Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RetiredinVA

  1. That's not how it works. After a person is arrested, there is a preliminary hearing to determine whether the person should remain on bond and to be "bound over to the grand jury", in other words, to remain under arrest. The preliminary hearing, sometimes called a "probable cause" or PC hearing, is usually perfunctory and only requires a probable cause to find the defendant was probably involved in a crime. Bond may be set at that time, if it hasn't already been set. Then the prosecutor presents evidence to a grand jury further suggesting the person should be formally charged or indicted. The grand jury will inevitably charge the person since exculpatory evidence is not presented. After the person has been indicted, they are arraigned. It is at the point, defendant is actually formally charged with the crime and pleads guilty or not guilty. There is no testiimony at the arraignment except, possibly evidence regarding whether the defendant should remain free on bond. Following the arraignment, the defendant's attorney may move the court to surpress evidence which has been obtained illegally. That is where the question of consent to a search arises. The arresting officer can be called to prove the arrest was not consensual. You need to do a little background study before you start writing about the criminal legal process.
  2. How do you know the attorney initiated the negotiations? Are you ready to believe he just decided to call her and say, "My client says he had sex with you a few years ago and he's concerned about your revealing it to the press. So, how about we pay you , say $130,000 dollars to keep it to yourself?"
  3. Why did the publisher initiate the offer to catch and release? Regardless. The fact is she accepted the money in return for not revealing the interaction. No matter how you cut it, she demanded $130,000 for not revealing a purely consensual sexual act.
  4. BTW, I have a story line for you: A famous person announces his intent to run for high public office. A woman advises the famous person's personal attorney that she will reveal that she had sex with the famous person while he was married but years before he announced his intention to run for private office. The woman agrees she will not make the, probably damaging, announcement if the famous person agrees to pay her $130,000. The famous person's lawyer makes the payment. Later the woman's attorney sees the woman could have demanded way more money. So he tells her to say the agreement she made was not valid and she wanted to tell the whole world the famous person had had sex with her, but she also intended to keep the $130,000. The main stream media suggested the famous person has committed a crime by paying the woman the $130,000 and he should be removed from his high office. The words "extortion" or "blackmail" do not appear in any mainstream media reporting on the woman's demand for $130.000.
  5. Frankly, if I were an elderly person living in a rural area, where the fire and rescue department has told me they cannot provide fire or medical service because two trees are overhanging the road to my place, I would get a chain saw or a guy with a chainsaw, to remedy that problem before I started worrying about who is going to pay for it.
  6. 1. Has your research reviewed Penal Code 21a and 66? PENAL CODE 21a. An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements: a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission. PENAL CODE 664. Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts, as follows: (a) If the crime attempted is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, the person guilty of the attempt shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail, respectively, for one-half the term of imprisonment prescribed upon a conviction of the offense attempted. . . . Why would you possibly think this would be either rare, unusual, or improper? Have you heard the expressions "confidential informant" or "sting"?
  7. Sort of depends on where, doesn't it? For instance, in the reception area - Yes. In the toilet - probably No. Can you be more specific?
  8. When you discussed your situation with the landlord or the manager, what did they say?
  9. Actually, the medical practice is not done with it if the check is not cashed. That is the problem. Eventually the practice would have to turn the unclaimed funds over to an escheat authority. In the meantime they would be required to keep a record of the patient and the balance owed to the patient's estate. It can be a real pain in the buttocks.
  10. You don't get to "verbally change" court orders. Your rights are, and always were, whatever was in the most recent court order. How a new court may change that is, as pg1067 says, anyone's guess.
  11. In Virginia a divorce court can choose either date as the evaluation date.
  12. Apparently you were granted guardianship of the child. That is way different from adoption. You will have to return to the Georgia court if you wish to adopt the child. During that process, either the mother will have to consent to adoption or the court will have to terminate her paternal rights. To william james: Advertising of law firms is a violation of the terms of this site.
  13. I suspect the recording was done by a television or video production company and not the state. Right? If so, it involves the first amendment's press privilege. The press is seldom accused of being fair.
  14. If a person is represented by counsel, it is an ethical violation for opposing counsel to communicate directly with the defendant. If the defendant does not have counsel, it is possible for him or her to negotiate a plea agreement. However, the prosecutor may be reluctant to do so because the defendant may later seek to withdraw his or her plea on the basis of not fully understanding the effects of the plea bargain.
  15. It is a little surprising that the gas company would have installed the existing line without having an easement. Have you checked to see if the gas company already has an easement?
  16. I suppose a person can "claim to be" anything they want. The statute says they are not.
  17. I read your question and read sub-section (B) and I'm trying to figure out what you are driving at. What is the context of your question?
  18. So, what happened to the suit? This issue has been addressed in " Should trees have standing. Christopher Stone, 1972" and in Sierra Club v. Morton, , 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
  19. A court may disregard precedent whenever it thinks the precedent is wrong or obsolete. Then a higher court may reverse the lower court's error.
  20. do you have a bill of sale or other document showing he sold the vehicle to you on defined payment terms? Did he say he would accept $800 as final payment for the vehicle? What was the original price?
  21. That's why I said you may get part of the post-marital equity increase. But, you are almost certainly not going to get half the value of the property. Consult local counsel.
  22. New Yorkis an "equitable distribution" state. In a divorce, the court is required to determine the fair distribution of the marital assets. In your case, the court may very well determine you would have little or no claim to any of the equity in the property your wife and her aunt purchased prior to the marriage. I would predict you might be allowed a share of the increase in value of the property after the aunt's death until the date of the marriage.
  23. When you start talking about "property to be split" you bring into question the state where this is occurring. In a community proprty state the property can be "split". In a state where the proprty is divided by equitable distribution, the question is not so simple. You did not name the state so we don't know what rule applies. When you identify the state, perhaps youmight also give us a clue as to why you did not "tag" the state as requested on the originalemtry screen. Recently few people are identifying the stste.
  24. If I were your attorney, I would advise you to testify to what you have posted here. If you take the 5th, the prosecutor may be peed off enough to charge you with conspiracy. You were clearly closely enough involved in transporting the drugs to make it stick. I would also advise you not to engage in further discussion of the matter on a public site, like this one.
  • Create New...