WEATHER »

Comments by InTheKnow

Previous | Page 2 of 54 | Next

Posted on August 13 at 9:45 a.m.

"High ho the witch is dead!" Love that movie!

On NLRB Orders <em>News-Press</em> to Reinstate Fired Reporters

Posted on August 13 at 9:37 a.m.

I wonder where DWG went? I guess he is calling it quits. I forgot to mention that DWG wanted to bet draxor on the outcome of the trial. I wonder if the State Bar would be interested in that tid bit?

DWG are you quitting?

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 12 at 10:56 a.m.

Now to a theory of my own that I have been thinking about and you have been confirming by much of your antics on these boards. I welcome your rebuttal to this DWG. You used to run those full page ads in the Indy where you were then looked at for possible jury tampering (the ads were where you told the jury how they should decide DUI trials from your point of view). You long ago took those ads down, I assume because you were told you ethically could not pre-instruct a jury on how to decide a case; that is for the judge to do. You were hired by Lance early on, you claim (I believe) within a month of his arrest, probably sooner. Seeing how you liked to try and get to a jury before they even were selected (as seen in your previous ads) you “probably” (speculation on my part) told Lance (thank goodness he is a reporter!!!!) that if he did his own newspaper piece on Beutel with the flavor of sticking it to her (and it doesn’t matter if it was accurate or not he can hide behind his freedom of the press rights) that you would try this (you have heard me say this before) IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!!!! What do you think DWG, sound about right?

If I was the DA in this case, I would ask for a change in venue, seeing how Lance succeeded in dirtying the jury pool with his false “allegations”.

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 12 at 10:55 a.m.

In regards to her bankruptcy (your question #1) Lance has shown no proof that she committed fraud beyond innuendo and speculation. I realize that all you do is DUI defense but I am sure you can look up the elements of fraud and figure that Lance has not met ANY elements of a fraud crime (not in the real legal world but then again he is playing it up to the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION). You have shown no proof beyond that she had a debt and declared bankruptcy in 1997!!! That is 14 years ago!! I am surprised Lance didn’t contact her grade school teachers to see if she ever cheated on a test or used a curse word.

Your question #2 is about her signing her divorce paperwork. I think this is where you being just a DUI lawyer really hurts you, you really are showing your ignorance of the law in other areas. In California if a woman or man has a good faith belief that they are married, even if not legally married, they are afforded the same rights and privileges, even upon filing for divorce. What do you think happens when people get married by somebody that they believe can legally marry them and then later find out that the minister (or whoever is doing the service) was not an official capable of marrying people? You think that the marriage is void? No!!!

Your first three questions are moot anyhow, the judge has already shot you down saying they are not relevant based on this above information. But AGAIN YOU ARE TRYING FOR THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!!!
Number 4, in order to prove perjury (again you failing to understand laws outside of DUI) you have to show an intentional lie, under oath, and not a mistake of fact. Is it a material fact even? I say no as the first two officers were the ones who witnessed the violation of the law. Because she was mistake in fact as to what type of violation of law that they observed does not make it perjury. But then again you probably know this (if you don’t you really should brush up on other areas of law!!!!). But it does sound good in the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

Number 5, Lance (who admittedly was drinking) says he did not sign his waiver and Officer Beutel claims that he did. As I stated before (in length) the many reasons on why it makes no sense for a cop to forge someone’s name, this part is being addressed by the court. I am guessing that your “expert” (being paid how much by you and Lance?????) that was discredited from his national organization will say no to that being Lance’s signature and that the Prosecutor’s expert will say that it is. But this is just speculation since I cannot see into the future.

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 12 at 10:55 a.m.

DWG, sorry for the late reply, as you know I have been extremely busy. The California State Bar, Attorney complaint division can be reached at 1-800-843-9053.

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/La...

A lady told me that if an attorney reveals to another party (or in this case an open forum) that their client is guilty of a crime, without their client’s approval, that it would possibly be a violation of the bar’s ethics. Here is a link for you so that you may brush up on your ethics DWG.

http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/

I referred her to this forum and to my belief that by you admitting that Lance would plead guilty to reckless driving that you are in essence admitting that he is guilty of a crime. Hopefully she will look into this. I also told her how you sent me an unwanted email (and my belief it is in violation of 653 (m) of the penal code) and made threats to sue me. I don’t know if that is within their scope of investigatory powers.

Also, the DDA did not appreciate me calling their office. I was told that yes, it was a standard plea deal in your case considering there was no prior alcohol record for your client, and that the BAC on her was not over their set limit for offering pleas. They did say it was right at the top but when I asked what the limit was they would not tell me. I am guessing maybe it was .12? But that I don’t know, do you? I did not bother calling the judge, I figured he would be even less pleased with you then the DA office was.

Now back to our debate. You ask 5 questions. Your “allegations” as you rightfully term them are just that, allegations. Simply because Lance (with your help) alleges anything does not mean it is correct. Look at how wrong he and you were on the DUI statistics that were just a huge part of Lance’s original 5 part series!!! I notice you did not broach that area in your 5 questions, maybe because I have used your own documentation to point out where you went wrong.

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 10 at 11:58 a.m.

Wow DWG can I use your logic and says that when you posted on 8-9-2011 at 4:09 PM saying that you would not be going back and forth with me on this board, and yet here you are. Could I take from that you lied and anything you posted on here is not to be believed?

Also are you admitting, in this open forum, that Lance is guilty of reckless driving? Is that appropriate for his lawyer to do? I don't know much about lawyers ethics but wouldn't that be a violation of your client privilege? I would guess so. Did you get Lance's ok to post on here that he is guilty of reckless driving? That is a pretty big deal Darrl!

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 10 at 6:11 a.m.

Boy you really went into left field on that post.

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 10 at 6 a.m.

Very sad, my prayers are with his family.

On Jumbotron Company Owner Crushed by Monitor

Posted on August 9 at 11:15 p.m.

A plea offer is not an admission... sorry you are confused.

"While District Attorney Sanford Horowitz said that the prosecution’s OFFER of a “wet reckless” — a reduced DUI charge — was still on the table" OFFER is in capitals for you.

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Posted on August 9 at 10:45 p.m.

a no contest plead is the same consequence of a guilty plead, except it can not be used against you in civil court. How is that related to your original post of the DA making an "admission"?

On Shredded Documents Dominate DUI Hearing

Previous | Page 2 of 54 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: