Your Voice of Reason When Your Future is On the Line. For over 20 years we have defended people charged with crimes. We have helped over 5,000 clients get their lives back. We believe no one should suffer from the disadvantage of being inexperienced with the system. If you are located in Washington State and think you may need our help, please give our office a call. We are here for you.
Serving Seattle areas: North Seattle, Downtown, Central Seattle, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Lynnwood, North Lynnwood, Everett, Mukilteo, Mill Creek, Bothell, Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, Marysville, Burien, Des Moines, Tukwila, Federal Way, Renton, Kent, & more.
___ Information provided on this channel is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. You should not act upon this information without consulting us or another legal professional. No attorney-client relationship will be established by engaging with our channel.
I didn't catch what the guys charges were but I definitely remember the shirt he had on and so did the judge even made it a point to read it to the court. It said I'm not gay but $20 is $20 lmao. Thought that was kind of funny. The judge had a nice laugh about it too. Not too sure it hurt or helped his case I had to leave because I couldn't stop laughing.
What if there wasn't any damage to the vehicle that was hit, and the person who was hit never wanted my info. I wasn't aware of anything until I received a letter in the mail from the police. This was in Washington State
It's about money and social and career longevity. Never hire a local lawyer. Trust me no local lawyer wants to call bullshit on a judge who is out of line or clearly using personal bias beliefs and personal feelings. There's is no justice.
What Only a Police officer Can Choose To File Criminal Charges if Something Happens. The Courts or The Crown Prostitution Can't Do Anything until The Police Charge a Person.
The courts can ignore evidence based criteria re: the harm that emotional abuse can have. The courts and even the attorneys for victims are safe from malpractice because the law explicitly protect them, not the victim. Law and Order explicity protects abusers. Let's talk about attorneys who avoid the ethical conversation with their clients about the risk to their clients lives when they pursue separation/divorce. Let's talk about how the abuser can easily use their attorney to weopanize the court proceedings against their victim, often with the support of the ignorant attorney representing the victim. All the while charging the victim to their death. Let's talk about attorneys and judges ignoring their ethical codes re: best practices for representing a client who is experiencing DV.
@ 5:45 I thought I was the worst guy in the world with e-mail , I did however put your number in my phone , don't know what would happen if I called you. Would I be calling from a jail...... say the cops mistook me for a hardened criminal ...it was a mistaken identity I don't know how it works.
Deferred prosecution is bullshit tbh. Its only good for getting u out of jail and getting treatment. If youre a driver cdl trucking it doesn't matter its the same thing as dui. Its on your driver abstract. Even tho its not a conviction it says dui arrest on your abstract and what do u think an employer thinks when they see that. Smh
Hi lance, I like your videos. I’m just a high school redneck from NorthEast high school in Lincoln Nebraska. Can you help me sue the governor of Colorado? It’s very kind consuming------------------------------- Objection to GOVERNOR POLIS' MOTION TO DISMISS ------------------------------------ In response to the Attorney General’s office whom identified himself as Phillip J. WEISER “listed above” which is now representing all the defendants listed above with his motion to dismiss Colorado Governor Polis and their state officials, with Colorado State clothed Governor Jared Polis in particular with his immunity claims to the 11th amendment is absurd. When I started, my original USCS 1915 prisoner complaint which is based upon several USCS 1983 civil rights violations. The rules of it’s complaint stated, I cannot be denied, and My claims must be heard. Now with the defendants New Attorney General entered onto this case number 24 CV 01255, I’m asking the court to add them as a new defendant, because they are now aiding in more USCS 1983 federal code violations for their above defendants. The Attorney General has misleading claims to defame the reality of the 11th amendment for Jerod polis immunity as a Colorado State clothed Governor. while It’s true meaning of the 11th amendment, for example, is for a resident from another state, such as Nebraska suing a different state such as Colorado for Water rights. I Mark Goodban the plaintiff to this case, whom is under pro Se, has been a Colorado resident since 1990. I will stand up for my rights against thee defendants listed above who created and signed red flag into Colorado state law. I see This red flag law as frivolous, Null, and Void to the 2nd amendment, the 