It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are there any lawyers that can help me?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I am not sure exactly what forum this belongs in, but I am in need of some advice.. I was arrested nearly a year ago.. Let me break down the whole story. I was in an argument with my ex girlfriend, and she got upset and called the police. They came to our apt and did their typical investigation, asked me what happened, asked her what happened, etc.. It was all just a verbal argument, no yelling, no holes in the wall, no slamming doors, just a simple argument.. The police (2 of them) told me/us "no crimes have been committed, have a nice night" and all was well., they left..

Well about 1 hour after they left, they came back, and said "sorry, our supervisor sent us back" and they arrested me. This is the only time I have been in trouble like this. I was charged with domestic violence (for a verbal argument?) and possession of a firearm while intox (it was on my night stand where I was sleeping when they came). Now the big problem I had, was I knew in my heart I could fight this, even my ex was on my side, she only called them because she does not realize that they are not social workers, and there to break up arguments, but are there to haul off badguys.

So I get to spend the night in jail, confident that I will beat this whole bs escapade, until.. Wow now the prosecutor wants to charge me with "felonious assault" because I had a firearm in reach when the cops got there, and then wanted to charge me with assault on her, cause a firearm was on the night stand, unless I plead guilty to the 2 original misdemeanors.. WHAT? The 2 officers that came to my house LEFT, all was good, I was asleep when they got there, but then their supurvisor wants to send them back and pop me? For what?!?!

Now my probation is nearing its end, I cannot afford to pay off the debt. they decided to pin me with. I can no longer own a firearm or go back in the military, my life is screwed, and my blonde ditz probation officer has no clue about the "justice" system she works for. What am I supposed to do? I have never been in trouble before because, well, I DO NOT BREAK THE LAW. Why is it fair and ok for a prosecutor to basically blackmail you into pleading guilty? This is so unfair and so much BS. My time is running out to pay the system money or else I get sent to jail. What do I do? I even told my lawyer (public defender, what a joke) that the cops said I was innocent and left, and he says "yea that happens alot" WHAT??? No, he just didn't wanna defend me. My due date for the bribery money is comming to a close and I cannot afford it. Is there any other legal recourse I can turn too? Is the fact that 2 police officers left my house, saying all is okay not enough for my case?

Deebo
edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: grammar

edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
sorry to hear your troubles, and sorry, i am no lawyer, but a lot of law works of precedent. if you were to find a case similar to yours, i.e. cops called, visible weapon......and the person was not charged, you could use that.

can the cops testify? find out who the supervisor who sent them back was.

get the 911 tapes...listen to the girlfriend.

can she testify/verify your story?

2nd amendment...if you aren't a felon, they can't not let u have a gun....

just some things to try

best of luck



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I never had a chance to get that far.. It was ither plead guilty and go home, or spend 6 years in prison.


Deebo



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Been right where you are.

It's too late now to worry about it. You plead guilty to the 2 offenses now you have to ride it out.

It's probably going to mean going to jail if you don't pay. They might extend you probation a year or two till you pay it off .

The damage is done. You should have not plead guilty and gotten a lawyer or at least requested another public defender.

Now your screwed for life and you can NEVER get your rights back.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Deebo
 


Tough luck.
I would say you are mostly at fault for being conned into pleading / lying about something you did not do.
Make them provide evidence of your guilt, burden them as they hate to spend money on a possible fruitless pursuit.
You might try to see if you could pull the city/county into court for giving bad advice/public defender.
But we know that will not happen as it happens all of the time.
My stance is my signature, but that is just for me.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I would like some of the metaphysics people to chime in, we create reality, so this isn't really happening right, I can just think different and it will all go away correct? Yea...

Deebo
edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Many times I have been to a gun range, and see cops shooting, with their cooler full of beer, yet I drink and go to bed, with gun on nightstand and get charged. And btw, cops are some of the most unsafe people I see at a gun range.. Most cops carry a gun because the job requires it, while citizens shoot for sport and hobby and are much more safe and proficient in firearm handling than a typical leo.

