AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Notice of Appeal

posted 1/12/2009 9:39:51 PM |
0 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
tagged: rant

xxx appeals the order of the Honorable xxx and the appellant’s conviction in municipal court. The appellant has of yet to receive, in writing, a notice of the order.
The reasons for the appeal follow: 1.) The possibility existed [and still exists] that there was no alcohol in the appellant’s body at the time of the arrest. 2.) The police search was unreasonable. The appellant was charged wrongfully with “obstructing Roadway,” but a jury of his pears found him not guilty of that charge. The appellant was charged wrongfully with the obstruction of a roadway in an attempt to have made a search of the appellant’s person reasonable. The Police Officer, who made the arrest, contradicted himself while under oath, and his testimony was furthermore not aligned with the police report. No other issues prior to the search suggested that the appellant might have acted unlawfully. No mention was ever made that the appellant appeared intoxicated, yet the conviction was for “public intoxication.” The video of the arrest suggested that the appellant appeared to have not only been sober, but was in compliance with the laws as he walked towards his home. The Officer told the appellant repeatedly that he was to have left the roadway, but only after he was out of the road. The Police Officer violated the laws and denied the appellant his civil liberties. 3.) The appellant was a pedestrian at the time of the search and seizure, and therefore was denied equal protection of the laws. The State of South Carolina protected drivers against unreasonable searches and seizures with unique D.U.I. enforcement laws. A person suspected of a D.U.I. infraction must have been read Miranda Warnings, given a breathalyzer, given a field, sobriety test, and given other protections. No attempt was made to have administered any test in this case. A driver suspected of a D.U.I. infraction and a pedestrian suspected of a public intoxication violation were alike. Both were on public streets. Both were suspected of misdemeanors, punishable with 30 days in jail. Both might have committed the same, criminal act. A D.U.I. infraction equated with drunkenness in public. They were one and the same. The State offered more legal recourse to a segment of society, those with the resources to have driven automobiles, as opposed to pedestrians without those resources. 4.) The seizures of the appellant’s person and effects were unreasonable. The sole ‘justification’ for the appellant’s arrest and transportation to jail for the charge of “public intoxication” was that the Officer alleged the appellant smelled of alcohol. [If the appellant’s intentional refusals to have answered some of the Officer’s question were to have been used against him, then in fairness, the appellant answered the Officer’s question as to where the appellant was headed. The appellant said, “Sir, I just want to go home.” The Officer’s response was, “I’m gonna shoot you with a taser (sadistically)… Get on your knees! …”] 5.) This was the appellant’s first arrest; however, as a result of this arrest, the appellant was incriminated, by means of a S.L.E.D., criminal record, and thus, a presumption of guilt, and the denial of due process. By the way, the ‘S.L.E.D. check’ was erroneous. With the appellant’s last name and date of birth, along with $25, anyone might have accessed S.L.E.D.’s “Criminal Records Check.” Jurors have had access to that database, thus no one has received a fair, criminal trial in this State recently. 6.) Jury selection ought to have begun in the month of September 2008, but the prosecution was unjustly granted a continuance. No explanation was given for that request, which in turn violated Rule 7. The Public defender told the appellant that the reason was the prosecution instructed the Officer to not have shown in court that day. The same Public Defender told another defendant essentially the same thing in her case. 7) The Public Defender ought not to have aided the prosecution. Prior to his failure to have objected to the aforementioned violation of Rule 7, he violated the attorney-client privilege, by a question put forth to the appellant, and in front of a prospective juror and another gentleman, who thought he had jury duty, but was told he was not on the list and was dismissed. A similar question was later used against the appellant in the trial. By the way, the Public Defender told the appellant what the Officer was to have said in court. Furthermore, the Public Defender failed to have admitted a certified copy of the police report at the defendant’s request. Cross-examination of the Police Officer was inadequate. The Public Defender never requested a directed verdict. Nevertheless, a few days ago, I, the appellant, discovered ‘new’ evidence in the aforementioned case. The evidence was South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 19, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 19-11-80, which stated, “No person shall be required to answer any question tending to incriminate himself.” Under fair circumstances, the evidence ought to have been discovered prior to trial. That fact merited consideration, for several reasons: the Police Officer, who made the arrest, never advised me of my Miranda Warnings. A private attorney for someone with financial means ought to have known of the evidence through due diligence and introduced it accordingly. However, a Public Defender was appointed in my defense. The Public Defender never mentioned the evidence. He complicated the matter when he asked me at the trial, and while I was under oath, “How much did you have to drink?” A private attorney might never have asked such a question in a trial that involved a charge of “Public Intoxication.” The prosecution then repeated the question twice. 8.) In general, people broke laws, acted negligently, and denied the appellant his civil liberties to have achieved this conviction.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by Pornosaurus:
More news: "SC governor to return to work after mystery trip"
Statement of the Facts
Third Motion (Moonlighting)
Notice of Appeal
Did I Ever Tell Ya'll About the Best Damn Head?
Vote 'Em All Out!
Here's what I think (on god):
Someone gave me a free female condom!
Porn and Law: Drinking and Blogging Again
Ike my ass!
For Fannie and Freddie
You'll wouldn't believe me...
This is disturbing:
Is it just me?
An e-mail to the SC Attorney General
Maybe this one's for the poor bastard who made front page news here
Movements and Rhythms
I'm about to get fucked;but first, get your chance.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is really happening
Can anyone think of anything else?
Is this police perjury?
"Memorial Day" (2006)
Wow, I own a business in downtown Charleston
I've found my spanking emoticon!


post a comment!


Jan 12 @ 9:44PM  
It was never my intent to have filed such an appeal, but figured it might have been in my best interest. That same day I filed a motion to proceed Pro Se in my text trial. I did the time and paid the fine. All that, because a couple of cops said that I did things each didn't like and said I smelled of alcohol. Anyway...

Jan 12 @ 11:34PM  
Don.............what are you rambling on about??? to see you!!

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2016 Online Singles, LLC.
Notice of Appeal