Jump to content

deangelolee89

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deangelolee89

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/17/1989

Recent Profile Visitors

652 profile views
  1. Thats incorrect!!!! It's alot of pro se people who have won civil cases in the past.....thats a fact! Plus you don't even know the facts of the case, my evidence is very strong.......people like you should not even post on here if you didn't know that fact I stated above.
  2. Thank you very much tax_counsel Now why would I dismiss the case....thats stupid!!!!! I have alot of good Interrogatories, just thought other people ideas would help too......."2 heads is always better than one"!!!! I never said I could not come up with Interrogatories.
  3. I'm just going off of the facts that WCJ raven stated, and his/her post clearly stated that "without signaling in anyway to them"........based on those facts No thats not fleeing to elude....
  4. I need some good Interrogatories and Request for production Ideas to submit to the defendants who are police officers and the police department. Just looking for ideas if anyone could help.
  5. No thats not fleeing to elude..........the officer has to give you some type of signal.......here is the statue for Illinois: (625 ILCS 5/11-204) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-204) Sec. 11-204. Fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. (a) Any driver or operator of a motor vehicle who, having been given a visual or audible signal by a peace officer directing such driver or operator to bring his vehicle to a stop, wilfully fails or refuses to obey such direction, increases his speed, extinguishes his lights, or otherwise flees or attempts to elude the officer, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The signal given by the peace officer may be by hand, voice, siren, red or blue light. Provided, the officer giving such signal shall be in police uniform, and, if driving a vehicle, such vehicle shall display illuminated oscillating, rotating or flashing red or blue lights which when used in conjunction with an audible horn or siren would indicate the vehicle to be an official police vehicle. Such requirement shall not preclude the use of amber or white oscillating, rotating or flashing lights in conjunction with red or blue oscillating, rotating or flashing lights as required in Section 12-215 of Chapter 12. ( Upon receiving notice of such conviction the Secretary of State shall suspend the drivers license of the person so convicted for a period of not more than 6 months for a first conviction and not more than 12 months for a second conviction. © A third or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class 4 felony. (Source: P.A. 93-120, eff. 1-1-04.) No, not all Police cars have Cameras.........but you can have your attorney subpeona to see if any footage is available....... adjusterjack.......respectfully you are incorrect because as stated above the officer must give you some type of signal.......read the statute above
  6. Yes you can file a Motion to Dismiss since your EX has failed to follow the proper civil procedures of that state. However, that does not mean your Motion to Dismiss will be granted! The Judge could allow your EX to amend or supplement his pleadings to add what is improper or missing.......which is the usual circumstances with pro-se individuals to serve the best interest of justice. Second, just because your EX has failed to follow the proper civil procedures or is in contemp of court does not give you a cause of action (grounds for a lawsuit).......the only thing that could possible happen is what I stated above or you could move the court to impose a saction.
  7. First, I want you to be aware that every case is unique! Also the Judge has to take into consideration alot of facts to determine the best interest for the child, such as family history, both parties living conditions, both parties income, asking your child questions which will help make a determination, and ect. If he has nothing else on you besides "not having stable housing" then thats not sufficient enough to revoke custody from you. What possibly could happen is the judge would award both of you guys "joint custody" and determine which parent's home would be the child's primary residence, until further ordered. Subsequently, there would be status courts dates to see how the new "child care plan" is working out and to see how your doing with housing. Once you get back stable you could file a "petition" with the court to modify the "child care plan" and request that the child be return to previous conditions (which would be housing with you). This is not considered legal advice, for any legal advise I would highly advide you to consult with an attorney.
  8. I agree 100%, don't mess up a good fourm to assist people who use it properly. I understand that skil22 did not purposely mean to cause any attention but lets stay on topic!!!!!!!! Also Skil22 please just erase your location on the comment above for your safety and best intrest. Respectfully!!!!
  9. If you had vaild insurance on that date, but not on you at the time of the traffic stop, then at your next court date bring proof and the no insurance ticket shall be dismissed First, as others has already stated: You can only challenge your conviction if you've already been convicted! From the information you provided to us, you havn't been convicted or pled guilty to the speeding tickets yet and therefore it is nothing you can reverse nor expunged. If you would like to challenge the speeding tickets, you should research that state's procedure for challenging speeding tickets. Second, traffic offenses (such as speeding tickets) are what the law calls "petty offense", and don't carry no jail time unless the charge has been enhanced. From the facts you gave so far, there should not be no enhancment. Traffic offense (such as speeding tickets) don't go on your criminal background, itonly gets reported to the motor vehicle department and placed on your driving record. The other comments on here are very mean AND ARE NOT VERY HELPFUL, but they are correct about you needing to follow the law! I understand your a student which means you still have alot of learning, but make the right choices. I can tell that you don't want to get into any trouble because your very concern about your record. STAY FOCUS & GOOD LUCK!!!!