Deeb
edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Well, as has been pointed out, you did make a plea deal. If you got a lawyer now, you could possibly fight the sentence, but it is going to cost you some good money.

When they came back, did they have a search warrant? I was under the impression that evidence gathered without a warrant and probable cause was inadmissable. I think it is called "incidental" evidence, or something similar. If there was no warrant, then I think it was a 4th ammendment violation.

Also, they would have to prove "intent", and without proof of intent, they have no crime. Your Public Defender should have known this.

If you did not threaten to use the gun, and there was no testimony of this, and the gf made no such claims, and you are not somehow restricted from owning a firearm, then I do not see how they can legally deprive you of this right.

I thought you had to be a felon to not be allowed to own a firearm? So, how can this affect your future? Unless you default on the probabation and they re-charge you with the full felony?

You could try a Writ of Habeus Corpus.

The punishment does not fit the crime. (Actually, there is no crime...) You got railroaded. Happens a lot.


No, I am not a lawyer either, but some things you could look into.

Good luck..



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


You can't have a felony or have ever been convicted of domestic violence. I did nothing wrong, was a verbal argument, and that is why they left, cause I did nothing wrong.. I am not going to challenge a prosecutor and risk a slap on the wrist vs a 6 year prison sentence. I was in an infantry platoon in the Army so I know how to handle a firearm and these hipocrit cksuckers can kiss my ass.. I will Never do anything crazy, but I do feel why this guy did what he did.

www.youtube.com...

Again, I am sane and would never do such, and do not condone this, but many more will resort to this when being pushed.

Deebo
edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Here is a great example for you. I found it while looking for the Plain View Doctrine:

www.4lawnotes.com...


Issue(s): Whether the seizure of the items in “plain-view” was a violation of the Fourth Amendment

Judgment/Disposition: Affirmed

Holding: No

Reasoning: The court held that the items seized from the petitioner’s home were discovered during a lawful search authorized by a valid warrant. When they were discovered, it was immediately apparent to the officer that they constituted incriminating evidence. He had probable cause, not only to obtain a warrant to search for the stolen property, but also to believe that the weapons and handguns had been used in the crime he was investigating. The search was authorized by the warrant; the seizure was authorized by the “plain-view” doctrine. The court went into Justice Stewarts interpretation of the “plain-view” doctrine by stating that if an article is already in plain view, neither its observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacy. A seizure of the article, however, would obviously invade the owner’s possessory interest. The problem with the plain view doctrine has been to identify the circumstances in which plain view has legal significance rather than being simply the normal concomitant of any search, legal or illegal. Two limitations to the doctrine, according to Justice Stewart is that first, “plain view” alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence, and second, that the discovery of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent. Moreover, two additional conditions that must be satisfied to justify the warrantless seizure: First, not only must the item be in plain view; its incriminating character must also be ‘immediately apparent’. Second, not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right to access to the object itself. The court also held that in this case, the scope of the search was not enlarged in the slightest by the omission of any reference to the weapons in the warrant. Indeed, if the three rings and other items named in the warrant had been found at the outset—or if petitioner had them in his possession and had responded to the warrant by producing them immediately—no search for weapons could have taken place.


If there was nothing linking the weapon to the event described, it does look like a 4th ammendment violation, based on what you described. Even if they obtained a warrant, it was not justified with probable cause.

Just my opinion, mind you.

You can read the whole story at the link, and see othe Supreme Court decisions.

Also, if you were forced to agree to the plea bargain, as in, you felt compelled or threatened, you can appeal and claim you agreed under durress. Hard to prove though, but I know Public Defenders often get really pushy and will even say things like, "If you don't take this deal, you are going to spend the rest of your life in prison.: If that is not durress, I don't know what is.


