:
Please forgive me, but I don't recall the details of this case. I don't know what the charge is either, or what the ruling is for that matter.
Also, it sounds like you represented yourself, correct? Did you consult with a lawyer on any of this? I don't know a way around a courtroom, but I would imagine that your lawyer would have filed something to suppress any evidence found during the unlawful stop, and then filed a motion to dismiss.
I've heard that there are certain procedures to go through in court, and that not doing so can prove ineffective. I'm just wondering if that might have happened in your case.
I'll understand if you can't comment. If you want to shoot me a PM, or just keep quite about it that's fine.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
The sad thing is that court room procedure has gotten so complicated that representing yourself has gotten to be nearly impossible! Of course we know who made it that way
and they stand to gain by it!
The sad thing is that court room procedure has gotten so complicated that representing yourself has gotten to be nearly impossible! Of course we know who made it that way
and they stand to gain by it!
DanM
Regular Member
imported post
The ACLU might be interested in this. They have engagedin some other states in defendinggun owners in a variety of matters, not on the basis of 2A violations but rather 4A or other civil rights violations.
While generally the ACLU is still hypocritically not on board with the RKBA (there are exceptions: the Arizona chapter is one, I think), if your case involved violations of other civil rights (unlawful detention or arrest, for example), they may be interested in talking to you.
The ACLU might be interested in this. They have engagedin some other states in defendinggun owners in a variety of matters, not on the basis of 2A violations but rather 4A or other civil rights violations.
While generally the ACLU is still hypocritically not on board with the RKBA (there are exceptions: the Arizona chapter is one, I think), if your case involved violations of other civil rights (unlawful detention or arrest, for example), they may be interested in talking to you.
conservative85
Regular Member
imported post
The last I knew the supreme courts ruled on the constitutionality of a law, They are Judicial branch not legislative branch. There for I would not follow there ruling as a judge or as a citizen. Thou I would sue the hell out of a bunch of people. That's all I got to say bout that! Sincerely F.G.
The last I knew the supreme courts ruled on the constitutionality of a law, They are Judicial branch not legislative branch. There for I would not follow there ruling as a judge or as a citizen. Thou I would sue the hell out of a bunch of people. That's all I got to say bout that! Sincerely F.G.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
PLEASE DO NOT SEND THIS TO BE POSTED ANYWHERE ELSE!!
Kimberguy, please PM your phone number. I will contact you.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND THIS TO BE POSTED ANYWHERE ELSE!!
Kimberguy, please PM your phone number. I will contact you.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
imported post
Don't mean to disparage anyone here, as I have at times jumped to conclusions before looking into the facts surrounding certain issues. I also do not write this as a criticism of either T Vance or Kimberguy; the court system can be daunting for people and when we feel that either individually or as a group that we are not being "heard", we can feel utter frustration.
I am not a lawyer and do not intend to give legal advice, rather I think that there is a misunderstanding that is the basis for this thread, and this misunderstanding is something that underscores the need to be knowledgable when dealing with the legal system. Therefore, consider this information as research of how the court system works in Michigan.
To begin, Mr. Bishop is NOT a judge, he is a magistrate. Although a judge would be the arbiter of criminal decisions, in Michigan, a magistrate deals with civil infractions only. The reason that Magistrates are used in Michigan is that the volume of Civil Infraction cases are enourmous and, since most of the legal dealings that people have are Civil Infractions and therefore not crimes, the use of Magistrates saves the court from having to spend time dealing with non-criminal matters.
I'm guessing, but could be wrong, that Kimberguy was given the option at some point to have this case heard before a magistrate or to have it heard before a judge in district court. I do not fault the decision to have a magistrate hear this, as it is the easiest way to have one's "day in court".
