Jump to content
I think that's a GREAT idea Frank, and worth exploring. I'd throw my money into such a venture, assuming I had it and the venture exists.
Never mind the lame-brained twits with an agenda, who will rain on anybody's parade, if for no other reason than to start an argument and demonstrate their intellectual acuity. DON'T FALL FOR IT.
That's a big part of the reason I stay out of this sink hole. I'm sick of the piss-fest. Now I think I'll go play with my car.
Okay, I was wrong, I admitted it, I apologized, and I think I have contributed quite enough for the time being. Speaking of jailhouse lawyers... My own mouth is my worst enemy. I wish they'd ban me. How's that, John, Mark, Phoebe, George, Tom -- do you get your life back?
Well gag me with a spoon, the voice of reason has spoken, it was I under the delusion of misimpression. Now I think I'll sulk for a little while and lick my wounds -- turn my attention to productive endeavors -- and be that much more hesitant to venture my opinion and thus stake my reputation in this venue again, ever-vigilant watchdog waiting to pounce. My poor shattered ego... at least I didn't trash everybody's browser with my stupid link.
In quick retrospect, I tip my hat to Scott, who had a better grasp on the fundamental crux of the issue, it was I who was wrong, I allowed myself to be irritated at the opposition, and I apologize for any personal slams I made along the way.
This'll teach me. Expect far fewer contributions in the future.
OMG, now he's trashing the forums with ugly pastes. Indicating yet again a total misunderstanding of the subject and reliance on quotes he takes out of context from other jurisdictions in dissimilar cases -- a common jailhouse lawyer mistake -- the variables are so vast as to require another half day to refute. Suck on it, bigmouth, I've got better things to do.
In the meantime, I will again beg any real attorney for their valued response, and leave this discussion for the reader to decide in the meantime, who has a clue, and whose head is so polluted by delusions of grandeur that his every motivation and desire is to prove the superiority of his intellect, often applying invalid logic or misinterpreting data to support his flawed viewpoint. Arguing ad infinitum, supported by selected (and misinterpreted) Google offerings, until his victim(s) just shrug and go away, sick of the pointless fight, call it attrition. I just heard from another ergo contributor who mostly quit altogether, rather than deal with The Troll (his words). "It's all him all the time."
Again I implore: Somebody, shut us up!!
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "One man's trash is another man's treasure." "But surely she attracts the eye, of other hippopotami."
"Skunk" has an entirely new meaning, as one now connotes the other...
PS If I'm wrong, my ego can take it. But I'm not. Just one real lawyer, please, venture an informed opinion. Bill? Somebody? Oops...
Barring further agitation, this will be my final troll on the subject. I would submit that the two dates referred to in the Bustamante decision above are the cause of action (warrant) and arrest -- NOT crime and warrant, as alleged by my misinformed assailant.
He has taken over these forums. Nobody wants to argue with the longwinded idiot. Let him have 'em.
The observer will note that I started this conversation with a simple observation, and the balance of it has been defending that observation against a baseless attack. Or an attack based in error. Anything to get a rise, start a fight. Even if it's wrong. Based on misconception.
I'd rather talk about interesting but irrelevant subjects, than argue legalese with a delusional provocateur. Who's the troll NOW?????????
"the statute of limitations refers to the time between the crime and the filing of charges, not the arrest, for that crime" is totally in error. The Statute rolls with a "cause of action" (charges/warrant) and ends at its prescribed time. Assuming the common seven years, this warrant went stale in March.
No real lawyers yet? Good, I can say things lawyers can't. I got my Porsche after I asked the insurance adjuster how he slept at night, knowing his living was at the expense of the pain and suffering of others. We settled the next day. I would ask my current antagonist if he sleeps at all.
Since Statutes of Limitations vary widely from State to State, I will refer to the Colorado Revised Statutes, in demonstrating that the claim "warrants will remain in force until suspect is arrested or known to be dead" is patently FALSE:
In an action premised on a penal statute as opposed to a civil claim, the statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature, in that it specifies the time period during which a cause of action exists. Since the statute of limitations is jurisdictional, it may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, including a motion to dismiss. People v. Steinberg, 672 P.2d 543 (Colo. App. 1983).
The act averred in the indictment must appear to have been committed within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations or an exception must be set forth. If the indictment avers two dates, one of which is so remote as to be barred by the statute of limitations, it is defective. Bustamante v. District Court, 138 Colo. 97, 329 P.2d 1013 (1958).
It should be noted that the Statute can be as little as three years for some felonies, and as much as ten years for some sex crimes. Some crimes have no Statute of Limitations, but this case isn't one of those.
What squirms and squawks will this news elicit from the scrambled cerebellum we call The Wiz... half his arguments are exactly what I'm saying -- yet he draws an entirely different, and invalid, conclusion. Quit wasting my time, you bloated library of misinformation.
Your Googler let you down, hotshot. You picked the simplest article it brought up, and you pasted straight out of that. You still don't have a clue.
Would some real attorney please set this clown straight? I will walk away from these forums, never to return, before I waste another minute of my precious time arguing with this bloated ego which continues to labor under such misconceptions, blinded by its own arrogance.
As with sports, some actual experience in the field might lend some credibility, but also as usual, the self-taught man is a product of unskilled labor.
The Statute of Limitations starts running with the filing of charges. That produces an arrest warrant. That happened in this case in March '09. Any REAL ATTORNEY will back me up on this. We've heard too much out of the Peanut Gallery already.
That joker is a one-man forum-wrecking crew. It's pretty bad, when you're afraid you'll waste half your day doing exactly this: Arguing with a fool. That's why I won't even respond to an article he has already commented on. This time he brought it to me. Go ahead, idiot: Show the whole town how stupid you are.
Last login: Friday, June 17, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |