Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Perhaps it was a bridge too far. A Jury with several folks on it with prior convictions for DUI (bad pool, could not get rid of them all).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
I am no longer undefeated. I note this in the RWED forum because it is big news...a five year undefeated Jury streak shot down. Justice denied.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
There is liberty in failure my friend... Perhaps a loss isn't sauch a bad thing in this case. To be concerned with a 'winning streak' for so long clouds the issue no? So much so that the job becomes about that as opposed to justice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Thats only a problem if a Defendant is innocent. I never try innocent people.

---

Quote:

---

Thats only a problem if a Defendant is innocent. I never try innocent people. Not once. If I think they are not guilty...I don't try the case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The problem with the red light cameras is folks hammering the brakes for a panic stop the instant the light turns yellow and folks behind them piling up - there's an intersection off Rte2 in MD that is SO bad that even when there is not an accident being cleared there, the wash of debris and broken glass tends to cause a lot of flat and blown out tires about a mile or so down the road.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
What's going on? Hero is making jokes that are actually funny, he's losing cases...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
I am no longer undefeated. ....I note for the record that the Defendant was convicted of the underlying traffic offense meaning he got stuck with a small fine but court fees of over $500 (for the Jury). I note further he lost his license because he refused the tests which triggered a BMV suspension of his license for a year. And then he lost his job...cause he didn't have a license.

He also paid out the wazzoo hiring two attorneys (cause you can't beat me one on one, even when I have no real evidence).

H

---

Quote:

---

"Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'"
—Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide
http://www.state.tn.us/safety/handbook.html

"One of the major defects in many methods of blood-alcohol analysis is the failure to identify ethanol to the exclusion of all other chemical compounds. Thus a client with other compounds in his blood or breath may have a high 'blood-alcohol' reading with little or no ethanol in his body. If you look at the warranties - it is sort of interesting - none of the breath machine manufacturers warrant these things to actually test blood alcohol."
—Lawrence Taylor, attorney at law, DUICENTER.COM, Drunk Driving Defense, 5th Edition (2000)
http://www.duicenter.com

"Let me start with law enforcement conacts with respect to traffic stops, for suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Fifth amendment of the Bill of Rights states that we are not to be forced to incrimnate ourselves. The actual wording is, you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. If you are stopped for suspicion of DUI, these are your rights regardless of the laws of your state. First of all, you are to deny having consumed any alcoholic beverages whatsoever. You are never to admit to having one or two drinks. If you admit to consuming even one drop of alcohol, you open the door to 'probable cause', allowing the police officer to search your car for open containers. Next, you are never to submit to a Field Sobriety Test. You are to refuse to do so. They cannot make you walk the line, they cannot make you balance or anything else. Now when you are arrested, you are to refuse to allow a blood-alcohol test, regardless of what state law 'requires', such as revocation of driving priveleges for a period of time. That's an attempt to compel you to be a witness against yourself. Supreme Court decisions in this area are very specific with regards to your rights as folows: Lefkowitz vs Turley, and the Fifth Amendment, provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and permits him to refuse to any any other qustions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings."
—George Gordon Law Hour, The Policeman is not your friend - He is your adversary, October 30, 2007
http://db.georgegordon.com/index.php?yr=2007

"I saw two officers as before, who rode up to me, with their pistols in their hands, said God damn you stop, if go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out. Major Mitchel of the 5th Regt clapd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid."
—Paul Revere, owner of RevereWare¨, sworn affidavit: "Memorandum on Events of April 18, 1775" (declassified Top Secret), while under arrest (and subsequent escape) from Redcoat martial-law traffic police at Minute Man National Historic Park, Paul Revere Capture Site, on the eve of the American Revolutionary War and kicking off the Battle of Lexington and Concord, against the army, navy and courts of King George III, heriditary dictator of England who attempted "gun control" by an Assault Weapons Ban of defensive 50-caliber muskets and cannon, Paul Revere's Ride, by David Hackett Fischer
http://www.patriotresource.com/documents/revere.html

"Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. If we are, what are we going to do about it? Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits. Or a policeman will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure. Let's reject the police state."
—Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX, 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President, Landslide GOP candidate for president in 2008), speech in House of Representatives, United States Congress, "Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?" June 27, 2002
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

"There's a report out tonight that 24-years ago I was apprehended in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a DUI. That's an accurate story. I'm not proud of that. I oftentimes said that years ago I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much and I did on that night. I was pulled over. I admitted to the policeman that I had been drinking. I paid a fine. And I regret that it happened. But it did. I've learned my lesson."
—President George W. Bush, CNN Larry King Live, November 2, 2000


Dick Cheney has 2 DUI arrests and convictions

THE PROHIBITION TIMES
AMERICA'S SECRET HISTORY OF THE CURRENT PROHIBITION ON ALCOHOL
http://piratenews.org/theprohibitiontimes.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
That's why DUI lawyers advise their clients to refuse all "tests" and to never speak to police, which is their right according to the US Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, it's easy to win during a total SECRET Prohibition on alcohol, with "sobriety" tests that have no "passing score", since a person is already under arrest for DUI BEFORE the test. And "alcohol test" machines that cannot test for alcohol. BTW, alcohol has no "odor".