5th amendment, the 10th amendment, and the 14th amendments. Their law has conflicted me with the 5th amendment called double Jeopardy in which myself has been charged twice for the same crimes. It’s also another federal violation that needs to be addressed. You have also taken away my guns before the due process of law which is another violation. The defendants labeled above have ruined my freedoms from the US constitution and violated my USCS 1983 civil liberties along with the second amendment, Right to bear arms, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. You also violated my 10th and the 14th amendments. The Red flag law has ruined my freedoms of the US constitution and violated my USCS 1983 civil liberties all within This state of Colorado I now want to make it clear to the courts that I want to separate the listed defendants such as Colorado state clothed Governor Jared Polis along with his Colorado clothed State Officials listed above for creating and signing red flag into a Colorado state law. I am asking the courts to dismiss these defendants for punitive damage claims while still holding them responsible with a major fine to Abolish HOUSE BILL 19-1177 red flag a Colorado state law. I also want to make it clear that I am now holding the new Colorado State Attorney General that entered this case for the punitive damages while deceiving the court, as well as me the Plaintiff under the 11th amendment from having this case. It’s still unclear on what the above Attorney generals office is asking the courts to do with Colorado State clothed Chief of police Greg Daly from the Town of Avon colorado. The Attorney General barely mentioned him if any. His actions was based upon the above listed defendants whom created and signed red flag into law. Greg Daly has violated several federal laws towards me, And should be held accountable for his allegations from his 14 page petition for red flag. “see exhibit A, on the 1st thumb drive labeled as, April 28, 2022 the petition pages 1-14” It clearly reads that I had 48 hours to turn in 4 guns on his paperwork, and it did not say to raid my home with an illegal forcible entry search warrant. “See exhibit A from the first thumb drive called Cops Broke My Door Down For Guns the first guy entered in a T-shirt not body proof armor“ He clearly violated federal law using his Chief as power to send in other Avon police officers in attempt to kill me with guns drawn entering my home under Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS Sec. 241 - Conspiracy against rights and 242-deprivation against Rights under the color of law. He also heavily violated several US Constitutional Bill of Rights violations, such as, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 14th amendments and several USCS 1983 code violations. His actions using this unconstitutional red flag Colorado state law has given me the right to sue the state of Colorado Attorney General’s office and Greg Daly as a Colorado State clothed chief of police from Avon Colorado, all within our Colorado State borders based upon the The 11th amendment. The Colorado red flag Law has also conflicted me with the due process of law, by taking away my 5 guns first along with my other personal effects Greg Daly stole based upon on the first thumb drive discovery entered, See Exhibit A “In blue ink, it says turn guns in at Corkys Gas Station Eagle, Colorado black ink, Stipulation Exhibit B” while his petition from the above exhibit with pages 1-14 clearly asked for only 4 Guns within 48 hours. The 14th amendment protects US Citizens of equality and should treat them the same. While red flag shows unequal rights. It’s unjust to the Colorado People. The above defendants whom created and signed red flag did so to strip Colorado citizens rights away without thinking about the consequences of why the party wanted to take away the individuals rights to begin with, without taking steps on the party first who wanted to take the guns in the first place. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of September 2024 Mark S Goodban Pro S
Please cite case precedent from a court worth paying attention to, where a "designator" in a State Law may arbitrarily void Due Process in a criminal prosecution for a "violent crime". "Miranda" in reverse.
These "civil" DV cases are tried with the Due Process of a traffic ticket. A DV conviction has consequences of being convicted of a "Violent Crime". If your attorney fails to demand all appropriate Due Process, or challenge the unconstitutional state law, then you will be screwed by that law and no Appellate Court will help you because the Judge did not abuse their discretion. See the "Miranda" decision. Rights were being violated until somebody (Miranda) properly pled the case in the Trial Court establishing standing in the Appellate Courts, up to SCOTUS. Have lawyers forgotten how to do this? Do unconstitutional State Laws exist? How many?
My husband had his bail lowered from $200,000 to $40,000 simply because of his lawyer and the good things he said about him during his initial hearing.
