> > Vox Populi,
> >
> > You are an utter and complete moron.
>
> Really? Am I the one that got suckered into someone else's
> criminal check fraud scam, either out of participatory greed
> or out of abject ignorance?
>
I didn't get suckered into any scam. I took the check to the bank to
make sure it was not a fake check. If it was a fake, I would've sent
it to the police. If it came back as a real valid check, I would have
deposited it. I would have not touched the funds for at least 2 weeks,
and if the funds were still in my bank at that time, I would then
allow somebody to take my piano. If nobody ever came for my piano I
would seek professional advice before even touching the money. If
somebody did come for my piano, I would have let them take it with
some kind of signature and official receipt. I would have then taken
the remaining money and sent it back to the rightful owner and kept no
more money than what I was owed for my piano. I have talked to several
lawyers and not one said that this would have been illegal. I would
have reported this transaction of money on my taxes.
> From what you already posted and confessed, you ARE guilty.
> You don't get it do you?
No I don't. In your eyes, I'm guilty of ignorance. Ignorance is no
excuse for illegal activity, I do know this. However, under the penal
code that I've been charged with, knowledge that the check was bogus
AT THE TIME of my passing the check is necessary to be a crime. I had
NO KNOWLEDGE of the scam at the time. I was attempting to investigate
the check. Read the fucking manual, dipshit. Also, all the links that
were posted to the scams in this thread were posted AFTER I got out of
jail and posted this story. There's a thing called a time-stamp,
moron.
> > You berate me and call me names, and call me guilty.
>
> You deserve it, as you are dangerously ignorant and naive
> about the reality of the US prison/industrial complex.
>
Ooohhhh dangerously ignorant and naive. I bet you are just shaking in
your booties aren't you?
> > You make me feel
> > like shit, and make me more scared of this justice system.
>
> As it should be. Now maybe you will pull your head out of you
> ass and realize this is extremely serious shit and that "your claim"
> of "innocence" is absolutely meaningless no matter how believable
> you sound to yourself, or how many friends/family you have convinced.
>
My claim of innocence is not meaningless. But what matters is the
prosecutor's claim of guilt, and THEY need to prove it. I don't need
to prove my innocence. They need to prove that I KNEW the check was
bad, AND that I forged the check myself. Can they prove this stuff?
NO! (Unless they are super-corrupt, forge all the evidence, and force
the judge's decision.) Plus, I'm going to hire a good lawyer, I've
already decided against using the public defender. Luckily I do have
money. I do agree with you that there is corruption in this justice
system and that a good lawyer is very important, as I've recently
learned. Everything else you say and how you say it is full of putrid,
liquid shit though.
> > So if this
> > justice system is moronic, you are just as moronic because you are the
> > same.
>
> You deluded nitwit. Because I woke you up out of your
> stuporous slumber and shown the light of reality upon your
> very serious situation, you in your cognitive dissonance have
> chosen to continue to deny and ignore the reality, and blame
> the messenger. Fools tread where angels fear to go.
>
Hey I'm not denying the reality. The reality is that our justice
system sucks, and you are evil and suck even more. That's hardcore
reality bitch! And the reality is also that this is a serious matter
and luckily I'm getting a good lawyer, no thanks to you though.
>
> > Where are these statistics [of convictions / acquittals] recorded?
>
> Many places, but those facts/realities are not your
> primary concern right now. Concentrate on properly
> extracting your ass from the sling you so willingly placed
> it into.
Just back up your bullshit and post the statistics for everyone to
read. It would be very enlightening and add at least an iota of merit
into your pile of bullshit.
> >
> > Also, if this system is as corrupt as you say,
>
> You can drop the "if", Bambi.
>
Ok sure thing Godzilla.
> > then what's the difference between hiring a public defender
> > or an expensive private attorney? Either way, I'm fucked.
>
> Yep, you may well be as you've already made numerous, repeated
> self-defeating mistakes.
>
I don't agree. I believe this is simply your paranoia of our country
speaking, after hearing about cases like Michael Zinn. You're right,
there is corruption in the justice system, but there's corruption in
every possible industry as well. There's good and bad people
everywhere. But you are seriously handicapped by your paranoia. Your
paranoia of the justice system is equivalent to me being too paranoid
to go down the street in fear of randomly being killed. True... it
could happen... but it's still paranoid as all hell.
> > Also, thanks to the poster who posted the list of all the people
> > scammed by this fraud. This would only help prove that I am an
> > innocent victim.
>
> It won't prove shit you naive imbecile. It's not admissible as evidence,
> and the fact that you confess you are aware of all those cases will only
> make it easier for the prosecutor to convince the Jury that you "knew or
> should have known" that the check you uttered at the bank was very likely
> a fraud.
>
Wrong, moron. Those cases were posted here well after my arrest and
prove my innocence, since we are all victims of a scam. But yes, I am
hiring a lawyer to take this fact and make it concrete useable
evidence in my favor.
> > How can the prosecution say "I should've known about
> > this scam".
>
> Easy, he'll use the fact that you will bring up all the links showing
> just how widespread and well-known the scam is.
Is it as widespread and well-known as the fact that "Tide whitens
clothes" or "2 + 2 is 4?" NO. It's still a very unknown scam.
> Your ignorance and denial are going to play right into the hands
> of the prosecutor.
paranoia.
> > My evidence matches the same story
> > that people in these scams have reported on the Internet. That only
> > helps prove my innocence.
>
> Completely the opposite, it shows either your complicit knowledge, or
> willful ignorance.
>
The only way to prove that would be to prove that I read about the
same scam before I got arrested. Impossible, because I didn't.
> > I am NOT a greedy accomplice to this scam, and you can go fuck
> > yourself.
>
> Why have you failed to confess/admit that you agreed to take MORE $$
> than you were asking for your piano in exchange for participating in the
> check scam? Do you realize how damning that evidence will be when
> the prosecutor introduces it?
I did not agree to take more $$ than I was asking for the piano. I was
never to keep any more $$ than for my piano. I was making no money
beyond that of the selling price of my piano. Also, there is no
participation in a scam since I did not even know about the scam.
>
> And one last point needs to be made, however uncomfortable it may be.
> You are obviously a foreigner/minority, (and have admitted poverty)
> and the USA, especially its mechanisms of government, are EXTREMELY prejudiced
> and racist. The prisons hold far more minorities than their per capita
> representation in the population. It is the USA's version of "ethnic cleansing"
> and "apartheid".
>
> You will be prosecuted with more zeal, and convicted easier, and receive a
> much harsher sentence than some White Yuppie/Upper Class Country Club
> Golfer in the same situation.
That may be true, but probably to a lesser extent than you would
portray. Luckily though I am white and appear white with no ethnic
appearance although my parents are from South America.
>
> Now extract your cranium from your anus and get the best lawyer you can
> find/afford, and stop trying to defend yourself, as everytime you do you
> just fuck yourself further out of blind ignorance.
>
Yeah, luckily I have that option and I'm going to get a lawyer.
> PS: You did agree to receive MORE $$ than you were asking for
> the piano if you'd attempted to cash that fraudulent check for that
> "Nigerian", didn't you?
Nope. If I told you once I told you a thousand times. After the
transaction was complete I would have remained with exactly $1400. The
price of my piano. And my piano would be out of my house. Even if the
check cleared I wouldn't have touched any of the money until someone
came to pick up my piano.
> And yet every publid defender I know is in court on a daily basis for
> their clients. How often to you think the senior partner at a white shoe
> law firm works the night court arraignments?
>
> Like with anything else, the question becomes whether you want the
> high-priced academic thinker with the resources, or the guy who is down
> and dirty in the trenches every day and knows the system backwards and
> forwards.
Larry,
I appreciate your helpful information on the public defenders. But
your experience with them doesn't match mine here in Los Angeles
County (Southern California). The public defender I talked to only
interviewed me for 2 minutes at the arraignment and plead not guilty
because I instructed her too. She said I'd have a chance to talk to
her again at the pretrial, August 11. I tried calling her and she
barely had time to talk to me on the phone. She said she could call me
back in a few days or a week but couldn't guarantee any significant
amount of time on my case.
Not acceptable! Maybe she does know the system forward and backwards
but I need to work with someone and get someone working for me a lot
more personally not just for a more customized legal defense, but for
my own peace of mind.