---

Quote:

---

You always win by cheating.

---

Quote:

---

Only 1% of defendants have at least $10,000 cash to hire an attorney, and most of those make the fatal mistake of not hiring a DUI specialist.

---

Quote:

---

As you confess in this post, you care nothing about justice, only "winning" by cheating. And we have a Constitutionally guaranteed God-given Natural right to travel by driving, without a Communist internal passport driver license contract extorted at gunpoint by police state death squads.

---

Quote:

---

I do agree with your legal advice to never pay a robocop ticket, for lacking mandatory personal service of process.

---

Quote:

---

"Strictly speaking, a driver can register a BAC of 0.00% and still be convicted of a DUI. The level of BAC does not clear a driver when it is below the 'presumed level of intoxication.'"
—Tennessee Driver Handbook and Driver License Study Guide
http://www.state.tn.us/safety/handbook.html

---

Quote:

---

Man passes breathalyzer, cited anyway

By CARL BURNETT JR.
The Eagle-Gazette Staff
cburnett@nncogannett.com

Lancaster — When Russell Errett went out to play a game of pickup basketball with friends April 19, he didn’t expect it to cost him thousands of dollars and end up in a court case. But that’s exactly where it is headed.

Errett, 50, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and weaving outside lanes of traffic.

“It makes no sense to me,” said Errett’s attorney, James Linehan. “He cooperated with police, took the breathalyzer test and scored zeros, and yet he was still cited for OVI (Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated). Clearly he wasn’t intoxicated.”
City Prosecutor Terre Vandervoort said her office had started reviewing the case on Wednesday.

“We are talking to the officers who were present, reviewing any video tape,” Vandervoort said. “There could be a number of reasons why someone could not score on breathalyzer and still be cited. We are certain he was driving in a way that was putting other people in risk. We are in the process of reviewing everything.”
Errett had gone out earlier on that Thursday with friends, according to police reports. He had told the officer who had pulled him over he had a beer earlier in the day, but that was all.

“He was the designated driver for his friends,” Linehan said. “They were drinking but he wasn’t. He was taking them home when he got pulled over.

Lancaster police patrolman J.D. Devereaux stopped Errett’s Lincoln LS sedan at 12:47 a.m.

A review of the police reports and the supplementary investigation report say Errett was polite, but failed the field sobriety test. Errett was then read his Miranda rights and arrested; his car was impounded.

Errett readily agreed to take the breathalyzer test, maintaining his innocence. He told the officer he had been confused and nervous when taking the field sobriety test.

When he took the test, the result came back with all zeros. He had no alcohol in his system.

“The legislature, the courts and law enforcement officers all want people to take a breath test when requested by law enforcement. Fair enough,” Linehan said. “But why take the test if being completely innocent is no defense against being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit? If I get a call from a potential client at 3 a.m. don’t I have to tell him, ‘Yeah you could take the test, but even if you test .000, you will still be arrested?’ ”

Errett was given the ticket, had to put up a $1,000 bond, pay to get his car out of the impound lot and hire an attorney with his trial scheduled for later this month.

“Coming on the heals of the sanctions against Prosecutor Attorney Mike Nifong in the Duke rape case, it is my hope that we have reached a point where it is no longer acceptable for the state to continue to prosecute innocent people. There should be some sanction for arresting someone the officer should reasonably know to be innocent,” Linehan said.

“In this case the officer had a scientific test, a scientific test which officers ask juries to believe everyday, which told the officer that my client was innocent,” Linehan said.

“And even with the knowledge that my client was innocent, he was still charged. The state should be held accountable for that. My client has been unfairly embarrassed and has had to expend attorney fees for a crime he didn’t commit. At an absolute minimum he is owed an apology and the community is owed an explanation as to why our officers are arresting people they know to be innocent.”

Linehan said with the trial pending, he has asked his client not to speak to the media.

The police department declined to comment and referred all questions to the Prosecutor’s Office.

http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2412

---