Cite? Innocent Until Proven Guilty

I get the research part, but why doesnt it play out in the real world?

stainless1911 said:

I get the research part, but why doesnt it play out in the real world?

Click to expand...

Because people don't elect politicians who care about Individual Liberty.

All,

When voting in the upcoming primary, ask yourself: "does the person I'm voting for actively support individual Liberty?"

The Constitution is only a piece of paper -- it cannot defend itself. It needs our help.

Thats why Im going with Ron Paul. He's the only one I trust with that document.

stainless1911 said:

Thats why Im going with Ron Paul. He's the only one I trust with that document.

Click to expand...

i trust only one person... lol


im writing myself in.

X

rvd4now said:

i trust only one person... lol


im writing myself in.

Click to expand...

Trust God

Vote Ron

Now there's some good advice.

stainless1911 said:

If you are accused (even falsely) of CC in a PFZ like I was, you will get a letter from the board saying your CPL has been suspended long before you go to court. You are punished without trial, due process, or conviction. This goes against the second amendment, as well as the fifth amendment. If you are proven innocent in court, then, after jumping through some hoops, you can have your CPL back.

Guilty before proven innocent.

Click to expand...

For a first offence, carrying CC in a PFZ is not a crime. Rather, it is considered a license restriction which is punished by a civil infraction. This is why you are not given the typical protections provided in criminal prosecutions. It is purely administrative, even though you may feel that you are being treated like a criminal.

http://www.hogankipke.com/michigan-civil-lawyer.php

stainless1911 said:

I get the research part, but why doesnt it play out in the real world?

Click to expand...

Because, as TheQ implied, no law is self-enforcing. Some people are going to do what they want, regardless of the law. This includes a whole pea-pot full of criminals in government.

I am reading The Origins of the 5th Amendment, The Right Against Self-Incrimination, by Leonard Levy. My GOD!! what we went through to get the 5A. Hundreds burned at the stake, many more imprisoned, forfeiture of property, exile. Of course, the 5A is tied closely to the presumption of innocence.

England went through what you could call Inquisition Light. No torture to speak of, not by common law courts at any rate. But, like the Inquisition, the accused was required to take an oath swearing to tell the truth--before he knew the charges or his accusers. This oath is called the oath ex officio. The person was then questioned in ways designed to entrap him, not ways to find out if he was really guilty or innocent. If a person refused the oath, he could be convicted, meaning refusal to take the oath was grounds for conviction of the charges. Which is basically the same thing as saying, you're guilty unless you convince us otherwise. In short, both the Inquisition and England's version of the Inquisition proceeded from the idea that the accused was guilty, and an awful lot of people paid heavily for the presumption of guilt.

What can be done to correct the problems when they do arise?

rvd4now said:

show
   [shoh] Show IPA verb, showed, shown or showed, show·ing, noun

verb (used with object)
1.
to cause or allow to be seen; exhibit; display.


dis·play
   [dih-spley] Show IPA

verb (used with object)
1.
to show or exhibit; make visible: to display a sign

so does this mean i can hold it in my hand and not give it to them.. when they say can i see some id.. can i just show them and tell them to write down my id numbers

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you even know how to spell "show."

DrTodd said:

For a first offence, carrying CC in a PFZ is not a crime. Rather, it is considered a license restriction which is punished by a civil infraction. This is why you are not given the typical protections provided in criminal prosecutions. It is purely administrative, even though you may feel that you are being treated like a criminal.

http://www.hogankipke.com/michigan-civil-lawyer.php

Click to expand...

Brainless1911 had an extremely competent attorney provided pro-bono whom he decided to throw under the bus and try to defend himself to the best of his inept abilities.

Had he followed his attorney's instructions he would have been found "not responsible".

Furthermore, if he had requested a hearing before the gunboard with his attorney, he probably would not have had his license suspended until the trial. But then again who's to say he would have followed the instructions of his attorney at the hearing either.

You can lead an idiot horse to water, but...

SpoogeBob said:

Brainless1911 had an extremely competent attorney provided pro-bono whom he decided to throw under the bus and try to defend himself to the best of his inept abilities.

