I Didn't Beat the Ride - Illegal Knife + CHL + Concealed Handgun = Jail + Charges

[txinvestigator]

You should pull a Charlie Sprinkle and sue everyone from the arresting officer up the chain of command to the governor

I was wondering if you needed to show a loss for your suit is to be successful, but sounds like you still need to talk to the lawyers about that.

Is he the guy from Two and a Half Men that wrote all the kids tunes and loved boobies?

 

[Sugar Land]

Everyone loves boobies.

 

[rsayloriii]

I Didn't Beat the Ride - Illegal Knife + CHL + Concealed Handgun = Jail + Charg

Everyone loves boobies.

Amen. Lol


Sent from my RobCo Pip-Boy 3000.

 

[Hoji]

Everyone loves boobies.

Best line in 5 pages.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

View attachment 21278

 

[TheDan]

Is he the guy from Two and a Half Men that wrote all the kids tunes and loved boobies?

Close, but I was talking about this guy. He's a personal hero of mine; even drives a Fiat




BTW, matefrio is my newest personal hero

 

[J. Fred]

Close, but I was talking about this guy. He's a personal hero of mine; even drives a Fiat

BTW, matefrio is my newest personal hero

Pisa Schitt was a very famous Italian car designer and designed most Fiat cars.

Thus, when you hear a Fiat owner describing his car as that "Pisa Schitt, Fiat"... you'll know immediately, he's referring fondly to the designer.

 

[pharmaco]

This is great! I will continue to support any efforts that you make in taking back our rights, Matefrio!
You're the man.

Spare me.

 

[RetArmySgt]

Everyone loves boobies.

View attachment 21278

No, No, No, not the blue footed kind man, we want the ones that get carried around in 'over the shoulder bolder holders' you know, fun bags.

 

[Shorts]

A picture is worth a 1000 words. The outcome was a good one. This isn't over as now I get a chance to take the fight to them.

For those who can't see it:
To the honorable judge of said court:
NOW COMES the State of Texas by and though her Attorney, respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the above entitled and numbered criminal action in which the defendant is charged with the offence of Unlawfully Carrying A Weapon for the reason: In The Interest of Justice.

Matefrio, this is great news! I've been out of the loop for 2wks and this reply is my first back into forum society again. I'm happy for you.

And yes, yes I did quote a huge pic that takes up scrolling room on the screen. I did because I think the hand written reason in "Other" is worth showing.

Anyway, congrats again

 

[Richard B]

" IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE " is CYA CODE for:

" The State is unable to proceed due to the fact that the TPC Section 46.02(a) offense that is the basis for prosecution in the instant case is statutorially inapplicable to the defendant."


A petition for declaratory judgement ......" In the interest of justice " ???

If this dismissal " in the interest of justice" hasn't already been brought to the attention of AG Greg Abbott - it should be.

Let me say at the outset that I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the prosecution's decision not to proceed with this case. That said, it would be unusual, if not extraordinary, for the Attorney General to be consulted on a decision to dismiss a minor case. While the case is not likely to be considered "minor" by the defendant, when viewed in the context of the case load of the prosecutor's office, it would certainly not appear to be a case of significance. Please do not take offense to this characterization, but it is the reality of the situation.

One simply is unable to draw the conclusion you draw based upon the facts. Could it have been the case? Yes, but we can not "know" that. Is it unreasonable to suspect that it may have been a factor, perhaps even a determining factor? Indeed it might have been, but it is not possible to say that it was based upon the information presented here.

Regards

 

[Soldiernurse]

" IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE " is CYA CODE for:

" The State is unable to proceed due to the fact that the TPC Section 46.02(a) offense that is the basis for prosecution in the instant case is statutorially inapplicable to the defendant."


A petition for declaratory judgement ......" In the interest of justice " ???

If this dismissal " in the interest of justice" hasn't already been brought to the attention of AG Greg Abbott - it should be.

Thx!

 

[AlamoMIA]

Let me say at the outset that I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the prosecution's decision not to proceed with this case. That said, it would be unusual, if not extraordinary, for the Attorney General to be consulted on a decision to dismiss a minor case. While the case is not likely to be considered "minor" by the defendant, when viewed in the context of the case load of the prosecutor's office, it would certainly not appear to be a case of significance. Please do not take offense to this characterization, but it is the reality of the situation.

