Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Anonymous #1

Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: Enlil]
    #18759742 - 08/26/13 02:12 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
The hard reality is that it all depends on what the jury believes.  Is the jury likely to believe that he was randomly heating up some foil while driving down the street?  I doubt it.

As much as the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to use the stuff for illegal drugs, keep in mind that the doubt must be reasonable.  Is it reasonable to believe that he might have been heating the foil for another purpose? 

On top of that, how is he supposed to tell the jury that he had no intention of using the stuff for drugs?  Unless he testifies, I don't see it happening.  If he DOES testify, he will likely be destroyed by the prosecutor.  He doesn't sound like the smartest dude on the planet as it is, but he's at a serious disadvantage if he thinks he's going to lie on the stand and not have it made obvious to the jury.




I don't think he ever planned on taking this to trial because he is lying about it. Just going keep it in the regular court below the trial, whatever that is ?

@ Alan, About the tramadol and dui. Does he have to admit that he was going to smoke it right then and there ? what if he was just flaming the foil now but didn't plan on smoking the pills until later ? Is that just out of the question to expect them to believe that he was just "prepping" his foil for later when he could smoke the pills ?

And if the pills were legally prescribed to him, he could still get a dui for it (those pills you can legally drive on) ? and not just some sort misuse of his pills charge ?

Based on those 4 things that Enill just listed, does it seem like with a decent lawyer he could get this all dismissed. I was always sorta under the impression that a good lawyer could do anything and from what I can tell this IS a flimsy case to a degree. 

He has had a stable job his whole life, goes to scool, no prior record  and has a stable life with a family and home etc.

So you think a 1500$ lawyer is pretty good ? He is gonna start looking around soon he is just trying to gather info on how to find a good lawyer for his case and whatnot.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,312
Last seen: 3 days, 9 hours
Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: Anonymous #1]
    #18759771 - 08/26/13 02:21 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

In the US, a good lawyer can not get any case dismissed.  Only the cases where cops made certain mistakes can get dismissed.

I think 1500 is a reasonable lawyer fee for a case like this.  Many lawyers would ask for more, however they often have negotiable prices.

Regarding dui's, if he wants to avoid them he should not mention anything about drug use and cars.  Police arrest people for DUI's for driving on legally prescribed drugs all the time.  They usually say something like "looks like you took a bit too many of your pills today..."

Regarding what to tell the police and what to admit and what not to admit, it is very simple.  This video does a better job of explaining it than I can.  No need to make up any BS, that will just piss the cops off and give them more ammo to use against you.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous #1

Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #18759801 - 08/26/13 02:30 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Cool we will watch that, thank you.

You called this case flimsy a few posts back Alan. From what you know so far do you think we stand a decent chance at getting this totally dropped ? At the very minimum I want him to get it dropped to a Class C.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,312
Last seen: 3 days, 9 hours
Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: Anonymous #1]
    #18759994 - 08/26/13 03:15 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

It could go either way.  The lack of drug residue helps, as does the lack of confession.  In borderline cases like these, spending some money on a lawyer is a good investment.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefastfred
Old Hand
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: Alan Rockefeller] * 1
    #18779997 - 08/31/13 01:18 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

> In the US, a good lawyer can not get any case dismissed.

Yeah, it can.  The right name on your papers can get shit reduced or even dropped.  It's pretty rare for a good case to get outright dropped.  But with a big name and a shaky case I know it happens all the time.

Quote:

The drug war isn't about getting money from defendants.  If it were, it'd be a terrible investment since it costs far more to enforce the drug laws than they collect from defendants.




Wrong.  The drug war is about money, bigotry, fascism, racism, and a general intolerance towards freedom.

A HUGE part of this is the money.  The government gets money from the defendants, and it doesn't COST them anything on the back end.  They make money at every step.  They MAKE money from the fines AND the prison time, administrators, and all the foolishness that goes along with imprisoning someone.  Then they continue to make money from probation.