Had he followed his attorney's instructions he would have been found "not responsible".

Furthermore, if he had requested a hearing before the gunboard with his attorney, he probably would not have had his license suspended until the trial. But then again who's to say he would have followed the instructions of his attorney at the hearing either.

You can lead an idiot horse to water, but...

Click to expand...

You read the transcripts. There was virtually no cross examination. Though I am forever greatful, my stoner friend could have presented a better defense. Remember, this was a judge that doesnt think that a CPL gives the right to OC in a PFZ. Hense the title of the origonal thread. "No OC in a PFZ with a CPL. I was trying to warn people about this fact, which Melissa herself has acknowledged, so they didnt get themselves into trouble. I was a new-b then, I cut my teeth on that thread and charge.

The board just does thier jobs, they arent likely to waive a suspention, despite the blatant violations of the second amendment, and the lack of due process under the fifth amendment. Guilty before innocense.

stainless1911 said:

You read the transcripts. There was virtually no cross examination. Though I am forever greatful, my stoner friend could have presented a better defense. Remember, this was a judge that doesnt think that a CPL gives the right to OC in a PFZ. Hense the title of the origonal thread. "No OC in a PFZ with a CPL. I was trying to warn people about this fact, which Melissa herself has acknowledged, so they didnt get themselves into trouble. I was a new-b then, I cut my teeth on that thread and charge.

The board just does thier jobs, they arent likely to waive a suspention, despite the blatant violations of the second amendment, and the lack of due process under the fifth amendment. Guilty before innocense.

Click to expand...

So your stoner friend could have presented a better defense that Melissa?!?!?

The discussion you reference was NOT a part of your trial. It was discussion conducted AFTER your verdict was given.

You twist facts to suit your truths.

People v. Watkins is being appealed. That will solidify or destroy OC in a PFZ with a CPL.

If it destroys it, then it will help feed SB 58.

No sir, my issue was the lack of a defense. The witnesses were not properly and thoroughly questioned. The "witness" made statements that if challenged properly, would have ruined her credibility. The investigation of statements of officers that came by and saw nothing, claiming that I wasnt there even though I was watching them never came up. The fact that they came to my house later, and wrote me up days later, although irrelevant, would have certainly helped. This case was decided before it was heard. Most of my side of things was left out entirely.

TheQ said:

People v. Watkins is being appealed. That will solidify or destroy OC in a PFZ with a CPL.

If it destroys it, then it will help feed SB 58.

Click to expand...

I read 58, but what would that do if passed?

Nevermind.

If you were improperly represented, sue for malpractice (does one have to be a paying client to sue for malpractice?) You'd have to collect pop cans to pay the retainer because I'm thinking no attorney would give it to you pro-bono.

Even if I could win, I wouldnt. I dont think it would be ethical. She did it for free. One good turn deserves another. She and I both dropped the ball on the case. I thought it wise to wear what I wore when I was accused to show that it would be difficult and downright silly to conceal wearing that. It boggles my mind how anyone would think I might try, might as well stick a rifle in that shirt.

Another vital point that should have been hammered on in court, is that I dont conceal. Why all the sudden, out of the blue, with no good reason, would I decide to conceal right then in an outfit that printed more than ink on a page? I dont particularly agree with CC, never have, never will. Its a freedom, but not my thing.

stainless1911 said:

No sir, my issue was the lack of a defense. The witnesses were not properly and thoroughly questioned. The "witness" made statements that if challenged properly, would have ruined her credibility. The investigation of statements of officers that came by and saw nothing, claiming that I wasnt there even though I was watching them never came up. The fact that they came to my house later, and wrote me up days later, although irrelevant, would have certainly helped. This case was decided before it was heard. Most of my side of things was left out entirely.

Click to expand...

So just who provided the lack of defense? You or Melissa?

Who didn't properly and throughly question the witnesses? You or Melissa?

Who didn't challenge the witnesses properly? You or Melissa?

Who left out your side of things? You or Melissa?

How about some truth here.

I'm sure many people charged with theft say "I don't steal". I wonder how often that happens?

Why should they believe you? Why should they believe your friend?