How long is the arm of State law for two felonies?

[CdwJava]

My apologies for sounding crass about it. It didn't mean it quite that way. It was the "he doesn't show up, the locals just make a phone call" that I was referencing. The aren't supposed to make the phone call until after the warrant is issued. Wether they do or not is questionable.

Without the warrant, the other agency could not possibly make a lawful arrest. I can't imagine they would be that stupid. But, they might be allowed to detain in anticipation of the warrant being issued by the court in the other state.

In general it can work thus: If he fails to show in court the judge will order the warrant issued, and within a few minutes to a few hours, the warrant will be in the system. At that point, the call could be made and the warrant would be in the system.

I've made a similar call myself last year when a judge issued the arrest warrant and it was entered in NCIC within the hour. The suspect was sighted at a hotel on the east coast and I called to request he be arrested on the warrant. He was picked up on the east coast and later extradited by way of a subsequent governor's warrant ... he was held for about three weeks before the governor's warrant was signed and delivered as I recall. Pretty quick in that case.

As I said, there are no Federal charges, and the original crime happened three years ago. Could they add Federal charges at this point just to get the feds involved?

Without knowing the nature of the crime, I can't say. I'd say it is doubtful, but if there is concurrent jurisdiction over the offenses, it IS theoretically possible. But, I don't see that they would need to. They WILL get him back.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

Zigner and a few others claimed that would amount to perjury. It was a nonsensical thread.

If the OP testifies he sold the car on one hand, then testifies he DIDN'T sell the car on the other hand, OP is committing perjury...again, I'm making no statements as to whether or not OP would ever have to deal with the consequences of said perjury.

 

[CdwJava]

The OP could certainly sue for breach of contract to get his money, but enforcing the verbal contract would be difficult. Therefore, I suggested to the OP that in addition to suing for breach of contract he should alternately sue for negligently damaging his property. That way, if the buyer successfully defends the breach of contract action and the judge rules that the car still belonged to the OP, he could still possibly collect for property damage. Zigner and a few others claimed that would amount to perjury. It was a nonsensical thread.

Glad I missed it ... I might have gotten a headache.

- carl

 

[kiddj2]

I do like a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but can I request that replies be kept on-topic?

 

[xylene]

Deleted For Op

 

[CameronNewport]

If the OP testifies he sold the car on one hand, then testifies he DIDN'T sell the car on the other hand, OP is committing perjury...

Your glib breakdown of the situation is nonsense.

It is beyond common to sue for mutually exclusive causes of action. In some cases it could amount to malpractice for a lawyer not to advise his client to do so.

In the past two years I've personally been involved in a suit where the plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment simultaneously (they are mutually exclusive causes of action), and a suit where a plaintiff sued for battery and negligence simultaneously (again, they are mutually exclusive causes of action).

If a judge rules that no sale occurred, then it is certainly NOT perjury to make an alternate legal argument based on that ruling. And it is perfectly acceptable to put forth the alternate argument in the same complaint as the first cause of action. I question your litigation experience, Zigner.

 

[CameronNewport]

I didn't claim that it would be perjury to bring the actions you legal eagle. I stated, correctly, that truthful testimony to either theory would be a HUGE loser, and testifying dishonestly to argue one angle or the other would be PERJURY that the defendant could prove in a heartbeat.

You are bringing the nonsense. Here and then.

This post is laughable.

 

[CameronNewport]

I do like a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but can I request that replies be kept on-topic?

My apologies. Yes.