Replies

She was not just missing an important appointment, she was on the way to pick up an expert witness that was going to testify in the trial to prosecute a cop that raped her after he pulled her over in a deserted area!!

The people here are Howlin because she didn't pull over immediately. Naturally, they missed the part of the story her husband told where SHE'D BEEN RAPED ON TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS BY POLICE OFFICERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS ON TRIAL!!

Dan, because you're such a stickler for accuracy, I'm sure you don't mind this gentle correction.

According to this post, she was not on her way to pick up an expert witness that was going to testify at a trial.

She was on her way to Michigan to a symposium of forensic toxicologists. She needed an expert witness in the case she is pursuing against the last rapist. She had to get there on time, or miss the opportunity

In actuality, she was on her way to symposium of forensic toxicologists, looking for someone to become an expert witness. You also make the claim that one of the police officers is on trial. His statement says "a case," not a trial. In this instance, because she's looking for an expert witness, and in criminal trials, the responsibility for obtaining an expert witness falls to the state (prosecutor, state's attorney, district attorney), as well as paying for the expert's witness fees and transportation and other expenses and not the responsibility of the victim, this is more likely a civil case, with the trial still pending.

In this post, he doesn't say she's been raped on two separate occasions. It states that she has been assaulted twice by the police: assaulted, not sexually assaulted. The word "assault" can also mean that she was touched, slapped, hit, kicked, punched or another similar action. In the above post, he claims she was raped. There is a claim that she was raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. Later, of course, he becomes more expansive and dramatic and makes the rape claim, but doesn't say who the rapist is or who they're suing. It's unclear whether she's been raped once, twice or three times.

Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.

Hi, I'm back - so be gentle. Flew to Kalifornia and back, got the job offer (no SSAN, no withholding, no reporting) The company is going to fly us back here for court appearances in our various cases. btw, I was hired for my legal expertise.

Let me make a few observations and corrections about what has been posted in my absense.

1st, she was not raped by a cop. She was raped by an NCO while she was at the Naval Academy. You inventive sleuths have already confirmed that she attended. This rape was between the plebe and second year. Of course, once CID dropped the charges, the upperclassmen were relentless. She had two plebe years and decided not to go for a third. I thought she toughed that out way too long.

2nd, she pulled over to the side to burp and change sides. The child suckles for about 50 minutes total, so it is not just a loss of 10 minutes or so we are dealing with here. While she did not make the symposium, she still found an expert witness the following weekend by banging on doors at U of M.

3rd, we have the audio and video from the stop. Doles (who pulled her over) calls in to dispatch, saying "She's just looking for a safe spot." Harmon, the supervisor tells her, "We are not charging you with fleeing (sic-Failure to Comply), because we understand your desire to find a safe spot."

Now google up the cop in that area that was very recently convicted of forcing a woman to have sex with him in the back of his unit. We don't make this crap up.

4th, I pay ALL taxes for which I am liable. The roads are built using tolls (in this case) and gasoline taxes (which we pay). Turns out that the three main income taxes are excises. An excise means that you do not pay the tax if you do not engage in the activity. In the case of most people, they pay the FIT, which is actually descendent from the Income Duty of 1862 on foreign and possession earned income; reference taxableincome.net. They might also be presumed to be liable for the Normal Tax of 1922 as amended, an excise on the privilege of government employment. They might also be presumed to be liable for either the Chapter 2 (self employment) or the Chapter 21 (employment FICA) taxes. Turns out this is an excise on the privilege of having your pay covered for the purposes of National Socialism, and I am not required to participate; reference Railroad Retirement Bd v. Alton RR Co.

5th, the original charges are Child Restraint (which are very beatable given the statutes involved), Obstructing Official Business (ostensibly for refusing to provide identification that she provided), and No Valid License (because she gave them privately issued ID rather than the state issued thing).

The prosecutor is going to argue that the Michigan statute does not apply to a driver. Read it, what do you think?

After we filed a counterclaim, the prosecutor filed Failure to Comply (in the face of the potential troopers' testimony above) and Endangering Children (when the child restraint violation cannot be used as evidence).

I will file a motion to dismiss this last charge and we will hear that in a couple of weeks. Then I go after the assistant prosecutor for malice (he should know better than to file a charge where he knows there is no evidence), and against his boss, the county prosecutor, if they have not dropped all of this by that time.

btw We will be in New York on GMA on ABC Wednesday morning. We presume we will not be hitting softballs.

6th, Child restraint laws ALWAYS have exceptions. Your state is no different. If you drive a cab and pick me and my family up from the airport, we will have no child restraint seat and neither will you. Fortunately for you, there is an exception, so you cannot be charged, unless some stupid cop charges you and you stupidly put up with it.

7th, and I think no one has really considered this as much as I think they should. What is the chance that a child in a restraint will survive an accident at 65 MPH? It is so close to zero, that it will surprise you. So the restraint cannot be the issue in this case. The child would be dead in any event. I think you would be surprised that there is only a 6 in 100 thousand chance that an unrestrained child is involved in an accident. Catherine and I decided that these odds outweighed the risk to get to that symposium so that she could have an opportunity to punish the man who raped her. We are trying to prove he put something in her drink.

8th, I understand and sympathize with your concern that Catherine endangers you if you are on the same road when she is nursing our child. You will find no evidence on the record that she was not in control of that car at all times. Heck the child nursed halfway thru the traffic stop without so much as looking up.

Finally, the license issue. I already discussed the law of this in an earlier thread. Let me add to that. In Ohio (like most states), they have "decriminalized" traffic offenses so that you can be robbed of your right to a trial by jury (depending upon the state). Ohio law (and the laws of most states) say that if a person has committed a "minor," then they cannot be arrested unless they are incapacitated or unless they do not provide "sufficient evidence of identity." It does not say driver's license.

The question that I am formulating for appeal (I always set this up so that I create appealable error), is whether such an intrusion is warranted under the standard of "resonableness" and whether a public official would have the authority to make a warrantless arrest for such an offense at the time the 4th amendment was written.

They don't want to entertain that question.

I will be around for a bit, so "have at me."