I wish I didn't have to spend money on a lawyer on such a seemingly
simple case but I'm going to just to keep my bases covered, even if I
find out in the future I didn't need to. I'll still sue everyone back
for all my legal fees plus a lot more....
> But Carlos claims he is truly innocent, and he just needs to
> convince the court/prosecutor of his angelic existence ...
> notwithstanding the fact that he willingly participated in a
> Fraudulent Check scheme in return for a cut of the take.
Wow. You truly are a twisted and demented little thing that I somehow
have no pity for.
Are you a prosecutor by the way? You'd make a great prosecutor!
If I find out most prosecutors are like yourself, and I'm lucky enough
to come out innocent, then I'll probably just leave the country.
You are a sad human being. (sub-human?)
In us.legal Carlos Saenz <solrac@no-spam> wrote:
> My claim of innocence is not meaningless. But what matters is the
> prosecutor's claim of guilt, and THEY need to prove it. I don't need
> to prove my innocence. They need to prove that I KNEW the check was
> bad,
Knowledge can be inferred.
AND that I forged the check myself. Can they prove this stuff?
> NO! (Unless they are super-corrupt, forge all the evidence, and force
> the judge's decision.)
You ARE naive, eh?
> Wrong, moron. Those cases were posted here well after my arrest and
> prove my innocence, since we are all victims of a scam. But yes, I am
> hiring a lawyer to take this fact and make it concrete useable
> evidence in my favor.
Good luck. You've admitted your knowledge of the scams. It will be
impossible to refute that you didn't know until recently.
Your best bet is to STFU.
> The only way to prove that would be to prove that I read about the
> same scam before I got arrested. Impossible, because I didn't.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You, the accused criminal, will need to refute the
allegation that you knew. Who will the judge believe?
> Nope. If I told you once I told you a thousand times. After the
> transaction was complete I would have remained with exactly $1400. The
> price of my piano. And my piano would be out of my house. Even if the
> check cleared I wouldn't have touched any of the money until someone
> came to pick up my piano.
Keep in mind that shipping a cheap piano to Nigeria looks pretty fishy to
begin with. It makes no sense whatsoever. This fact alone will convince
many people that you were complicit.
--
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe...
-Lennon/McCartney
[plaintext with. It makes no sense whatsoever. This fact alone will convince]
"Carlos Saenz" <solrac@no-spam> wrote in message
news:2afe654e.0306250439.39134a7c@no-spam
> I have talked to several lawyers
> I'm guilty of ignorance.
> My claim of innocence is not meaningless.
> I don't need to prove my innocence.
> Plus, I'm going to hire a good lawyer,
> Luckily I do have money.
> I do agree with you that there is corruption in this justice
> system and that a good lawyer is very important, as I've recently
> learned.
> Hey I'm not denying the reality. The reality is that our justice
> system sucks,
> And the reality is also that this is a serious matter
> and luckily I'm getting a good lawyer, no thanks to you though.
> You're right, there is corruption in the justice system,
> But yes, I am hiring a lawyer to take this fact and make it concrete useable
> evidence in my favor.
> That may be true, but probably to a lesser extent than you would
> portray. Luckily though I am white and appear white with no ethnic
> appearance although my parents are from South America.
> Yeah, luckily I have that option and I'm going to get a lawyer.
You're welcome ... you can thank me later.
--
A multitude of laws in a country is like
a great number of physicians,
a sign of weakness and malady
-- Voltaire
solrac@no-spam (Carlos Saenz) wrote in message news:<2afe654e.0306250447.1c5d8eb6@no-spam>...
> > And yet every publid defender I know is in court on a daily basis for
> > their clients. How often to you think the senior partner at a white shoe
> > law firm works the night court arraignments?
> >
> > Like with anything else, the question becomes whether you want the
> > high-priced academic thinker with the resources, or the guy who is down
> > and dirty in the trenches every day and knows the system backwards and
> > forwards.
