Cite? Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[SpoogeBob]

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.

How did Melissa drop the ball?

 

[stainless1911]

My friend would have challenged the witnesses.

As far as concealing, it would have been helpful to pose the question, of "why now, when I dont CC any other time?" It would have shown that it was completely out of character for me to do so.

It was a 51% case, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Destroying the credibility of the opposition would have been a cake walk, had it been attempted. Showing the silliness of the accusation that I would CC, should have been a no brainer. This should have been a slam dunk.

 

[stainless1911]

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.

How did Melissa drop the ball?

I've explained that repeatedly in multiple threads.

 

[TheQ]

It's useless. He's gone to bed for the evening and with all of the posts of his that you've no doubt reported by now -- he'll be on administrative ignore by morning. It's too bad, I like the screen name. Oh well.

 

[SpoogeBob]

I've explained that repeatedly in multiple threads.

No you haven't. You have danced around on the head of a pin spouting half truths and disparaging the laudable undertakings of an attorney who is tried to help you in spite of you ignorance.

Your continue to promulgate your nonsense to the gun world and have garnered a following of ill informed people because of your charlatan ways.

I still look forward to the day I meet you in person. I'd prefer to say all of this right to your face.

 

[SpoogeBob]

My friend would have challenged the witnesses.

As far as concealing, it would have been helpful to pose the question, of "why now, when I dont CC any other time?" It would have shown that it was completely out of character for me to do so.

It was a 51% case, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Destroying the credibility of the opposition would have been a cake walk, had it been attempted. Showing the silliness of the accusation that I would CC, should have been a no brainer. This should have been a slam dunk.

So your stoner friend is indeed a better attorney than Melissa. You've finally admitted that she is incompetent, in your opinion. Good job Brainless.

 

[stainless1911]

So your stoner friend is indeed a better attorney than Melissa. You've finally admitted that she is incompetent, in your opinion. Good job Brainless.

You're still here?

 

[SpoogeBob]

You're still here?

not anymore

 

[CV67 PAT]

You're still here?

not anymore

But I am working on it.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

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.

what is People V Watkins? i'm unfamiliar with it

 

[TheQ]

Ask & Ye shall receive

Funny how our TWISTED legal system can take something like this which has nothing to do with law-abiding citizens and use it against us.

This is not the case that we are referring to.

Here is the People v Watkins that deals with OC in a so-called PFZ w/o a CPL:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/...senumber=303948&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0

This is the referenced case. Please note: it hasn't been decided yet.

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

This is not the case that we are referring to.

Here is the People v Watkins that deals with OC in a so-called PFZ w/o a CPL:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/...senumber=303948&fparties=&inqtype=public&yr=0

This is the referenced case. Please note: it hasn't been decided yet.

Thanks Q for posting.

However it gives us no detail of the case? I assume our hero Judge "Rosie" Aquilina was a factor on this case going to appeals? http://www.ingham.org/cc/2009JuvPages/Judges/Aquilina.html

 

[TheQ]

People v. Watkins has been discussed at length over at MGO.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=136331

Note: At the very least you must be a free forum member to read the thread. The thread has documents related to the case thus far attached to it.

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

People v. Watkins has been discussed at length over at MGO.

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=136331

Note: At the very least you must be a free forum member to read the thread. The thread has documents related to the case thus far attached to it.

Well I avoid MGO most of the time because there often are some pretty ugly posters [no respect for OC] there. So I will post a snip from the thread you wrote of:

SNIP
05-24-2011, 03:32 PM #2
PDinDetroit
Bonafide Gun Guru
Forum Member

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Royal Oak
Posts: 4,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by esq_stu
Today I received a copy of an April 15, 2011 decision that is being appealed.

A person allegedly OC'd with CPL in an alleged PFZ (sports arena). The person received a civil infraction and had his pistol confiscated. He lost at trial in the District Court. He appealed to the Circuit Court. Judge Aquilina (yes, you read that correctly) found the facility was not a PFZ. But she also held that OC with a CPL is NOT allowed in a PFZ and that MSU is not preempted under 125.1102..

Quote:
Mr. Watkins contends that the combination of these laws [750.234d and 28.425o and 28.425c(2)(a)] creates an exemption for all CPL holders from the prohibition on the open possession of firearms in so-called "pistol-free zones." However, this interpretation creates an absurd result where people could openly carry a shotgun down the hallway of an elementary school or into a packed stadium of over 70,000 people if they had a CPL. While the statutes seem to contradict each other, this court agrees with the trial court's interpretation that guns cannot be openly carried in a sports arena, even if the person has a CPL. People v Watkins, Docket No. 10-951-AR, 30th Circuit Court, Ingham Co., April 15, 2011

Of course, this issue will be argued, among other issues, in tomorrow's hearing.

I guess we know what we'll be facing.

The prosecutor has appealed to the Court of Appeals because the Judge held that under the facts presented, the facility, an alleged sports arena on the MSU campus, was not clearly a sports arena and that the defendant could not be held liable for the mistake.

Whether or not you agree with the ABSURD RESULT, the Language IS WHAT IT IS AND IS THE WAY THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE WROTE IT.

The solution to this Judge is one of 2 ways (and maybe both):

A. Repeal PFZ's

B. Michigan Court Of Appeals

I certainly hope the Judge decides to utilize LAW instead of PERSONAL OPINION tomorrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She DID NOT!

 

[1245A Defender]

Wowwie!!!

ADMINISTRATOR REMOVED ATTACK POST

QFT!!!

I cant wait to hear all about this...

 

[smellslikemichigan]

you won't. that person will likely be banned since it's obvious they set up an account with the sole purpose of a personal attack.

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

I am NOT a stranger to the michigan forum.
I have followed Neals' antics for 2 1/2 years,,, and I know who Pat is too...

I dont see this as a purely personal attack post.
It is a calling out post.

I dont think this is random. Something HAS happened!

I hope I will be able to follow some links and find out some details. Maybe I could get a P.M.! with some info...

 

[TheQ]

you won't. that person will likely be banned since it's obvious they set up an account with the sole purpose of a personal attack.

That's a name he goes by On MGO as well.

 

[stainless1911]

So, what kind of person do we have who would "roflmao" if the system oversteps its boundaries and violates our rights?

I have a suggested screen name for you next time you decide to go under the radar to attack me here. Try "Gossip Girl".

What's worse, someone who gets charged and found responsible for something they didnt do, with the help of a lawyer who was trusted to provide a defense but stood mute costing him his rights. He fought for rights in the thick of the fight where most would not dare to tread. Or is it the people who laugh, call out, belittle and berate that person years after being betrayed by the system sworn to uphold his rights?

 

[stainless1911]

...and now, the lead singer of The Pretty Reckless, former star of the hit TV show Gossip Girl, Taylor Momsen.

Far From Never (with lyrics).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeXwl_EWsZU