As I stated earlier, a magistrate in Michigan is only given the ability to hear certain kinds of cases. Specifically, Mr. Bishop can hear the cases listed here: http://www.d12.com/ADMN/Admn Orders/2005/AO2005-01 Appointment of Magistrate.pdf
Basically, Mr. Bishop is limited to what kinds of information that he can consider. He does not have the ability to hear the issue that Kimberguy attempted to argue before the court. I am not an expert in this area, but I believe that Mr. Bishop would have been exceeding his lawful authority if he had even read the information that Kimberguy provided or in any way considered Kimberguy's argument and could have possibly been punished for doing so. Also, it is my understanding that Mr. Bishop is precluded from informing a person that he can't consider the argument and suggest another venue; Michigan's rules concerning "legal advice" are particularly strict.
So, basically, the venue in which this case was argued was not where the issue could have been decided. I believe that Kimberguy could appeal the judge's ruling to the district court, asking for a judge to decide whetehr the stop was legal. However, if Kimberguy had the case dropped because he indeed did have automobile insurance on the day that the stop took place, I don't believe that he could now want to have the issue regarding the legality of the stop decided by the district court. If that was the argument that Kimberguy wished to make, that argument would have to be made in district court before a judge.
I criticize in any way the feelings expressed here, but I believe that Mr. Bishop could not have done anything else with the information he was given.
Don't mean to disparage anyone here, as I have at times jumped to conclusions before looking into the facts surrounding certain issues. I also do not write this as a criticism of either T Vance or Kimberguy; the court system can be daunting for people and when we feel that either individually or as a group that we are not being "heard", we can feel utter frustration.
I am not a lawyer and do not intend to give legal advice, rather I think that there is a misunderstanding that is the basis for this thread, and this misunderstanding is something that underscores the need to be knowledgable when dealing with the legal system. Therefore, consider this information as research of how the court system works in Michigan.
To begin, Mr. Bishop is NOT a judge, he is a magistrate. Although a judge would be the arbiter of criminal decisions, in Michigan, a magistrate deals with civil infractions only. The reason that Magistrates are used in Michigan is that the volume of Civil Infraction cases are enourmous and, since most of the legal dealings that people have are Civil Infractions and therefore not crimes, the use of Magistrates saves the court from having to spend time dealing with non-criminal matters.
I'm guessing, but could be wrong, that Kimberguy was given the option at some point to have this case heard before a magistrate or to have it heard before a judge in district court. I do not fault the decision to have a magistrate hear this, as it is the easiest way to have one's "day in court".
As I stated earlier, a magistrate in Michigan is only given the ability to hear certain kinds of cases. Specifically, Mr. Bishop can hear the cases listed here: http://www.d12.com/ADMN/Admn Orders/2005/AO2005-01 Appointment of Magistrate.pdf
Basically, Mr. Bishop is limited to what kinds of information that he can consider. He does not have the ability to hear the issue that Kimberguy attempted to argue before the court. I am not an expert in this area, but I believe that Mr. Bishop would have been exceeding his lawful authority if he had even read the information that Kimberguy provided or in any way considered Kimberguy's argument and could have possibly been punished for doing so. Also, it is my understanding that Mr. Bishop is precluded from informing a person that he can't consider the argument and suggest another venue; Michigan's rules concerning "legal advice" are particularly strict.
So, basically, the venue in which this case was argued was not where the issue could have been decided. I believe that Kimberguy could appeal the judge's ruling to the district court, asking for a judge to decide whetehr the stop was legal. However, if Kimberguy had the case dropped because he indeed did have automobile insurance on the day that the stop took place, I don't believe that he could now want to have the issue regarding the legality of the stop decided by the district court. If that was the argument that Kimberguy wished to make, that argument would have to be made in district court before a judge.
I criticize in any way the feelings expressed here, but I believe that Mr. Bishop could not have done anything else with the information he was given.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
I'm not positive, but I believe he is a judge. The odd thing is, Kimberguy and myself had similar experiences with the same police department, and same court system. We were both stopped because we were OCing, and both given traffic citations after the fact. With me I had a pretrial, Kimberguy did not. I never heard him get asked if he wanted his case tried in front of a judge or jury. I told him to appeal it on Friday.