>
> Larry,
> I appreciate your helpful information on the public defenders. But
> your experience with them doesn't match mine here in Los Angeles
> County (Southern California). The public defender I talked to only
> interviewed me for 2 minutes at the arraignment and plead not guilty
> because I instructed her too. She said I'd have a chance to talk to
> her again at the pretrial, August 11. I tried calling her and she
> barely had time to talk to me on the phone. She said she could call me
> back in a few days or a week but couldn't guarantee any significant
> amount of time on my case.
>
> Not acceptable! Maybe she does know the system forward and backwards
> but I need to work with someone and get someone working for me a lot
> more personally not just for a more customized legal defense, but for
> my own peace of mind.
>
> I wish I didn't have to spend money on a lawyer on such a seemingly
> simple case but I'm going to just to keep my bases covered, even if I
> find out in the future I didn't need to. I'll still sue everyone back
> for all my legal fees plus a lot more....
I don't know how they do things where you live, but where I live the
prosecutor doesn't even look at the case until around "pre-trial."
Usually, his file is bare at this point and he doesn't know the first
thing about your case. All we can do is send out our standard
discovery requests and wait. To tell you the truth, I generally do
very little on a case until it's time to start talking with the
prosecutor. As soon as he or she gets a chance to look at the file we
start talking about whatever deal we might be able to work out and go
from there. If there isn't going to be a deal, there is always plenty
of time from that point to prepare the case.
It is often hard to get your public defender on the phone. I always
get back with my clients, but generally in these types of criminal
matters all I'm going to do is tell them what I've told you here and
ask them to be patient. I'm not even going to be able to discuss the
case much because I will have held off on really digging in to the
evidence until the government has chosen its witnesses and collected
about all the evidence they are going to collect. I'm going to try to
politely cut the conversation off and try to avoid talking much with
you about it until I've looked at all the evidence and have a clear
idea of what I need from you to win your case or get you the best
deal.
Whether you have a public defender or a private attorney, chances are
your lawyer is going to be extremely busy and he's not going to want
to waste time on matters that aren't ready to be worked on. We don't
like to handle our files too much. I try to make it such that I only
handle a file once for each task I'm going to do on the case. It's
really easy to do a little here and there and never get anything
finished. Often you find yourself doing the same work over and over
again. Efficient people don't do that. In criminal cases such as
yours we are going to wait until the right time before we do much on
the case other than send out our standard paperwork. Later on, when
the prosecutor has picked up the file to prepare for pretrial
conferences and so on, all of the important things we'll need will
become available. That's when the witness list is prepared. That's
when the results will be back from the crime lab and all of the
statements from the witnesses will be collected in put in the file.
That's the time we want to really go over the case with a fine comb
and look for ways to poke holes in the government's case.
Obviously, different cases need to be handled differently. A case
like yours though is not going to be too complicated. Odds are your
attorney is just waiting until he can get a better picture of the case
the prosecutor is going to put on before he starts preparing your
case. That's just standard practice for criminal defense attorneys in
cases like yours. It doesn't mean that he doesn't care about your
case. Odds are you will talk a good bit more about this case when it
comes time to either settle it or prepare it for trial. If public
defenders did a better job of explaining this, they wouldn't get such
a bad rap.
solrac@no-spam (Carlos Saenz) wrote in message news:<2afe654e.0306250439.39134a7c@no-spam>...
> > > Vox Populi,
> > >
> > > You are an utter and complete moron.
> >
> > Really? Am I the one that got suckered into someone else's
> > criminal check fraud scam, either out of participatory greed
> > or out of abject ignorance?
> >
>
> I didn't get suckered into any scam. I took the check to the bank to
> make sure it was not a fake check. If it was a fake, I would've sent
> it to the police. If it came back as a real valid check, I would have
> deposited it. I would have not touched the funds for at least 2 weeks,
> and if the funds were still in my bank at that time, I would then
> allow somebody to take my piano. If nobody ever came for my piano I
> would seek professional advice before even touching the money. If
> somebody did come for my piano, I would have let them take it with
> some kind of signature and official receipt. I would have then taken
> the remaining money and sent it back to the rightful owner and kept no
> more money than what I was owed for my piano. I have talked to several
> lawyers and not one said that this would have been illegal. I would
> have reported this transaction of money on my taxes.
>
> > From what you already posted and confessed, you ARE guilty.
