Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by deangelolee89

  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.
  15. I never suffered really any damages, except I was arrested for a warrant. There was never any lease between me & the landlord, it was a month-to-month lease. Yes, I was at home and while the police was knocking I called the landloard and told him not to let them in and he agreed. The walfare check was because the police wanted to check on the status of my fincee, but they never had any search warrant. Since he agreed not to let them in, can that be consider a breach of verbal agreement?
  16. The police came knocking on my door for a welfare check, they did not have any warrant so I refused to open the door. After an hour and a half they got the keys to my apartment from the landloard. Can I sue the Landloard? Also while they were knocking on my door Icalled the Landloard and clearly told him not to let them in or give the key. I would like to sue him.
  17. I agree we need more facts...........however, I still believe that this went from a consensual encounter to an unlawful detention. Further, there may not be anything in the post that dictates the discussion of probable cause for an arrest, but an officer needs probable cause to turn an consensual encounter into an lawful detention. Also the officercould have arrested the OP instead of giving a ticket, for drivingwhilesuspended/revoked.
  18. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that, in determining whether an encounter is consensual or constitutes a detention, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances rather than adopt any per se rules about particular facts. (Bostick, supra, 501 U.S. 429.) A court should consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to decide whether an objectively reasonable person, who is innocent of wrongdoing, would have believed he or she was free to go. (Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. at p. 554; Bostick, supra, 501 U.S. at pp. 437-438.) "Moreover, what constitutes a restraint on liberty prompting a person to conclude that he is not free to 'leave' will vary, not only with the particular police conduct at issue, but also with the setting in which the conduct occurs." (Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 U.S. 567, 573.) The Supreme Court has emphasized that "for the most part per se rules are inappropriate in the Fourth Amendment context. The proper inquiry necessitates a consideration of 'all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter.' " (United States v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194, 201.) In short, there is "no 'bright-line' distinction between a consensual encounter and a detention . . . . 'The test is necessarily imprecise, because it is designed to assess the coercive effect of police conduct, taken as a whole, rather than to focus on particular details of that conduct in isolation.' " (People v. Verin (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 551, 556, citing Michigan v. Chesternut, supra, 486 U.S. at p. 573.) There is not "a litmus-paper test for distinguishing a consensual encounter from a seizure," but, rather "[t]here will be endless variations in the facts and circumstances, so much variation that it is unlikely that the courts can reduce to a sentence or a paragraph a rule that will provide unarguable answers to the question whether there has been an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment
  19. I agree 100% with you! That is exactally what I meant by saying they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's gonna be hard for the state of California to prove it's case, because as you stated there are so many defenses & arguments the defendant could used. Further, the officer never saw the defendant driving which makes the case hard to prove. Circumstantial evidence still won't prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant was driving and therefore the State cannot prove there case unless there is some other evidence that we are unaware of. A good defense attorney will be able to get the charges dismissed. Also, this case might be able to get dismissed off a simple motion to dismiss and quash arrest due to the fact the officer had no probable cause to ask the defendant for his drivers license. When the officer arrived he never saw the defendant commiting a crime or about to commit a crime and therefore he did nothave probable cause to summons this person. The officer assisted this guy by conducting his "community caretaking" fuction, he was not investigation any crime and therefore should of never asked for a drivers license because this was not a traffic stop. A detention occurs when an officer intentionally applies physical restraint or initiates a show of authority to which an objectively reasonable person innocent of wrongdoing would feel compelled to submit, and to which such a person in fact submits. (People v. Cartwright (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1367, citing California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 626; Brower v. Inyo County (1989) 489 U.S. 593, 596-597; Bostick, supra, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 437-438; and INS v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 215, 218.) "In situations involving a show of authority, a person is seized 'if "in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave," ' or ' "otherwise terminate the encounter" ' ([Brendlin v. California, supra, 551 U.S. at p. 255]), and if the person actually submits to the show of authority (id. at p. 254)." (People v. Brown, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 974.) The test for the existence of a show of authority is an objective one and thus, "[n]either the officer's uncommunicated state of mind nor the subjective belief of the individual citizen is relevant to the determination of whether a police contact is a detention." (In re Christopher B. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 455, 460.) "Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." (Mendenhall, supra, 446 U.S. at p. 554; People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254 (Terrell).) Our case law indicates that other relevant factors include the time and place of the encounter, whether the police indicated the defendant was suspected of a crime, whether the police retained the defendant's documents, and whether the police exhibited other threatening behavior. (See, e.g., Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 790; People v. Garry (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1110-1112; Castaneda, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 1227; People v. Spicer (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 213, 218-220.) THEREFORE, THIS STARTED OFF AS A consensual encounter AND TURNED INTO AN UNLAWFUL SEIZURE, IN VIOLATION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT.
  20. I agree this is a very interesting case. But the officer/State's Attorney won't be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you drove the vehicle to that location if you were never seen in physical control of the car. Please let me know what state this occured in and i'll look for some legal case laws to support your defense.
  21. I have reviewed alot of the responses, most are correct but not direct to your question. Your Attorney has a duty to show you all evidence in the case. The only way the Attorney cannot provide you with copies of the discovery material is if there has been a protective order signed by the judge. However, even if there is an protective order in place your attorney can still let you write down everything (word-for-word) on a piece of paper. If your attorney is not reviewing all discovery material with you, I would fire him and file a complaint with the ARDC office in Chicago or Springfield to have that attorney investagated, because he/she has a duty and if there not fulfilling that duty they should not be able to practice law. Rule 415. Regulation of Discovery (a) Investigations Not to be Impeded. Except as is otherwise provided as to matters not subject to disclosure and protective orders, neither the counsel for the parties nor other prosecution or defense personnel shall advise persons having relevant material or information (except the accused) to refrain from discussing the case with opposing counsel or showing opposing counsel any relevant material, nor shall they otherwise impede opposing counsel's investigation of the case. ( Continuing Duty to Disclose. If, subsequent to compliance with these rules or orders pursuant thereto, a party discovers additional material or information which is subject to disclosure, he shall promptly notify the other party or his counsel of the existence of such additional material, and if the additional material or information is discovered during trial, the court shall also be notified. © Custody of Materials. Any materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these rules shall remain in his exclusive custody and be used only for the purposes of conducting his side of the case, and shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as the court may provide. (d) Protective Orders. Upon a showing of cause, the court may at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate, provided that all material and information to which a party is entitled must be disclosed in time to permit counsel to make beneficial use thereof. (e) Excision. When some parts of certain material are discoverable under these rules, and other parts not discoverable, as much of the material should be disclosed as is consistent with the rules. Excision of certain material and disclosure of the balance is preferable to withholding the whole. Material excised pursuant to judicial order shall be sealed, impounded and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the reviewing court in the event of an appeal. (f) In Camera Proceedings. Upon request of any person, the court may permit any showing of cause for denial or regulation of disclosures, or portion of such showing, to be made in camera. A record shall be made of such proceedings. If the court enters an order granting relief following a showing in camera, the entire record of such showing shall be sealed, impounded, and preserved in the records of the court, to be made available to the reviewing court in the event of an appeal. (g) Sanctions. (i) If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery of material and information not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, exclude such evidence, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. (ii) Wilful violation by counsel of an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto may subject counsel to appropriate sanctions by the court.
  22. Yes, you can still be charged at the state level but if the federal judge dismissed it at a suppression hearing then you could file a motion to suppress in the state court and recieve the same results. A fourth amendment violation is the same no matter what. Also I really don't think the states attorney would want to waste time and file state charges knowing there is a fouth amendment violation issue.
  • Create New...