It might not be all that obvious, but NOTHING costs the government ANYTHING because they don't pay for anything, YOU and I do.  Who cares how much something costs when it's somebody else's money and they get the benefit?  Nobody!  If I could spend $100 of your money to make $10 myself, then why wouldn't I?

So they fine you $1,000 then jail you for 1 year @ $31,000 per year, then you pay probation fees for the next 5 years and also make ~$41,000/??? per year on that for a probation officer's salary.  So the fine is really the least of it.

All told they just MADE $34,000 dollars on even a minor example like this. (PO has multiple "clients" obviously.)  A decent chunk of this money leaks out to corporations for the goods that are involved, but you don't hear them complain much when they're cashing the checks.

The result of this system is ever increasing prosecutions and punishments.  They don't care if it costs them $10,000 of YOUR tax money in order to extract ANOTHER few thousand out of you.  To even suggest any sort of change would threaten their job security.

There is no incentive whatsoever, at any level, to be cost effective, efficient, or even use common sense.  YOUR money is the carrot, and the only stick is economic collapse.  The government is optimized to extract as much money as possible from it's citizens and keep us perched on the edge of economic disaster.  If/when the economy/budget implodes then someone is ousted and another idiot takes charge.  Of course to recover from economic troubles requires MORE money from YOU, and you'll also have to tighten your belt and work harder, even as the government services, benefits, and safety nets get cut.



In any case, if I were the OP I wouldn't waste a dime on this case.  They have ZERO, zilch, nada!  There's not one shred of evidence of ANY criminal activity.  Tinfoil is not illegal, nor are lighters, rolling papers, etc..

It won't go to trial, because it would be an embarrassment and likely result in a false arrest, harassment, etc. lawsuit.  It's just another case of pinching you for money.  Either you pay them some money or you pay the lawyer club some money.  Either way they have the satisfaction of fucking over a scumbag like you.

Likely the moment you pay a lawyer they'll drop the charges.  Try to fight it yourself and they'll sweat you right to the last moment, hoping you'll break.  They may even do this if you DO have a lawyer, knowing it will jack your legal bill to the max.

I've seen several, and had one personal case, where they had no intentions from the start of presenting a case.

The cops once destroyed my license, charged me with a misdemeanor, upped the charges when I offered a minimum fine and reduced charge plea, then made me drive 420 miles TWICE for court.  When I showed up the day of trial they made me sit there for an hour just to tell me that the case was dismissed.  I was furious and wanted to complain on the record, but they denied me even this saying since my case was dismissed I had no standing to address the court.

Prosecutors frequently do dishonest and immoral things like this IME.  They don't give a shit about their oath of office, and they especially don't give a shit if you are innocent or there are mitigating circumstances.  They are 99.9% above the law, and nothing can ever happen to them unless they do something on the order of raping a child on videotape.

I'd take it to trial.  Most likely it will be dismissed, but don't count on being notified of this until your name is called from the docket.  Get a jury trial and PD if possible.  Ask for the PD right off the bat, unless you're actually trying to delay things.

Go to court and watch a few days worth of cases.  There is no evidence in your case so there will be no presentation of fact at your trial, only legal argument.  Their legal argument will be that tinfoil or heating tinfoil in a car is illegal.  Laughter may ensue during the trial.

Maybe Enlil can clarify this, but I was under the impression that you can't present an argument without some sort of fact involved.  That is, if they have ZERO evidence of intent then how can they legally even embark on that line of reasoning?  I've heard of certain defenses being disallowed because there was no supporting evidence, which would make it pure conjecture?


-FF


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineallreadyused
The Liquor
Male


Registered: 09/10/07
Posts: 480
Loc: Trailer Park, Nova Scotia
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: Enlil]
    #18804421 - 09/05/13 06:13 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
The drug war isn't about getting money from defendants.  If it were, it'd be a terrible investment since it costs far more to enforce the drug laws than they collect from defendants.