> > You don't get it do you?
>
> No I don't. In your eyes, I'm guilty of ignorance. Ignorance is no
> excuse for illegal activity, I do know this. However, under the penal
> code that I've been charged with, knowledge that the check was bogus
> AT THE TIME of my passing the check is necessary to be a crime. I had
> NO KNOWLEDGE of the scam at the time. I was attempting to investigate
> the check. Read the fucking manual, dipshit. Also, all the links that
> were posted to the scams in this thread were posted AFTER I got out of
> jail and posted this story. There's a thing called a time-stamp,
> moron.
>
> > > You berate me and call me names, and call me guilty.
> >
> > You deserve it, as you are dangerously ignorant and naive
> > about the reality of the US prison/industrial complex.
> >
>
> Ooohhhh dangerously ignorant and naive. I bet you are just shaking in
> your booties aren't you?
>
> > > You make me feel
> > > like shit, and make me more scared of this justice system.
> >
> > As it should be. Now maybe you will pull your head out of you
> > ass and realize this is extremely serious shit and that "your claim"
> > of "innocence" is absolutely meaningless no matter how believable
> > you sound to yourself, or how many friends/family you have convinced.
> >
>
> My claim of innocence is not meaningless. But what matters is the
> prosecutor's claim of guilt, and THEY need to prove it. I don't need
> to prove my innocence. They need to prove that I KNEW the check was
> bad, AND that I forged the check myself. Can they prove this stuff?
> NO! (Unless they are super-corrupt, forge all the evidence, and force
> the judge's decision.) Plus, I'm going to hire a good lawyer, I've
> already decided against using the public defender. Luckily I do have
> money. I do agree with you that there is corruption in this justice
> system and that a good lawyer is very important, as I've recently
> learned. Everything else you say and how you say it is full of putrid,
> liquid shit though.
>
> > > So if this
> > > justice system is moronic, you are just as moronic because you are the
> > > same.
> >
> > You deluded nitwit. Because I woke you up out of your
> > stuporous slumber and shown the light of reality upon your
> > very serious situation, you in your cognitive dissonance have
> > chosen to continue to deny and ignore the reality, and blame
> > the messenger. Fools tread where angels fear to go.
> >
>
> Hey I'm not denying the reality. The reality is that our justice
> system sucks, and you are evil and suck even more. That's hardcore
> reality bitch! And the reality is also that this is a serious matter
> and luckily I'm getting a good lawyer, no thanks to you though.
>
> >
> > > Where are these statistics [of convictions / acquittals] recorded?
> >
> > Many places, but those facts/realities are not your
> > primary concern right now. Concentrate on properly
> > extracting your ass from the sling you so willingly placed
> > it into.
>
> Just back up your bullshit and post the statistics for everyone to
> read. It would be very enlightening and add at least an iota of merit
> into your pile of bullshit.
>
> > >
> > > Also, if this system is as corrupt as you say,
> >
> > You can drop the "if", Bambi.
> >
>
> Ok sure thing Godzilla.
>
> > > then what's the difference between hiring a public defender
> > > or an expensive private attorney? Either way, I'm fucked.
> >
> > Yep, you may well be as you've already made numerous, repeated
> > self-defeating mistakes.
> >
>
> I don't agree. I believe this is simply your paranoia of our country
> speaking, after hearing about cases like Michael Zinn. You're right,
> there is corruption in the justice system, but there's corruption in
> every possible industry as well. There's good and bad people
> everywhere. But you are seriously handicapped by your paranoia. Your
> paranoia of the justice system is equivalent to me being too paranoid
> to go down the street in fear of randomly being killed. True... it
> could happen... but it's still paranoid as all hell.
>
> > > Also, thanks to the poster who posted the list of all the people
> > > scammed by this fraud. This would only help prove that I am an
> > > innocent victim.
> >
> > It won't prove shit you naive imbecile. It's not admissible as evidence,
> > and the fact that you confess you are aware of all those cases will only
> > make it easier for the prosecutor to convince the Jury that you "knew or
> > should have known" that the check you uttered at the bank was very likely
> > a fraud.
> >
>
> Wrong, moron. Those cases were posted here well after my arrest and
> prove my innocence, since we are all victims of a scam. But yes, I am
> hiring a lawyer to take this fact and make it concrete useable
> evidence in my favor.
>
> > > How can the prosecution say "I should've known about
> > > this scam".
> >
> > Easy, he'll use the fact that you will bring up all the links showing
> > just how widespread and well-known the scam is.
>
> Is it as widespread and well-known as the fact that "Tide whitens
> clothes" or "2 + 2 is 4?" NO. It's still a very unknown scam.
>
> > Your ignorance and denial are going to play right into the hands
> > of the prosecutor.
>
> paranoia.
>
> > > My evidence matches the same story
> > > that people in these scams have reported on the Internet. That only
> > > helps prove my innocence.
> >
> > Completely the opposite, it shows either your complicit knowledge, or
> > willful ignorance.
> >
>
> The only way to prove that would be to prove that I read about the
> same scam before I got arrested. Impossible, because I didn't.
>
> > > I am NOT a greedy accomplice to this scam, and you can go fuck
> > > yourself.
> >
> > Why have you failed to confess/admit that you agreed to take MORE $$
> > than you were asking for your piano in exchange for participating in the
> > check scam? Do you realize how damning that evidence will be when
> > the prosecutor introduces it?
>
> I did not agree to take more $$ than I was asking for the piano. I was
> never to keep any more $$ than for my piano. I was making no money
> beyond that of the selling price of my piano. Also, there is no
> participation in a scam since I did not even know about the scam.
>
> >
> > And one last point needs to be made, however uncomfortable it may be.
> > You are obviously a foreigner/minority, (and have admitted poverty)
> > and the USA, especially its mechanisms of government, are EXTREMELY prejudiced
> > and racist. The prisons hold far more minorities than their per capita
> > representation in the population. It is the USA's version of "ethnic cleansing"
> > and "apartheid".
> >
> > You will be prosecuted with more zeal, and convicted easier, and receive a
> > much harsher sentence than some White Yuppie/Upper Class Country Club
> > Golfer in the same situation.
>
> That may be true, but probably to a lesser extent than you would
> portray. Luckily though I am white and appear white with no ethnic
> appearance although my parents are from South America.
>
> >
> > Now extract your cranium from your anus and get the best lawyer you can
> > find/afford, and stop trying to defend yourself, as everytime you do you
> > just fuck yourself further out of blind ignorance.
> >
>
> Yeah, luckily I have that option and I'm going to get a lawyer.
>
> > PS: You did agree to receive MORE $$ than you were asking for
> > the piano if you'd attempted to cash that fraudulent check for that
> > "Nigerian", didn't you?
>
> Nope. If I told you once I told you a thousand times. After the
> transaction was complete I would have remained with exactly $1400. The
> price of my piano. And my piano would be out of my house. Even if the
> check cleared I wouldn't have touched any of the money until someone
> came to pick up my piano.
This guy Vox is just picking on you because he gets some sort of
charge out of it. Put him in your killfile. He's not worth your
time.
solrac@no-spam (Carlos Saenz) wrote in message news:<2afe654e.0306250439.39134a7c@no-spam>...
> > Easy, he'll use the fact that you will bring up all the links showing
> > just how widespread and well-known the scam is.
>
> Is it as widespread and well-known as the fact that "Tide whitens
> clothes" or "2 + 2 is 4?" NO. It's still a very unknown scam.
Well -- it's been around longer than Tide. It may be unknown
to YOU, which SHOULD be sufficient to get you off on the criminal
charges.
In article <bdc997$i71$2@no-spam>,
<EskWIRED@no-spam> wrote:
>In us.legal Carlos Saenz <solrac@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> My claim of innocence is not meaningless. But what matters is the
>> prosecutor's claim of guilt, and THEY need to prove it. I don't need
>> to prove my innocence. They need to prove that I KNEW the check was
>> bad,
>Knowledge can be inferred.
Except if the scam had worked, the original poster would have been the
_victim_.
>Your best bet is to STFU.
That's true.
>> The only way to prove that would be to prove that I read about the
>> same scam before I got arrested. Impossible, because I didn't.
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You, the accused criminal, will need to refute the
>allegation that you knew. Who will the judge believe?