I think one of the people who called me talking a ton of gibberish language I couldnt understand, randomly said she was a community officer and said cco in there, because I told her I only know what cco is having to do with art. I remember that, but this person, like alot of people having to do with court, its like they are full on speaking french or some weird shit, I cant make out any words they are saying AT ALL, and they keep acting like Im supposed to, and my lawyer is working against me, like as much as possible. Its completely god damn nuts in whatcom county.
I am so glad I do not drink or do drugs. I despise the taste of alchohol and I get physically nauseous from the smell of weed. It's so disgusting and also annoying when someone is smoking it in public. All drugs scare me I'm even apprehensive about taking advil due to me being afraid to damage my liver. I know it won't but that's how I think.
1. Process over time. 2. Therapeutic - Long time since misconduct - problem is corrected. 3. Legal negotiation - Challenge the law. No violence. 4. Go to trial - Can the prosecutor make it stick? Do any of these geniuses set up a trial court case for an appeal? Do they know how? Ask your lawyer how many cases have gone to the Appellate Court? and won?
1. Negotiation. Time. 2. Go to trial. 3. Victim not interested, not cooperating. If there is "VIOLENCE" with a weapon, etc; if you are guilty = stop breaking the law and accept punishment. Is it a Crime, or Civil action in a State Court? In a civil case of DV, need to demand Grand Jury review, Miranda rights, Jury Trial, everything. If there is no violence, need to challenge the state law. Due Process and Checks and Balances are required for criminal "infamous crime" lose your gun rights, child custody, etc; from a record of DV conviction. Courts of Appeal strike down unconstitutional law every other day.
1. No physical evidence? Sworn testimony. 2. Why prosecute minor case? 3. Prosecutor is not the Judge. 4. Affirmative class is not admission of guilt. 5. This case is easy? Nope.
What about challenging unconstitutional state laws? Read Paragraph 38 of "ALMA S. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, Ariz: Supreme Court 2018" "¶38 Mother has not argued that the statutes violate the Constitution on their face or as applied. Because the juvenile court considered the state's rehabilitation efforts and determined that the children remain at risk if reunited with Mother, and because we review that decision only for abuse of discretion, I join my colleagues in affirming the termination. However, the framework for terminating parental rights articulated by the Court here does not provide the "fundamentally fair procedures" that the Constitution requires." Alma S lost her children because her lawyer failed "diligence" and "competence". Should the lawyer lose his license?
Even though charges might get dropped or dismissed, if the prosecutor has an alternative path to bring the same charges against the accused but using new evidence that is a real possibility that many people overlook. Especially if someone beat a conviction, so the charges get dismissed for example, but later the accused revealed they did the crime they were accused of. Then whomever they foolishly tell that to goes with that evidence to the prosecutor and bingo new evidence and another trial on the horizon.. so, they got free only to be caught up all over again. If anyone gets free from custody and or all legal responsibilities related to any charges. My advice is stay free, don't do anything to bring you under the scrutiny of the police, prosecutor and judge again. No speeding, no drunk driving, not even j-walking. Nothing illegal and nothing immortal regardless how minor it is, it isn't worth the time wasted and years of your life trying to undo the mess that got made. They should make law a mandatory class in all schools. Maybe more people would stop and think hey you know what i won't steal this car, or rob this bank, or assault this person. Etc. cause it isn't worth it. But the system truly is designed to trap people. Put so many conditions on a person long enough chances are they will fail. That's not exactly good for society to burden them with feeding and housing everyone locked up, but is it also not fair to strip someone of the ability to pay a debt then expect them to pay a large amount of money, or else they go to jail, but sometimes the money still has to be paid regardless. In a situation like that it is unreasonable because the authority takes the person's ability to pay due to ordering them to serve a jail or prison sentence. Thus making most people incapable of holding a job necessary to pay the debt they are expected to pay. So, they committ another crime to pay off the one before and never get things right ever again cause there isn't any significant programs or institutions that work at prevention, rather than punishment after the fact. Preventing crimes as well as disease is a much cheaper more cost effective option than spending large amounts of money on the preferred method of punishment, but that's not rehabilitation, therefore people just study how to improve their craft whatever it might be lying, cheating, stealing and anything else. Which is the opposite of what the justice system should want and society also should not want that, but ironically the justice system and society members seem to prefer violence and punishment and so on, rather than happy non-violent and preventative measures to ensure people don't do crime to begin with, or if they try it once they don't repeat the act again. Because they do a training program that gives them skills and some dignity and they feel good about themselves. A psychiatrist or psychologist said once you take away someone's happiness whether it a relationship, a good paying