I'm not positive, but I believe he is a judge. The odd thing is, Kimberguy and myself had similar experiences with the same police department, and same court system. We were both stopped because we were OCing, and both given traffic citations after the fact. With me I had a pretrial, Kimberguy did not. I never heard him get asked if he wanted his case tried in front of a judge or jury. I told him to appeal it on Friday.
Kimberguy
Regular Member
imported post
OK, I have appealed the case.... i kinda want an attorney for this.... i would imagine that if it happens and doesn't get thrown out, it should be short. I don't have a lot of money, but we could work something out. let me know....
either way, i am bright eyed and bushy tailed, and continue to carry on!
OK, I have appealed the case.... i kinda want an attorney for this.... i would imagine that if it happens and doesn't get thrown out, it should be short. I don't have a lot of money, but we could work something out. let me know....
either way, i am bright eyed and bushy tailed, and continue to carry on!
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
I'm glad you are appealing this! This type of behavior cannot stand! You should be able to handle it on your own. Unless the lawyer is free, or cheap, I'd deal with it on my own. Supreme Court rulings are Supreme Court rulings. I wonder what that cop is going to think when he hears you are appealing this. Should wipe that "$hit eating grin" he had right off his face!
Good luck. Let me know if you need any help?
BTW, how did the appeal process work? What did they say to you?
I'm glad you are appealing this! This type of behavior cannot stand! You should be able to handle it on your own. Unless the lawyer is free, or cheap, I'd deal with it on my own. Supreme Court rulings are Supreme Court rulings. I wonder what that cop is going to think when he hears you are appealing this. Should wipe that "$hit eating grin" he had right off his face!
Good luck. Let me know if you need any help?
BTW, how did the appeal process work? What did they say to you?
Kimberguy
Regular Member
imported post
Monday September 28th 2009 @ 3:00pm
I have my pre-trial.
Monday September 28th 2009 @ 3:00pm
I have my pre-trial.
Bronson
Regular Member
imported post
Good luck man. I hope it goes better for you this time.
Bronson
Good luck man. I hope it goes better for you this time.
Bronson
FatboyCykes
Regular Member
imported post
Agreed, and I know it's not much, but I can throw a few bucks at ya to help w/legal fees. Not sure the best way to go about doing it, but PM me or let me know here
Agreed, and I know it's not much, but I can throw a few bucks at ya to help w/legal fees. Not sure the best way to go about doing it, but PM me or let me know here
wally1120
Regular Member
imported post
Well Kimberguy I hope you can get the case dismissed, And then follow that up with a lawsuit. I was lucky enough to not have to go to court over my OC detainment,Althogh I should have taken them to court and filed a case against the PD. But if they decide to bother meain then I am going to have a lawsuit against them cause I could relly use the money right now.
Well Kimberguy I hope you can get the case dismissed, And then follow that up with a lawsuit. I was lucky enough to not have to go to court over my OC detainment,Althogh I should have taken them to court and filed a case against the PD. But if they decide to bother meain then I am going to have a lawsuit against them cause I could relly use the money right now.
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
Kimberguy wrote:
Even though it is just a pre-trial, go prepared. You will probably just be admiting "Guilty, or not guilty" that day, but bring all your paperwork (IE - Supreme Court rulings, etc).
Kimberguy wrote:
Even though it is just a pre-trial, go prepared. You will probably just be admiting "Guilty, or not guilty" that day, but bring all your paperwork (IE - Supreme Court rulings, etc).
T Vance
Regular Member
imported post
BTW, what judge did you get?
BTW, what judge did you get?
wally1120
Regular Member
imported post
You are right this is bothering me as well. The cops shold leave us alone we are making there job easier by carrying a gun,But they aren`t smart enogh to figure that one out. If the harassment continues I will be taking action into a court room with a very good lawyer.
You are right this is bothering me as well. The cops shold leave us alone we are making there job easier by carrying a gun,But they aren`t smart enogh to figure that one out. If the harassment continues I will be taking action into a court room with a very good lawyer.