If he knew about the scam, why would he try to deposit a check that
was only going to bounce (slowly) and cost him money?
>Keep in mind that shipping a cheap piano to Nigeria looks pretty fishy to
>begin with.
He said the check was from Texas, not Nigeria. If he's in California,
shipping a piano to Texas might be reasonable.
Seth
In us.politics Seth Breidbart <sethb@no-spam> wrote:
> Except if the scam had worked, the original poster would have been the
> _victim_.
How do you figure?
> If he knew about the scam, why would he try to deposit a check that
> was only going to bounce (slowly) and cost him money?
Good question. Likely a side deal to be compensated for helping to
launder the money by playing the hapless victim?
>>Keep in mind that shipping a cheap piano to Nigeria looks pretty fishy to
>>begin with.
> He said the check was from Texas, not Nigeria. If he's in California,
> shipping a piano to Texas might be reasonable.
the check was from Texas. The buyey was in Nigeria.
--
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe...
-Lennon/McCartney
In article <2afe654e.0306250447.1c5d8eb6@no-spam>,
solrac@no-spam (Carlos Saenz) wrote:
>> And yet every publid defender I know is in court on a daily basis for
>> their clients. How often to you think the senior partner at a white shoe
>> law firm works the night court arraignments?
>>
>> Like with anything else, the question becomes whether you want the
>> high-priced academic thinker with the resources, or the guy who is down
>> and dirty in the trenches every day and knows the system backwards and
>> forwards.
>
>Larry,
>I appreciate your helpful information on the public defenders. But
>your experience with them doesn't match mine here in Los Angeles
>County (Southern California). The public defender I talked to only
>interviewed me for 2 minutes at the arraignment and plead not guilty
>because I instructed her too. She said I'd have a chance to talk to
>her again at the pretrial, August 11. I tried calling her and she
>barely had time to talk to me on the phone. She said she could call me
>back in a few days or a week but couldn't guarantee any significant
>amount of time on my case.
I certainly don't know Southern California lawyers, but a short
pre-arraignment conversation is the norm. Arraignments is the *start* of
the process. There'll be plenty of time to talk later. It's not like the
DA has spoken to all of the witnesses and has all their evidence by the
arraignment, either.
>Not acceptable! Maybe she does know the system forward and backwards
>but I need to work with someone and get someone working for me a lot
>more personally not just for a more customized legal defense, but for
>my own peace of mind.
That's an important factor. On the one hand, you need to feel like she is
giving your case appropriate time. On the other, it's nice to know she
focuses on pressing cases now and is pushing yours off. Then, when your
court date comes neatr, theoretically she'll be pushing off other clients
while working on your situation.
>I wish I didn't have to spend money on a lawyer on such a seemingly
>simple case but I'm going to just to keep my bases covered, even if I
>find out in the future I didn't need to. I'll still sue everyone back
>for all my legal fees plus a lot more....
Cases like this are very hard to win, even if you are completely acquitted
or the charges are dropped.
In article <bddgms$3s3$1@no-spam>,
<EskWIRED@no-spam> wrote:
>In us.politics Seth Breidbart <sethb@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> Except if the scam had worked, the original poster would have been the
>> _victim_.
>How do you figure?
The way the scam works, he gets a check for more than the price. The
sender asks for a refund, which he sends (thinking the check
cleared). The check then bounces (I don't know what tricks the
scammers use to make that happen more slowly than usual; Abagnale's
book has a few that at least used to work) and the bank collects from
him.
>> If he knew about the scam, why would he try to deposit a check that
>> was only going to bounce (slowly) and cost him money?
>Good question. Likely a side deal to be compensated for helping to
>launder the money by playing the hapless victim?
The bank will still collect from him unless he's bankrupt.
>>>Keep in mind that shipping a cheap piano to Nigeria looks pretty fishy to
>>>begin with.
>> He said the check was from Texas, not Nigeria. If he's in California,
>> shipping a piano to Texas might be reasonable.
>the check was from Texas. The buyey was in Nigeria.
I didn't see that. He did make some comment about somebody _picking
up_ the piano, so perhaps its final destination wasn't Nigeria.
Seth