job, take someone's kids away, etc. Then individual is more inclined to do negative things and they could be criminal acts. Unfortunately the world has this 'it's not my problem " mentally and therefore can't be bothered to help others stay mentally and physically healthy, while providing the person with training necessary to gain skills in order to find a job. Like they don't work at eliminating barriers, instead they create them and who are they? Society everyone in society plays a role in this. Sure the accused bears responsibility for the role they play, but other people do have a certain amount of responsibility too, since the rest of society wants to live in peace and enjoy themselves and to have the ability to work and earn a living, if for nothing else but the basic human rights food, clothing, and shelter. I have heard many times in different jurisdictions the same complaint that penalties are not strong enough, while at the same time those same people say don't like being burdened with paying for the added punishment through their tax dollars. Seems silly to beg for more prisons then cry about their being more prisons. Because more prisons means society accepts and wants more crime to happen in order to necessitate having more prisons. Which allegedly is not what society wants while they are begging for what they don't want while saying it isn't what they want. Society members in all jurisdictions tend to be equals in this foolish game of they want more security, without making any adjustments, just expecting the accused to adjust themselves accordingly. Meanwhile most of those people don't feel obligated to follow orders after a life of crime. In many ways laws in my view are illegal and unconstitutional violations of our rights. Many would disagree and that's ok, plus some laws are just unnecessary since other laws already deal with those issues. Plus, one jurisdiction may have a law or by-law that another jurisdiction does not. Like in some states you can openly carry a firearm, and in other states that is illegal. But not everyone is studying for the bar exam. So, most people make the wrong decision based on what they think or what they have been led to believe. That turns out to be false Information and they pay the consequences, but sometimes ignorance has been accepted as a defense in some cases, not something to rely upon, especially on a first offense, but occasionally charges get dropped because someone simply didn't know they were doing something wrong. However, in other situations there is no excuse anyone will accept. So, it goes both ways. Then if you cross into Canada with a firearm you can legally openly carry in the states it becomes illegal in Canada because you have to store the firearm in a separate locked box, and the ammunition locked in a separate box. But if people don't know that, they can still be subject to arrest and potentially serious weapons charges. Some people have mentioned when driving they accidentally got onto the road heading for Canada, but didn't necessarily want to go to Canada. Next thing they know they're dealing with customs officers and at the border possession of marijuana as an example is illegal, but in some jurisdictions within USA it has been legalized, similar to it being legalized in Canada with some restrictions still in place. So, knowing the law, as well as knowing what to do whenever dealing with those issues are important lessons to learn before getting arrested or to avoid getting arrested and charged and potentially convicted later on.
So, if the accused is set free from custody or perhaps conditions it because of the obligation the judge has to release someone after 3 days as long as the prosecutor hasn't filed charges. So, they aren't dismissing the case entirely, just letting someone go pending charges being laid. Sort of like releasing someone on bail pretrial before the accused is found or proven guilty. The person is technically free, but still has to be careful of their actions such as it would be wise they avoid any of the things that may have led the police to make an arrest. Ideally keep the peace and be on good behavior is good regardless what's going on, but important to do whenever a judge sets you free not from potentially being convicted of a criminal offense, but free from the hold or restrictions they can place upon an accused during those 3 days that charges have not been filed, or not brought against someone however you want to say it. So, i guess the problem is people assume the entire matter has been resolved at that point, but that's closer to the beginning of the legal proceedings, not near the end of the proceedings. The being set free aspect isn't being set free of any further consequences, just being set free because no charge was laid , but charges can come. Especially since some laws allow charges to be laid several years later such as in murder cases. But most cases allow charges to be laid after the fact, not sure how much after the fact is legally allowed in each jurisdiction, but there is not statute of limitations for murder so they can arrest and charge someone for murder any time they cause to do so. Although they do get it wrong sometimes. But that is a separate issue. So, the power of the judge over the accused that has not been formally charged is limited to 3 days. However, once the accused is charged the judge has more power to regulate the person's freedoms. Maybe i don't fully understand, but i think i understand well enough. To understand the legal process isn't over at that point and it would be advisable the accused make no statements to anyone other than their lawyer if they have one, or to no one if they're self represented. Especially if they want to preserve the presumed innocence. And to not give the prosecutor any additional help to convict them.