Plain View Doctrine:


Plain View Doctrine--this refers to police use of their senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Anything detected by these means does NOT have Fourth Amendment protection if officers are lawfully present when they detect something by these means. A number of subdoctrines have developed, such as "plain feel", "plain smell", and "plain hearing", and the current controversy is whether electronic aids for the senses constitute a search or should be part of the Plain View Doctrine. In general, evidence of ANOTHER crime that is immediately observable without a search is seizable. In 1971, the standard was "inadvertent discovery" (not necessarily looking for anything incriminating; e.g., looking inside car to read VIN number or fix fuse and seeing weapon under dashboard or car seat) but due to courts being unable to define "inadvertent discovery", this standard was abolished in Horton v. California (1990) and replaced with a three-prong test: (a) officer engaged in lawful activity at the time; (b) the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed, and (c) the officer had lawful access to the object and it was discovered accidentally. For example, in a roadside stop, the driver opens a glove box to get their registration or proof of insurance, and the officer views what in his or her experience looks like a container of drugs or a weapon.


Based on the fact that they returned, I don't see how they can use this against you. Seems it would have had to have been seized on the first visit for it to work for them.


drtomoconnor.com...
(bold emphasis mine)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I am also not a lawyer, but I know that in many states when a domestic violence call is received then by police protocol someone is going to jail for the night. This is mainly for liability reasons that if they leave and you hurt your significant other they would be legally liable for not taking you into custody. The alcohol and firearm only make it a more suspicious situation, and make it appear that your wife is in danger, under duress, and afraid to speak up. Since your wife instigated the call, and you had a firearm visible, it looks REALLY bad for you.

The attorneys office will try and pin everything they can against you so they can get a charge to stick, preventing you from being able to sue the state for falsely imprisoning you. They have deep pockets and will use money to force you to plea to a lesser charge. As long as you agree to any charge they are off the hook should you try and come back to sue them.

Its often not fair, and its very stacked against men specifically, but since men statistically have been the physical aggressors in most domestic violence cases, it is what it is.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/17/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Excellent points you make, they do heap on the charges, like you said, in hopes that something will stick.

It's sad, but in sex abuse cases, all it takes is one persons word against another, and a man can face a long prison term when facing someone with false claims. All it takes is enough emotional testimony to convince the jury in a he said she said type of thing.

Only if and until the woman admits she made it up, can he be set free in most cases.

Sadly, the knee jerk reaction to claims of abuse leave a *lot* of men in this position.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Thanks for the reply, yea the judge said "have you made this plea under your own power and decision without anyone else influencing you "BESIDES THE PROSECUTOR/Plea bargain". You can't challenge the "man"

"except for the prosecutor/Plea bargain" "Don't let anyone else sway your decision, only we can.."

Deebo
edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Libertygal
 

There are state statutes at play here. Domestic Violence calls have their whole own category. The fact that the firearm was laying out makes it appear that he was either preparing to use it, or was brandishing it during the argument and set it down when the police arrived. The call itself provides Reasonable Suspicion, the subjects intoxication and the presence of the firearm provides Probable Cause:

www.ehow.com...
Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.

Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.


It’s a well known fact among police that Domestic violence calls are statistically the most dangerous calls that police officers encounter due to the emotional nature of the situation.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Libertygal
 

There are state statutes at play here. Domestic Violence calls have their whole own category. The fact that the firearm was laying out makes it appear that he was either preparing to use it, or was brandishing it during the argument and set it down when the police arrived. The call itself provides Reasonable Suspicion, the subjects intoxication and the presence of the firearm provides Probable Cause:

www.ehow.com...
Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.

Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed, or was going to be committed.


It’s a well known fact among police that Domestic violence calls are statistically the most dangerous calls that police officers encounter due to the emotional nature of the situation.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



Very true, but the argument was over way before they came, I was in bed asleep. Was a simple argument, no yelling, no holes in the wall, etc.. But I happened to have a few beers and a firearm on nightstand. The fact is they left, shook hands, it was all good... Till some ass supervisor sent them back.

Deebo



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Deebo
 


Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time!