  10. If I was in a situation just as Mr. Ken, the legal avenue I would take would be filing for administrative review first and challenging the grounds for which my bank accounts were closed. Also I would review any contracts/agreement that was signed with the bank to verify if theres a clause within the agreement that cleary states they could close my account for that specific reason. This is not legal advice, please consult with an Attorney for any legal advice! This is the actions I would take if I was in a similar situation.
  11. If there is an active investigation pending, having a attorney on stand-by would be a good idea. The suspect may get brought in for questioning at anytime and having an attorney to to be present during such questioning/interrogation would prevent the Officers/investigators from violating any of the suspect rights. Further, the attorney would prevent the suspect from make any incriminating statement if the suspect gets questioned.
  12. I have few questions that I need to know so I can properly help you out. First, I assume the Police only had an arrest warrant for your room mate and No search, is that correct? Also, was your room mate arrested prior to the officers entering the locked area? Further, did the officers provide any justification for entering the locked area? Once you answer those few questions I will have a better understanding and give you the most accurate information.
  13. I never make anything up, here is the facts below. Also I would have to respectfully agree in part and also disagree in part with you! Cirumstantial Evidence requires a jury/judge to draw an logic and reasonabe inference from known facts. Direct evidence is testimony of a person who claims to have actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness, and this is evidence which immediately establishes the main fact to be proved. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances which indicate the existence of a fact. As a result, what chain of facts and circumstances (direct facts) can any trier of fact infer from this case which conclude that Defendant was driving this car beyond a reasonable doubt? None! The reason why I say that is because there are to many hypothesis of innocence that could be drawn from this case. Basically, hin this certin case he/she cannot be proved guily beyond a reasonable based on the facts we know. You are correct, It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence to convict. Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. However, where proof of guilt is by circumstantial evidence only, it must be so conclusive in character and point so surely and unerringly to the guilt of the accused as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence. The contrasting views on the necessity of the circumstantial evidence instruction arose after the United States Supreme Court decided Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150 (1954). In Holland, the Court rejected a claim of reversible error for the refusal “to instruct [the jury] that where the Government's evidence is circumstantial it must be such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt.” Holland, 348 U.S. at 139, 75 S.Ct. 127. Without extensive explanation, the Court concluded that “the better rule is that where the jury is properly instructed on the standards for reasonable doubt, such an additional instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing and incorrect.” Id. at 139–40, 75 S.Ct. 127; seeState v. Grippon, 327 S.C. 79, 489 S.E.2d 462, 465 (1997) ( Toal, J., concurring) (“Relying on Holland..., the federal courts and a majority of state courts have abandoned the ‘reasonable hypothesis' language in favor of an approach that does not differentiate between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply provides that a defendant's guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”) modified, State v. Logan, 405 S.C. 83, 747 S.E.2d 444, 453 (2013).
  14. Remind your attorney of his duties pursuant to Illinois rules of professional conduct. Once you remind him of his duties and state rule 1.4 of the professional conduct then he should comply because no attorney would risk being investigated by the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC). If he/she still fails to comply with your request then file a complaint with the ARDC and make sure you state that the attorney is in violation of the above stated rule of professional conduct. This only apply to Illinois lawyers, but other states have the same rules and procedures......just do some research. ARDC 130 E. RANDOLPH DR., Ste-1500 Chicago, IL 60601 PHONE: (312) 565-2320 OR (800) 826-8625 Rule 1.4 clearly states: RULE 1.4: COMMUNICATION (a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. ( A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Adopted July 1, 2009, effective January 1, 2010. Comment [1] Reasonable communication between the lawyer and the client is necessary for the client effectively to participate in the representation. Withholding Information [7] In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4© directs compliance with such rules or orders.
×
×
  • Create New...