Prosecutors at the state level frequently work in tandem with local law enforcement to bolster crime-fighting efforts, often placing a premium on securing convictions, even when the evidence may be weak or lacking. This partnership can result in unethical practices, such as exaggerating charges like "resisting arrest with violence" to enhance their perceived severity in court. While both Florida's and federal definitions of a "crime of violence" necessitate the use or threat of physical force, Florida's statute does not encompass the broader context of involving a significant risk of such force. As a result, many defendants, often unaware of these critical distinctions, may accept plea deals that do not accurately represent the law's true implications, raising significant ethical questions regarding the pursuit of justice. This issue is compounded by the often-overlooked definition of violence in Florida's law. During plea negotiations, Florida frequently places individuals on probation with the expectation that they will violate the terms, allowing prosecutors to pursue the convictions they would have otherwise sought, particularly in cases involving suspended sentences.
To me, this ties in with another video Fryer put out was the idea that the important question at a given time depends on the stage that the case is at. In the early stage it may not matter so much about the details of the allegations as the sentiments that the behaviour does provoke.
I was arrested and in jail for 19 days, i have never laid my hand on my wife ever in our 19yrs, she said i pulled her hair, i was standing with my baby at the end of our drive way at the back of our car, when the cops got there, they passed her and straight to me and told me to put my baby down, I told him that I was not going to do that because she was trying to take off with him and I did not want her taking off with the baby all emotional the baby was not crying I was not shouting I asked to talk to the supervisor that's when the sergeant in charge had this grin on his face and told me to put down the baby before I could tell him I do not want to put the baby down he got me in the chicken wing behind my back one of the cops rip my son out of my arms and the other four had literally pick me up and literally over their heads Slamming me onto my face on the opposite side of the driveway, I did not see the public defender til the day I went to court on the 18th day, she said that I had pulled her hair and she was pressing charges and they were trying to give me 4 years they had added on multiple charges that were Ludacris child abuse battery terroristic threats and false imprisonment, I cannot believe I was being taken advantage of by the courts, I was beaten up five times in jail which receiving big hematomas on the side of my body I was even beaten up on the last day when I took the plea and was getting out when I was out of jail I was looking through to my stuff that was in holding that they gave me and in there was the arrest report which spoke a lot of what was really going on the police had wrote that I had dragged her by her hair 5 ft away from the vehicle and because of all that that she sustained bruising on her face her neck and arms, by the time I could do anything about it I was told it was too late because I took a plea and that I had to just suck it up I was given informal probation I was charged only $305 fine and habe to do 52 weeks of domestic violence classes which I pay $30 each time, there was pictures taking the statement about me dragging my wife's was something the cop put in there that was not the testimony of my wife and the video says what she said, not what the cop wrote, the pictures show no bruising cuz she said there was no bruising but they did take and the went ahead and prosecuted, I felt like that was misconduct of police and prosecution misconduct too, but they got away with it and now I lost my family all because of what that cop had said in the paper that wasn't true and he got away with it prosecute got away with it and I was punished for the police lies he made up to get probable cause to put me jail I should have never been there, and my neighbor for 2 weeks had tried to locate me even stayed on the phone with the lady for about an hour that worked at the jail trying to look for me any information and there was nothing like I didn't exist like I was never arrested like I wasn't in jail, that's. Injustice