One simply is unable to draw the conclusion you draw based upon the facts. Could it have been the case? Yes, but we can not "know" that. Is it unreasonable to suspect that it may have been a factor, perhaps even a determining factor? Indeed it might have been, but it is not possible to say that it was based upon the information presented here.

Regards

I certainly do not take offense to your OPINION taking exception to my OPINION that is based upon my SUSPICIONS (conjecture, doubt, mistrust).

OPINION is a conclusion or judgement held in confidence, but falling short of positive KNOWLEDGE.

I have considerable mistrust of a mindset that offers no apology for authorizing the seizure of a citizen's liberties, and his personal effects when a FAIR reading of the relevant statutory provision combined with the defendant's possession of a valid CHL reveals no offense committed.

A quite reasonable conclusion than can be drawn from the handling of this case is that THE CODE SECTION APPLIED IN THIS CASE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE DEFENDANT.

That should have been the " OTHER " reason for the motion to dismiss.

 

[matefrio]

Let me say at the outset that I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the prosecution's decision not to proceed with this case. That said, it would be unusual, if not extraordinary, for the Attorney General to be consulted on a decision to dismiss a minor case. While the case is not likely to be considered "minor" by the defendant, when viewed in the context of the case load of the prosecutor's office, it would certainly not appear to be a case of significance. Please do not take offense to this characterization, but it is the reality of the situation.

One simply is unable to draw the conclusion you draw based upon the facts. Could it have been the case? Yes, but we can not "know" that. Is it unreasonable to suspect that it may have been a factor, perhaps even a determining factor? Indeed it might have been, but it is not possible to say that it was based upon the information presented here.

Regards

According to my attorney the ADA looked over the law (46.02) and saw that the law was on my side. I have only his word that this happened. But I trust him this is exactly what happened.

 

[Richard B]

According to my attorney the ADA looked over the law (46.02) and saw that the law was on my side. I have only his word that this happened. But I trust him this is exactly what happened.

I have no doubt that your attorney told you what happened. Here is the problem, though. We simply don't know the prosecutor's reason for dismissing unless the prosecutor told your counsel. It is not unheard of for prosecutors to duck a case where they do not wish to devote resources on a case or where there is uncertainty about the outcome of the case when they may want to preserve to option to prosecute similar cases in the future.

i am glad that you were able to obtain a favorable outcome even though I sense that you may be disappointed that you were unable to obtain a ruling on the law from the court.

i am not certain about the applicability of the Declaratory Judgment Act to this circumstance, but, perhaps, you may wish to discuss it with your counsel as an alternative to placing yourself in this situation again.

All the best and congratulations.

 

[Tejano Scott]

You really think an ADA wants to "duck" an unlawful weapon case where the location of the offense is the State Capitol building? I wish some of you would use some common sense.

 

[Greg_TX]

Only when we run out of dead horses, I guess. :-/

 

[txinvestigator]

Let me say at the outset that I have no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the prosecution's decision not to proceed with this case. That said, it would be unusual, if not extraordinary, for the Attorney General to be consulted on a decision to dismiss a minor case. While the case is not likely to be considered "minor" by the defendant, when viewed in the context of the case load of the prosecutor's office, it would certainly not appear to be a case of significance. Please do not take offense to this characterization, but it is the reality of the situation.

One simply is unable to draw the conclusion you draw based upon the facts. Could it have been the case? Yes, but we can not "know" that. Is it unreasonable to suspect that it may have been a factor, perhaps even a determining factor? Indeed it might have been, but it is not possible to say that it was based upon the information presented here.

Regards

I have to concur with the above

 

[txinvestigator]

You really think an ADA wants to "duck" an unlawful weapon case where the location of the offense is the State Capitol building? I wish some of you would use some common sense.

This is one time when I miss your point.

 

[TexasRedneck]

This is one time when I miss your point.

I think the point is that an incident such as this one would be one that anti-gun ADA's would lather themselves up over to get a CHL holder in deep doodoo......