|
|
| |
| |
On 17 Feb 2004 14:57:43 -0800, cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green)
wrote:
I never said that. I said that I can't tell who was driving from the
picture with any degree of certainty.
If the judge were presented with a picture of the driver, and that
picture was convincingly not of you, there is a reasonably good chance
that a sympathetic judge will dismiss.
Speaking of the picture, I've heard that the actual picture taken by the RLC is
much sharper, clearer, and higher in resolution than the digitized printout they
send you in the mail.
Any truth to this?
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:19:45 -0800, Scott in Aztln
<slothkills@THEyahooOBVIOUS.com> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2004 10:19:10 -0800, waidoan@hotmail.com (Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:
But in this case, I
can't tell who was driving from the picture with any degree of
certainty. It is my car, though.
So either your car was stolen, or you have a pretty good idea of who
the driver is.
So you are saying that not knowing who has access to one's vehicles
is believable? I don't think so. He should have a short list of people
and from that list be able to determine who it is.
Sure it is. It is evidence of your unwillingness to cooperate with law
enforcement. Can you say "obstruction of justice?" I know the judge can...
They'll probably accuse you of protecting a terrorist.
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)
The new Pearl Harbour?
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_new_pearl_harbor
|
| |
| |
On 18 Feb 2004 12:53:09 -0800, waidoan@hotmail.com (Wai Doan Hsu) wrote:
My guess is that, at the very least, the judge is going to find you in comtempt
because of your disingenuous BS answers.
Furthermore, there's nothing BS about telling the truth. I was not
driving and the picture is not clear enough to tell with reasonable
certainty who was driving.
Looking at the photograph taken by the RLC is not the only means you have at
your disposal to identify the driver. You know it, I know it, and the judge will
know it.
As I said, please post a follow-up and let us know how well your strategy
worked.
--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy.
|
| |
| |
Scott in Aztln wrote:
On 18 Feb 2004 12:53:09 -0800, waidoan@hotmail.com (Wai Doan Hsu)
wrote:
My guess is that, at the very least, the judge is going to find
you in comtempt because of your disingenuous BS answers.
Looking at the photograph taken by the RLC is not the only means you
have at
your disposal to identify the driver. You know it, I know it, and the
judge will know it.
Who cares? Either you are a defendant/accused, in which case you are
not compelled to testify, or you have been properly subpoenaed as
a material witness, in which case they must give you immunity from
the charge at hand in order to force your testimony (Grand Jury proceedings
notwithstanding)
As I said, please post a follow-up and let us know how well your
strategy
worked.
You really are a spineless sycophant for the Gov't, aren't you?
You'll make a good little brownshirt in whatever fascist hellhole
you eventually find yourself living in.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
|
