• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

22348 (b) speeding 100 + can i win california

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.



J

JIMinCA

Member
fairisfair said:
congratulations, yep, Jim will count that as a win too.

A dismissal on a case where you CLEARLY by your own admission should have been convicted of at least a lessor crime. Simply because the officer was busy else where with some other criminal.

Way to go.
Click to expand...
I'm amazed. How can a guy with a screen name like "fairisfair" have such a sarcastic and bitter retort for a guy whose case was rightly dismissed as the State could not produce a witness. I suppose the response would have been much more cheery had the court held the trial anyway and just convicted even without a witness.

I swear I just don't understand what the hell motivates some people who post here.
 
F

fairisfair

Senior Member
JIMinCA said:
I'm amazed. How can a guy with a screen name like "fairisfair" have such a sarcastic and bitter retort for a guy whose case was rightly dismissed as the State could not produce a witness. I suppose the response would have been much more cheery had the court held the trial anyway and just convicted even without a witness.

I swear I just don't understand what the hell motivates some people who post here.
Click to expand...
No, it would have been better had the witness been able to be two places at the same time. Double justice. With a cherry on top.

Justice jimb0, that's what motivates most of us. I know it is a difficult concept when you are all tangled up in technicalities. But when a driver like this, speeds again and runs over your neice or nephew crossing the street, or loses control of his vehicle and kills your girlfriend and her best friend on their way to the mall; I am sure you will be right there by his side defending him right??

and because Jimb0 fairisfair, but life isn't.
 
C

colincrow

Junior Member
fairisfair said:
No, it would have been better had the witness been able to be two places at the same time. Double justice. With a cherry on top.

if you read my story about my appearance today in court thoroughly i think you might reach the conclusion that the officer was not at the court at all but that the court clerk used that to get me to change my plea to guilty. and then held up the case to be called last to give the officer time to show up.with no regard to which order the cases where received, or called by alphabetical order, my last name starts with a c by the way.even though i think he had no intentions of showing up at all due to the fact that he knew i was innocent of the charge of 22348 (b). if he was there i feel sorry for him because he would of been testifying for 3 hours, because thats how long i waited.

]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
C

colincrow

Junior Member
fairisfair said:
bahahahahahahahahaha

ask Jim how many TRIALS he has been in. Oh, and then ask him to pm you the case numbers.
Click to expand...
jim seems to know more about procedures and case law then you or any one else that replied to my thread by far.
 
Last edited:
J

JIMinCA

Member
fairisfair said:
If I'd have had anything to contribute, you can bet I would have.

You fail to realize that he wasn't innocent Jimb0, not of breaking the law.
Click to expand...
And here is the point that validates my opinion of the naysaying vultures on this site.

A person like colin comes here looking for help with a legal problem. Instead of offering help, the vultures swoop down and pick at his bones by telling him he is guilty and he is somehow immoral to even consider presenting a defense for himself. This absolutely violates the whole foundation of our judicial system which assumes a defendant is innocent until proven innocent.

So... what if fair was driving his car and he spilled something hot in his lap. As a quick reaction, he jumped and hit the steering wheel causing the car to swerve and run over a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The pedestrian dies and fair is charged with negligent homocide. Obviously fair feels terrible about the tragedy, but the question is: does fair simply "take it like a man" by pleading guilty and recieving a sentence (i.e. 5 - 10 years), or does he put on an aggressive defense. In this defense, he recognizes that a "technicality" (otherwise known as the LAW) has a provision that would force a dismissal. Does he use it or does he risk the 5 - 10?

I think the answer is obvious and I also think fair is pretty hypocritical in his tone towards colin and many others on this site.
 
F

fairisfair

Senior Member
JIMinCA said:
And here is the point that validates my opinion of the naysaying vultures on this site.

A person like colin comes here looking for help with a legal problem. Instead of offering help, the vultures swoop down and pick at his bones by telling him he is guilty and he is somehow immoral to even consider presenting a defense for himself. This absolutely violates the whole foundation of our judicial system which assumes a defendant is innocent until proven innocent.

So... what if fair was driving his car and he spilled something hot in his lap. As a quick reaction, he jumped and hit the steering wheel causing the car to swerve and run over a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The pedestrian dies and fair is charged with negligent homocide. Obviously fair feels terrible about the tragedy, but the question is: does fair simply "take it like a man" by pleading guilty and recieving a sentence (i.e. 5 - 10 years), or does he put on an aggressive defense. In this defense, he recognizes that a "technicality" (otherwise known as the LAW) has a provision that would force a dismissal. Does he use it or does he risk the 5 - 10?

I think the answer is obvious and I also think fair is pretty hypocritical in his tone towards colin and many others on this site.
Click to expand...
OH So he ACCIDENTALLY drove almost 90 miles an hour. I get it now.:rolleyes:

again, a FINE example.
 
J

JIMinCA

Member
fairisfair said:
OH So he ACCIDENTALLY drove almost 90 miles an hour. I get it now.:rolleyes:

again, a FINE example.
Click to expand...
fair,

I have obviously touched a nerve with you by offering help to people who ask for it. The help I have provided has ensured that they can provide themselves with a legitimate defense in a system that has been twisted into a "for profit industry" for the State. I know that you would prefer that people just cower before the great and almighty State and simply plead guilty to whatever offense they have been charge with without regard to legality of the charge, burden of the State to make their case or presumption of innocence. However, although I know that seeing people defend themselves is an annoyance for you, I would recommend that you redirect your misplaced hostility. The people you should be angry about is the legislature for writing laws that the courts and police find inconvenient to follow, the police for not following the laws while they "enforce" the law, and the courts for ignoring the law in an attempt to process as many profit bearing defendants in as short a time as possible.

Colin demonstrated how the "system" used every means at their disposal, including outright deception, to get him to plead guilty to a charge he was not guilty of. Given your high level of rightous indignation, I'm surprised you aren't ranting about the unethical behavior of the court.

Maybe you aren't interested in what's fair. Maybe you just hate people. I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top