You, at all times, are presumed to know the law. This does not mean that it is presumed that you will find a good lawyer to explain the law to you, it is presumed you know the law. Do you know the law? I am not talking about the myriad of legislative acts that are strangling the states and this nation, I am talking about the law.

Did you commit a crime? If the answer is no, then why in God's name would you plead guilty to a crime? Even if it is a lesser crime you are pleading to, if you are not guilty then why are you pleading guilty? In fact, in a case where there seems to be no subject matter jurisdiction, why are you pleading at all?

Fine, you've plead, and your plea was guilty, but the fact remains - assuming what the limited amount of facts you've relayed constitute the facts - that there was never any subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. The police expanded the meaning of a statute in order to invent a crime, and the prosecutor agreed to this creative criminalizing and the judge assumed it was enough to give jurisdiction for a hearing. Challenge it! Make them prove on record they actually have the lawful authority to expand the meaning of a statute to include a simple argument. Challenge the jurisdiction...

...or don't. Either you have created this thread to gain sympathy here in the court of public opinion because you are too afraid to fight for your freedom in the halls of justice, or you are more than willing to fight for your freedom and are genuinely looking for the proper legal strategy on how to do that.

Your court appointed attorney betrayed you because he was acting as an officer of the court, and it doesn't matter how much money you throw at a high priced attorney, that attorney will also act as an officer of the court. Don't waste good money after bad. You have the right to competent assistance of counsel not a right to an attorney. Assistance of counsel. Challenge the jurisdiction and demand your right to assistance of counsel. Do not sign any contract granting this assistance of counsel power of attorney, make clear that you will be in charge of your legal strategy and get down to the business of creating a viable legal strategy to regain your freedom.

Don't trust me, do not trust any internet forum, and do not trust any attorney on this matter. Know the law, and trust yourself. Then, and only then, will you know how to proceed.

Best of luck!

JPZ



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I did not commit a crime, It is my word against 2 officers + a supervisor. (3 officers) Do you think a serf like me would win that, without being able to afford a lawyer at the time? Honestly man, I know my rights, but in my situation.. "get outa jail free vs 6 years in a state prison" come on.

Deebo
edit on 17-2-2011 by Deebo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
And my ex, the so called "victim" sent a letter to the prosecuting attorney bitching why I even got arrested in the first place, and wrote a long statement to him. Did that ever come up to the judge? Hell no.


Deebo



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deebo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I did not commit a crime, It is my word against 2 officers + a supervisor. Do you think a serf like me would win that, without being able to afford a lawyer at the time? Honestly man, I know my rights, but in my situation.. "get outa jail free vs 6 years in a state prison" come on.

Deebo


With all due respect, you come on! You have plead guilty to a crime. You are convicted of a crime. You can spend all your energy and efforts defending your decision to plead guilty and become a convicted criminal or you can fight for your freedom. That choice is yours. I am not telling you what to do. Read the title of your thread. I am not a lawyer, but you have made it appear that you want help, now you make it appear that you want sympathy.

Sympathy is not help, it is betrayal. Help as betrayal is not help. In the end, only you can help your self, or not and you can just feel sorry for your self. That choice is yours.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Deebo
 


You have to see things from the officer’s perspective.

The DV call from a female immediately brings up a red flag that this is either a violent situation in progress, or someone in fear of their safety. Its also a pretty well known fact that co-dependant, abused women will try and cover for their abuser, or will be afraid to press charges against them for fear of their future safety. This is part of the reason why the police now automatically take someone away when one of these calls are received. It was a very common occurrence for the woman to back down and refuse to charge the man after the police arrive. Now they take that option out of the woman’s hands and place it in the hands of the officers.

The fact that there was alcohol involved and that a firearm was sitting in the open just adds even more fuel to the fire and provides them all the required components to believe that there is a domestic violence situation where the woman is afraid to speak up for herself. Actually, what the supervisor did was dead on the money correct in that situation.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join