I'm sure you take all your drug cases pro bono...
All the money may not come directly from the defendant but they sure will nickel and dime you to death.
Everyone I know that took an ARD for a DUI had to pay at least $800 to attend the mandatory classes.  That goes for everybody who was required to attend drug counseling too.  The people who run the classes have to get paid after all.  Until you can come up with the money they can suspend your drivers license.  If you get a second DUI you have most likely at least have to pay for an interlock installed in your car and pay (a company who lobbied the for tougher DUI laws) a monthly monitoring fee.  Property seizure laws; no need to prove guilt just that you couldn't afford that with your reported income, find a roach in the ash tray and in some states they can take the car.  Lets not forget private for profit prisons who spend millions of dollars on lobbyists.  How about the defense contractor probably getting paid to monitor this site and report to the NSA who than will hand that information to the DEA? 
From the point of view I am looking from the war on drugs is all about imposing someone else's morals on everybody and making all the money it can to support and increase the bureaucracy.  If it weren't we wouldn't put drug addicts in prison unless they caused direct harm against another person or property.

Quote:

Enlil said:Fuck the Amish



Jesus Christ!  I just saw that; they don't all run puppy mills bro and it's PA's fault for not having tougher laws anyway.  Plenty of other dirt bags that run puppy mills too.  The Amish are kind of dumb and they all smell like manure but I wouldn't say fuck them.  Hate Speech! (I say in my teenage girl voice)


--------------------
Everything I say is for entertainment.

Fuck the ASPCA


Edited by allreadyused (09/05/13 06:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblefastfred
Old Hand
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
Re: How solid is this case based on this info ? [Re: allreadyused]
    #18805890 - 09/06/13 12:11 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Jesus Christ!  I just saw that; they don't all run puppy mills bro and it's PA's fault for not having tougher laws anyway.  Plenty of other dirt bags that run puppy mills too.  The Amish are kind of dumb and they all smell like manure but I wouldn't say fuck them.  Hate Speech! (I say in my teenage girl voice)




Yeah, using nebulous and most likely false accusations to justify religious bigotry is probably not a good thing.  OTOH, criticizing religion because it's stupid is entirely valid.

It really makes sense that greedy animal breeders are also so sadistic that they will torture the animals, even though that may hurt their profits... I guess.

Everybody knows that bitches must have at least a 1/4 acre to play in, a 100 sq.ft. dog house, get 1 year of maternity leave, and eat only the finest meats.  Maybe once we get to that point we could even start working to get humans those rights!


--------------------
It drinks the alcohol and abstains from the weed or else it gets the hose again. -Chemy

The difference between the substances doesn't matter. This is a war on consciousness, on our right to the very essence of what we are. With no control over that, we have no need to speak of freedom or a free society. -fireseed

"If we are going to have a war on marijuana, the least we can do is pull the sick and the dying off the battlefield." -Neal Levine (MPP)

I find the whole "my drug should be legal but yours should be illegal" mindset disgusting and hypocritical. It's what George Bush and company do when they drink a cocktail and debate the best way to imprison marijuana users. -Diploid


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* German Law - looking for info tracered 1,113 1 01/29/04 08:41 AM
by Prankster239
* Free Web Based Proxy Service Lana 1,561 3 09/21/03 09:44 AM
by Hertyar
* Security tips that EVERYONE should read twice!
( 1 2 all )
daba 25,331 22 05/02/06 08:56 PM
by Pashasan
* Drug test for shrooms? GrassyAss 14,040 16 08/08/06 04:04 PM
by CodyH
* Firewall advice and help reflectedlight 2,224 8 11/01/03 02:51 PM
by FiddleMyDiddle
* Drug Law FAQ: A Guide to the Fourth Ammendment Lana 4,023 8 05/28/02 07:02 PM
by GabbaDj
* How to make your whereabouts online untrackable!!! Lana 6,622 17 06/12/04 11:03 AM
by sublimesubmind
* Personal/False Identities - Basic How To: Lana 3,397 3 08/08/01 08:13 AM
by Beatnik

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller
322 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.021 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.